| Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued November 5, 2007 Decided May 19, 2008 |
||||||
| Full case name | Department of Revenue of Kentucky et al. v. Davis et ux. | |||||
| Docket nos. | 06-666 | |||||
| Prior history | On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. | |||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Plurality | Souter (opinion of the Court except for Part III-B), joined by Stevens, Breyer; Roberts, Ginsburg (all but Part III-B); Scalia (all but Parts III-B and IV) | |||||
| Concurrence | Roberts | |||||
| Concurrence | Stevens | |||||
| Concurrence | Scalia | |||||
| Concurrence | Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Alito | |||||
| Dissent | Alito | |||||
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which upheld a Kentucky law that provides a preferential tax break to Kentucky residents who invest in bonds issued by the state and its municipalities (municipal bonds). The Court held in a 7-2 vote that the State of Kentucky does not engage in unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce by exempting the interest on its bonds from residents’ taxable income while taxing the interest earned on the bonds of other states.[1]
The case has national implications because thirty-six (36) states have tax schemes similar to the one at issue in Kentucky.[2]
Contents |
George and Catherine Davis sued the State of Kentucky under the legal theory that the State of Kentucky violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, a legal implication of the Commerce Clause, by providing a differential tax treatment to gains earned from investments in municipal bonds from Kentucky versus other states.[3]