Can Discriminatory State Taxation of Municipal Bonds Be Justified?

7 Pages Posted: 13 Sep 2007 Last revised: 23 Jun 2010

Brian D. Galle

Georgetown University Law Center

Ethan Yale

University of Virginia School of Law

Abstract

This Report continues our analysis of Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, a case argued in the 2007-2008 Supreme Court term. The issue in Davis is the constitutionality of Kentucky's practice (shared by all other states with an income tax) of taxing interest on federally-exempt bonds issued outside Kentucky while exempting its own municipal bonds from taxation. In this installment we evaluate skeptically a number of possible state interests that might be offered to justify that practice. For example, we point out that Kentucky's assertion that the policy conserves state revenue is wrong. We also argue that, if the goal is to transfer revenues from the state to local governments, then exemption is inferior to direct grants.

Keywords: Dormant Commerce Clause, municipal bonds, fiscal federalism, Pike

Suggested Citation

Galle, Brian D. and Yale, Ethan, Can Discriminatory State Taxation of Municipal Bonds Be Justified?. Tax Notes, Vol. 117, No. 2, October 8, 2007; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 276; FSU College of Law, Law and Economics Paper No. 07-17; Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 1014138; State Tax Notes, Vol. 46, No. 3, October 22, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1014138

Brian D. Galle

Georgetown University Law Center ( email )

600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States

Ethan Yale (Contact Author)

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
310
Rank
76,712
Abstract Views
2,576