Kentucky Dept. of Revenue v. Hobart Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 14 January 1977 |
Citation | 549 S.W.2d 297 |
Parties | KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals, Appellants, v. HOBART MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
William S. Riley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kentucky Dept. of Revenue, Frankfort, Glenn McDonald, Louisville, for appellant, Kentucky Dept. of Revenue.
Clay, Marye & Cowden, Mount Sterling, for appellee, Hobart Mfg. Co.
Paul L. Madden, Hancock County Atty., Hawesville, for amicus curiae, Hancock County.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court which held that Hobart's leasehold interest in real estate was intangible personal property and that the intangible personal property of a foreign corporation is not subject to taxation in Kentucky. We reverse.
This is the second time that this case has been before us. Its first visit was in Hobart Manufacturing Co. v. Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals, Ky., 515 S.W.2d 232 (1974), in which we remanded the case to the Montgomery Circuit Court with directions to cause an appropriate assessment of the leasehold interest (as distinguished from leasehold improvements) to be made. The summary judgment was the trial court's response to this direction.
In the first opinion we set the stage in the following language:
In Kentucky Tax Commission v. Jefferson Motel, Inc., Ky., 387 S.W.2d 293, 295 (1965) we said:
" . . . the leasehold . . ., being a contract right, theoretically is intangible personal property, often called a 'chattel real.' " (Emphasis supplied)
Even if we were to restrict our examination of this case to the theoretical the judgment of the circuit court is erroneous.
KRS 132.190(1)(a) clearly provides that the intangible personal property of corporations not organized under the laws of this state is subject to taxation if it has acquired a business situs within this state. Commercial Credit Co. v. Commonwealth, 296 Ky. 826, 178 S.W.2d 188 (1944) is inapposite because that case arose at a time when the business situs doctrine was not in force in Kentucky.
The business situs doctrine was first established here in 1907 by judicial decision in Commonwealth v. R. G. Dun and Co., 126 Ky. 108, 102 S.W. 859. The following year the legislature abolished the doctrine. Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, Sec. 4020; Commonwealth v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 294 Ky. 19, 170 S.W.2d 890 (1943). In 1938 the legislature reestablished the doctrine by statutory amendment. Acts of Kentucky, 1938, c. 6; KRS 132.190(1)(a).
It would be ridiculous to contend that the lease had a business situs at any place other than in Kentucky. The lessee conducts mercantile, manufacturing operations on premises in Kentucky. The use and substantial value of the lease is in Kentucky. Luckett v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, Ky., 479 S.W.2d 15 (1972); Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Bomar, Ky., 486 S.W.2d 532 (1972). Hobart offered no evidence to show that its manufacturing operations in Kentucky were not local to Kentucky and independent of its manufacturing concerns at its domicile. It failed to prove that the lease did not have a business situs in Kentucky. One who claims an exemption must prove he is within its parameters. Tennessee Gas and Transmission Co. v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 571, 215 S.W.2d 102 (1948).
We leave the realm of the theoretical and return to the world of practicality. In Kentucky Tax Commission v. Jefferson Motel, Inc., supra, we also said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. American Airlines, Inc.
...Our decision is in agreement with some other jurisdictions which have addressed the issue. See, e.g., Kentucky Dept. of Revenue v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 549 S.W.2d 297 (Ky.1977); Frontier Airlines v. State Tax Comm'n, 528 S.W.2d 943 (Mo.1975); Cutter Flying Serv., Inc. v. Property Tax Dept., 91 ......
-
Meadows Health Sys. E., Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Revenue Comm'n
...Id. at 76. Instead, “[o]ne who claims an exemption must prove he is within its parameters.” Kentucky Dept. of Revenue v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 549 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Ky.1977); see also Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Com., Revenue Cabinet, 689 S.W.2d 14, 18 (Ky.1985). Exemptions from taxation are general......
-
County Bd. of Arlington County v. Brown
...of a fee simple estate is the unrestricted alienability of the bundle of rights of which it consists. See Ky. Dept. of Revenue v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 549 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Ky.1977). Can it be seriously contended that a local governing body lacks the power to grant an easement over lands which t......
-
Kroger Ltd. P'ship I v. Jenkins
...to the lease from the fair market value of the land as a whole if sold free and clear of the lease." Kentucky Dep't of Revenue v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 549 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ky. 1977). And additional information is needed to value properties with leases:The true income approach to fix fair cash v......