Court Opinion

ID: 9667933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:58:02.722497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.640122
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that part of the Majority Opinion that holds that the bank deposit tax is clearly in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and is therefore invalid. In addition, the bank deposit tax fails under Section 171 of the *44Kentucky Constitution which requires that such a tax must be uniform upon all property in the same class. See Gillis v. Yount, Ky., 748 S.W.2d 357 (1988).
In addition, I believe that the tax on corporate shares is also invalid as an unconstitutional exemption prohibited by the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and Kentucky Constitution Sections 3 and 171.
The entire intangible tax system effectively eliminates tax neutral investment decisions and results in improper interference with interstate commerce. The intangibles tax does not provide for balanced burdens upon comparable financial transactions and there is no strict parity between the burden on interstate and intrastate commerce. The Majority Opinion analysis should apply to both the bank deposit tax and to the exemption on corporate shares. The real solution to the problems created by the current intangible tax system should come from the General Assembly.
I would reverse the entire decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the circuit court.
FUQUA, J., joins in this opinion.