Court weighs municipal bonds' purpose
Legal News Center
In a case that could revolutionize the country's $2.5 trillion municipal bond market, the U.S. Supreme Court wrestled on Monday with whether a municipal bond is mainly a commodity or a means of financing unique public services that only state and local governments can provide.
In the Department of Revenue of Kentucky vs. Davis, the court must decide if Kentucky can give tax breaks on interest from municipal bonds sold within its borders, while taxing interest earned on bonds sold in other states.
Justice David Souter disagreed with a characterization by Eric Brunstad, a lawyer for George and Catherine Davis -- Kentucky residents who hold out-of-state bonds -- that municipal bonds, like other securities, were traded like commodities.
"Yes, but it's not taxing an out-of-state commodity in the sense of a commodity which is manufactured or produced out-of-state," Souter said.
Still, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the tax breaks go against the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"All states want to protect their residents and make it look like they're doing something for their residents. And that's exactly the purpose of commerce clause prohibition against explicit discrimination, which is what this is," he said.
The justices also plumbed the strength of the municipal bond market. Justice Souter noted it was "enormous" and the Supreme Court did not know what would happen if it were interrupted.
Related listings
-
High Court Will Hear Mayoral Election Case
Legal News Center 11/05/2007[##_1L|1311613480.jpg|width="130" height="98" alt=""|_##]The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments Monday on whether Tuesday's mayoral election in Bridgeport should be postponed. Bridgeport state Rep. Christopher Caruso requested the delay...
-
Court asks if porn law covers mainstream films
Legal News Center 10/31/2007Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubt on Tuesday that a law barring child pornography could be applied to popular award-winning movies like "Lolita," "Traffic," American Beauty" and "Titanic."The justices appeared to support the panderi...
-
Black Lawyers Rare at Supreme Court
Legal News Center 10/29/2007[##_1L|1236265387.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]Coming soon to the Supreme Court: a rare appearance by a black lawyer. More than a year has passed since a black lawyer in private practice stood at the lectern in the elegant courtroom and spo...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.