Ky. Rev. Stat. § 132.030

Financial institution deposit tax

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Every person having a deposit in any financial institution, as defined in KRS 136.500, on January 1 of any year shall pay an annual tax to the state equal to one- thousandth of one percent (0.001%) upon the amount of the deposit, and no deduction shall be made for any indebtedness. The deposit tax shall be paid to the department by the financial institution with which the deposit is made, as the agent of the depositor, on or before March 1 following the date of the report provided for in KRS 132.040. (2) No other tax shall be assessed by the state or any county, city, or other taxing district on the deposits or against the depositor on account of the deposits, except as provided in KRS 136.575. Effective: June 20, 2005 History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 85, sec. 172, effective June 20, 2005. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 254, sec. 23, effective July 15, 1996. -- Repealed and reenacted 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 476, Pt. V, sec. 315, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 186, Art. I, sec. 1, effective June 16, 1960. -- Amended 1949 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 4019a-1, 4019a-2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: St. Ledger v. Commonwealth

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

St. Ledger v. Commonwealth (1995) ky · cites it 18× “020; KRS 132.030; KRS 136.030(1). In addition to making a determination as to these two specific provisions we have also been requested to determine the constitutionality of the entire intangibles tax scheme, if this Court finds that these two individual provisions are invalid.”

St. Ledger v. Commonwealth, Revenue Cabinet (1997) ky · cites it 4× “020 [hereinafter Corporate Shares Tax], the alleged disparate taxation of in-state and out-of-state bank deposits under KRS 132.030 [hereinafter Bank Deposits Tax], and the Exemption Statute, a tax exemption for shareholders of stock in corporations which paid taxes to this…”

Monumental Life Insurance Co. v. Department of Revenue (2008) kyctapp · cites it 2× “Ledger was the constitutionality of KRS 132.030, the bank deposits tax, which treated taxation of in-state and out-of state bank deposits differently.”

Gillis v. Yount (1988) ky · cites it 2× “001 KRS 132.030(1) Retirement Plans .001 KRS 132.”

Commonwealth Revenue Cabinet v. St. Ledger (1997) kyctapp “In 1990, the trial court certified two classes of taxpayers, one disputing the validity of KRS 132.030, which imposed a tax on out-of-state bank deposits, and the other (Respondents herein) asserting a similar case against the tax on corporate shares (KRS 132.”

Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Department of Revenue, Finance & Administration Cabinet (2012) kyctapp “]” It includes an exception for property specifically named in KRS 132.030, KRS 132.200, KRS 136.300, and KRS 136.”

Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, Finance and Administration Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky (2025) kyctapp “45) upon each one hundred dollars ($100) of value of all other property directed to be assessed for taxation shall be paid by the owner or person assessed, except as provided in KRS 132.030, 132.200, 136.300, and 136.320, providing a different tax rate for particular property.”

Shelby County Board of Assessment Appeals v. Gro-Green Chemical Co. (1980) ky “200, reads in part as follows: All property subject to taxation for state purposes shall also be subject to taxation in the county, city, school district or other taxing district in which it has a taxable situs, except those classes of property described in KRS 132.030 and…”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 132.030(1) — 2 cases

Gillis v. Yount (1988) ky “001 KRS 132.030(1) Retirement Plans .001 KRS 132.”

St. Ledger v. Commonwealth (1995) ky “020; KRS 132.030; KRS 136.030(1). In addition to making a determination as to these two specific provisions we have also been requested to determine the constitutionality of the entire intangibles tax scheme, if this Court finds that these two individual provisions are invalid.”

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.