Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-707 (2026)
Adjustments and refunds
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The county clerks of the various counties are also authorized and empowered to settle and adjust with taxpayers all errors and double assessments of county taxes erroneously or illegally collected by them and to direct the refunding of the taxes. Any claim for such refund by the county of taxes or revenue alleged to have been erroneously or illegally paid shall be filed with the county clerk, supported by proper proof within one (1) year from the date of payment; otherwise, the taxpayer shall not be entitled to a refund and the claim for refund shall be barred.
- (b) Subsection (a) also applies to municipalities and municipal taxpayers; provided, however, that in the case of claims made for refund of municipal taxes, the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the county clerk described in subsection (a) shall be performed by the city recorder, city clerk, or director of finance of the municipality acting under the direction and authority of the mayor or city manager.
Acts 1923, ch. 66, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 373a45; Acts 1927, ch. 89, § 18; mod. Code 1932, § 270; Acts 1935, ch. 167, § 1; 1937, ch. 108, art. 3, § 15; 1949, ch. 260, § 1; mod. C. Supp. 1950, §§ 270, 270.1; (Williams, §§ 270, 270.1, 270.2, 1248.142i); Acts 1951, ch. 215, § 1; 1951, ch. 264, § 2; 1955, ch. 184, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1959, ch. 9, § 14; Acts 1965, ch. 7, § 1; 1969, ch. 142, § 1; 1972, ch. 461, §§ 1, 2; modified; 1974, ch. 566, § 1; 1978, ch. 646, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 22, 36; Acts 1983, ch. 264, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 67-2301, 67-2302; Acts 1984, ch. 724, § 1; 1986, ch. 749, § 4; 2004, ch. 420, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: Roberts v. Sullivan Cnty. (In Re Penking Trust), 196 B.R. 389 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996).
Roberts v. Sullivan Cnty. (In Re Penking Trust), 196 B.R. 389 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-1-707. The remedy afforded by this statute is a permissive and alternative administrative remedy, but not mandatory, and such a determination by the clerk is unreviewable.”
Hertz Corp. v. Cnty. of Shelby, 667 S.W.2d 66 (Tenn. 1984). “We adhere to the views expressed in those cases that the administrative remedy provided by T.C.A., § 67-1-707 (formerly 67-2301) is not reviewable in the courts.”
Chuck's Package Store v. City of Morristown, 545 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. 2018). “The retailers maintain that they were not required to pay under protest the disputed municipal taxes before filing suit because Tennessee Code Annotated sections 67-1-1801, et seq.”
Chuck's Package Store v. City of Morristown (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 40. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
High Country Adventures, Inc. v. Polk Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “9 Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-707 (a). While we agree that the remedy provided by this section is an administrative remedy that was given High Country under Section 7 of the 2001 Act, we do not agree that it was the only remedy given High Country under that act, which, as we have…”
Denise Ashworth v. Greene Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “ll have the remedy provided in the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-1-912, it being the intent of this act that the provisions of law which apply to the recovery of taxes illegally assessed and collected shall apply to the tax collected under the authority of this Act;…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-707(a) — 1 case
Denise Ashworth v. Greene Cnty. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “ll have the remedy provided in the Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-1-912, it being the intent of this act that the provisions of law which apply to the recovery of taxes illegally assessed and collected shall apply to the tax collected under the authority of this Act;…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-707(b) — 1 case
Hertz Corp. v. Cnty. of Shelby, 667 S.W.2d 66 (Tenn. 1984). “We adhere to the views expressed in those cases that the administrative remedy provided by T.C.A., § 67-1-707 (formerly 67-2301) is not reviewable in the courts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.