Court Opinion

ID: 9667934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:58:02.726237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.640608
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the Bank Accounts Tax is violative of the Commerce Clause, and I would affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.
The Court of Appeals held that:
Those who have an account in a Kentucky bank pay a low rate of tax on this intangible, personal property. Those who have an account in a bank outside the state of Kentucky pay a different, higher rate on their intangible, personal property held in that account. Kentucky justified the difference in rates between the classes as reflective of the increased cost of collection for out-of-state accounts. This was precisely the same defense the state adopted in Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 60 S.Ct. 406, 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940).
Our examination of relevant authority leads us to conclude that KRS 132.030 does not violate the commerce clause because there is no interference with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. Bank accounts, by their very nature, do not fall into the category of interstate commerce.
Slip opinion at 20-21.
The tax levied is ad valorem, a tax solely on the value of bank accounts held by Kentucky taxpayers. Because of the increased cost of collection of taxes on out-of-state deposits, the Commonwealth has a justifiable interest in receiving more revenue from those deposits. The tax does not infringe upon commerce between the states and their citizens, as it is merely one levied by the Commonwealth upon its citizens.