Court Opinion

ID: 9552404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:10:01.570396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:17.734537
License: Public Domain

CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting.
Unlike my colleagues, I find the rule favoring specific provisions over general provisions to be useful, and in fact determinative, in the context of this case.
AS 43.70.030(b) renders taxable “all other income including income from federal, state or municipal obligations.” As to income from government obligations the scope of this provision is total and plenary. On the other hand, AS 18.56.170(a) and AS 18.56.-190(b) cover only two definite types of obligations. Those provisions render such obligations exempt from taxes of any kind.1 Within their specific scope those provisions are all encompassing and do not imply any exceptions. Their language could hardly be more plain.
Thus, if we are to harmonize these statutes, we should hold that the ASHA and AHFC bonds are carved out as exceptions to the “all other income” language of AS 43.70.030(b).
It was obviously the intention of the legislature to give ASHA and AHFC obligations a preferred position in the financial marketplace. That intention is not effectuated by an interpretation which excludes banks from the beneficent provisions of the two exemption statutes.
For the reasons given, I would reverse.

. AS 18.56.190(b) does permit transfer, inheritance and estate taxes. Under the expressio unius est exclusio alteráis maxim, it should be doubly clear that income taxation of these bonds is prohibited.