"A statute should be construed, if possible, so as to effectuate the plain meaning and unambiguous intent expressed in the law.”
How later courts described this case
- "A statute should be construed, if possible, so as to effectuate the plain meaning and unambiguous intent expressed in the law.”
- "In the present case the questions to be answered deal with the interpretation of statutes. The construction and application of statutes is a matter of law and may be reviewed de novo.”
- “The construction and application of statutes is a matter of law and may be reviewed de novo.”
- "The coristniction and application of statutes is a matter oflaw and may be,reviewed de nova."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSTONE, Justice,
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part.
Respectfully, I dissent, concerning one limited aspect of the opinion. The majority opinion implies that a rental company would be responsible for usage tax on charges due, even if the rental company is unable to collect the fees owed to it. This interpretation would be an overextension of the holding in Revenue Cabinet v. Budget Rent-A-Car, Ky., 704 S.W.2d 199 (1986), in which the issue was whether the tax was to be assessed on all charges in the rental transaction, not whether the rental agency would owe usage tax if the company is not paid by its customer. The pertinent statute (at issue in the case now before us) provides that tax assessments are to be made on gross charges paid by a customer. KRS 138.463(1). This does not include charges owed, but uncollectible. With this exception, I concur in the opinion in all other respects.
GRAVES, J., joins.