Opinion ID: 2276852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Interpretation: Avoid Absurd Results

Text: We have long held that a statute must not be interpreted so as to bring about an absurd or unreasonable result. George v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 421 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Ky.1967). Appellant's contention that KRS 133.120 does not restrict the conference to the current tax year would bring about such an absurd result. When interpreting the statute without a year limit, the initial conference may occur during the first thirteen days of any May. [7] Based on this reading, a taxpayer could theoretically request a conference with the PVA years after the assessment in question, so long as it is within the inspection period. Furthermore, under the compulsory language of KRS 133.120, the PVA would have no choice but to attend and explain the procedures followed in deriving the assessed value for the taxpayer's property. KRS 133.120(1)(c). Thus, as is evident in the above logic, construing the statute's timeframe for the conference to a period of days without a limitation to the current year produces an absurd result, something this Court has declined to allow. See Floyd v. Gray, 657 S.W.2d 936, 941 (Ky. 1983) (Leibson, J., dissenting) (We should not suppose that the legislature intended to be intentionally illogical, nor should we interpret the statute to bring about an obviously illogical result.).