Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 243.680 (2026)
Repealed, 1966
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Catchline at repeal: Tax on manufacturing and importation of distilled spirits -- Biennial reduction -- Exemption of non beverage alcohol. History: Repealed 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 254, sec. 11, effective July 1, 1971. -- Amended 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 254, sec. 5, effective July 1, 1966. -- Amended 1956 Ky. Acts ch. 114, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 4214a-13, 4214a-16, 4221a-17.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1956–1964 · leading case: Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 346 S.W.2d 752 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961).
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 346 S.W.2d 752 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). “In a written opinion the trial court stated that: “ * * * the so-called ‘production tax’ imposed under KRS 243.680 is a license and privilege tax upon the act or operation of producing distilled spirits; and that when such act or operation of production takes place after the…”
Foster Trading Corp. v. Luckett, 303 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “The sole problem presented by this case is to determine the constitutionality of KRS 243.680, a 1956 Act of the General Assembly raising from 5‡ per gallon to 10fS per gallon the tax on all distilled spirits manufactured in or imported into Kentucky.”
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 367 S.W.2d 267 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “Actual inspection must be provided for in order that the statute may come under the exception noted in the import-export clause of the federal Constitution.”
Maynard & Child, Inc. v. Shearer, 290 S.W.2d 790 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “The import tax imposed by KRS 243.680 stands upon a different basis, because it is neither a “sales” tax nor a “use” tax, and therefore it is not a kind of tax that Congress, through the Buck Act, has consented may be collected by.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Stitzel-Weller Distillery, 387 S.W.2d 602 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Therefore the incidence of the tax imposed by KRS 243.680 (1) has not been shown to be a step in the process of exportation and the tax may be collected from appellee.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 243.680(1) — 2 cases
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Revenue, 346 S.W.2d 752 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). “In a written opinion the trial court stated that: “ * * * the so-called ‘production tax’ imposed under KRS 243.680 is a license and privilege tax upon the act or operation of producing distilled spirits; and that when such act or operation of production takes place after the…”
Dep't of Revenue v. Stitzel-Weller Distillery, 387 S.W.2d 602 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Therefore the incidence of the tax imposed by KRS 243.680 (1) has not been shown to be a step in the process of exportation and the tax may be collected from appellee.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 243.680(2) — 2 cases
James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 367 S.W.2d 267 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “Actual inspection must be provided for in order that the statute may come under the exception noted in the import-export clause of the federal Constitution.”
Maynard & Child, Inc. v. Shearer, 290 S.W.2d 790 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “The import tax imposed by KRS 243.680 stands upon a different basis, because it is neither a “sales” tax nor a “use” tax, and therefore it is not a kind of tax that Congress, through the Buck Act, has consented may be collected by.”
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.