Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708 (2026)

Classifications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Businesses, vocations and occupations that are taxable are set forth in the following classifications; provided, that each person shall be classified according to the dominant business activity:

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 942,s 2, eff. 7/1/2014.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 313, s 7, eff. 1/1/2014.

Acts 1971, ch. 387, § 5; modified; 1972, ch. 850, § 5; 1977, ch. 313, § 1; 1977, ch. 321, § 1; 1979, ch. 28, § 6; 1981, ch. 321, § 1; 1983, ch. 394, §§ 1, 2; T.C.A., § 67-5805; Acts 1987, ch. 410, § 1; 2006, ch. 583, §§ 1, 2; 2006, ch. 583, §§ 1, 2; 2009 , ch. 530, § 74; 2010 , ch. 1134, § 43.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 38× “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
Nat'l Gas Distributors, Inc. v. State, 804 S.W.2d 66 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 2× “If any further assurance be needed to confirm this certainty, one needs only to look to T.C.A. § 67-4-708 which establishes classifications for the taxation of businesses, vocations and occupations according to their dominant business activity.”
City of Bartlett v. Sanders, 832 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “[T]he making of sales by engaging in any vocation, occupation, business or business activity enumerated, described or referred to in § 67-4-708(1X3) is declared to be a privilege upon which each county and/or incorporated municipality in which such business, business activity,…”
Heath v. Creson, 949 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3) ], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
SAP Am., Inc. v. David Gerregano, Comm'r of Revenue, State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 20× “” The Department classified all of these activities as sales of services under Classification 3 of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708 . For business tax purposes, the Department consults the Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Index to determine classifications for a business’s…”
Auto Glass Co. of Memphis, Inc. d/b/a Jack Morris Auto Glass v. David Gerregano Comm'r, Dep't of Revenue, State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708 (listing the various tax classifications).”
Eddie Heath v. Jayne S. Creson, Waylon Wininger, & Pat Hutchinson, & A.C. Gilless (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3)], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Ruth E. Johnson, Comm'r of Revenue for the State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, in addition to the minimum business tax, those in Classification 2 must pay “[o]ne tenth (1/10) of one percent -3- (1%) of all the retail sales of the business; and [o]ne fortieth (1/40) of one percent (1%) of all the wholesale sales of the business.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(1) — 2 cases
Heath v. Creson, 949 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3) ], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
Eddie Heath v. Jayne S. Creson, Waylon Wininger, & Pat Hutchinson, & A.C. Gilless (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3)], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(1X3) — 1 case
City of Bartlett v. Sanders, 832 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “[T]he making of sales by engaging in any vocation, occupation, business or business activity enumerated, described or referred to in § 67-4-708(1X3) is declared to be a privilege upon which each county and/or incorporated municipality in which such business, business activity,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(2)(A) — 1 case
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(2)(F) — 1 case
City of Bartlett v. Sanders, 832 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “[T]he making of sales by engaging in any vocation, occupation, business or business activity enumerated, described or referred to in § 67-4-708(1X3) is declared to be a privilege upon which each county and/or incorporated municipality in which such business, business activity,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(3) — 2 cases
Heath v. Creson, 949 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3) ], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
Eddie Heath v. Jayne S. Creson, Waylon Wininger, & Pat Hutchinson, & A.C. Gilless (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3)], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(3)(A)(xi) — 1 case
City of Bartlett v. Sanders, 832 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “[T]he making of sales by engaging in any vocation, occupation, business or business activity enumerated, described or referred to in § 67-4-708(1X3) is declared to be a privilege upon which each county and/or incorporated municipality in which such business, business activity,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(3)(C) — 3 cases
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
Heath v. Creson, 949 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3) ], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
Eddie Heath v. Jayne S. Creson, Waylon Wininger, & Pat Hutchinson, & A.C. Gilless (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “, § 67-5805 [now § 67-4-708(1)-(3)], are not state taxes, but are instead local privilege taxes which each county and/or municipality is permitted to levy.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(3)(C)(ix) — 1 case
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(3)(C)(xiii) — 1 case
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-708(l) — 1 case
NAJO Equip. Leasing, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, the Department assessed NAJO for taxes on its gross receipts pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 67-4-704(a) and Section 67-4-708(2)(A) and (F).”
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.