Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-22-106 (2026)
Colorado personal exemptions of a resident individual
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A resident individual shall be entitled to a Colorado exemption of zero dollars.
Source: L. 87: Entire part R&RE, p. 1430, § 2, effective June 22.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 39-22-114 as it existed prior to 1987.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1979–1985 · leading case: Cohen v. State, 593 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1979).
Cohen v. State, 593 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1979). “The trial court held regulations 138-1-6(1) and 138-1-36 invalid because these regulations attempted to broaden the definition of “dividends” beyond the scope intended by the General Assembly in enacting section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.”
Toncray v. Dolan, 593 P.2d 956 (Colo. 1979). “1973, the taxpayers sought, in the El Paso County District Court, a declaratory judgment that the Colorado Department of Revenue’s regulation 138-1-6 is invalid as inconsistent with the surtax statute, section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. *384 Regulation 138-1-6 purports to apply…”
Meyer v. Charnes, 705 P.2d 979 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “2d 957 (1979), it was held that income attributable to resident shareholders of a Subchapter S corporation does not constitute dividends subject to a surtax pursuant to § 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. In concluding that Subchapter S distributions are not dividends, i.”
Cohen v. State, 593 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1979). “The trial court held regulations 138-1-6(1) and 138-1-36 invalid because these regulations attempted to broaden the definition of “dividends” beyond the scope intended by the General Assembly in enacting section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-22-106(1): 4 cases
Cohen v. State, 593 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1979). “The trial court held regulations 138-1-6(1) and 138-1-36 invalid because these regulations attempted to broaden the definition of “dividends” beyond the scope intended by the General Assembly in enacting section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.”
Toncray v. Dolan, 593 P.2d 956 (Colo. 1979). “1973, the taxpayers sought, in the El Paso County District Court, a declaratory judgment that the Colorado Department of Revenue’s regulation 138-1-6 is invalid as inconsistent with the surtax statute, section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. *384 Regulation 138-1-6 purports to apply…”
Meyer v. Charnes, 705 P.2d 979 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “2d 957 (1979), it was held that income attributable to resident shareholders of a Subchapter S corporation does not constitute dividends subject to a surtax pursuant to § 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. In concluding that Subchapter S distributions are not dividends, i.”
Cohen v. State, 593 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1979). “The trial court held regulations 138-1-6(1) and 138-1-36 invalid because these regulations attempted to broaden the definition of “dividends” beyond the scope intended by the General Assembly in enacting section 39-22-106(1), C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.