Atkinson v. Department of Taxation

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Atkinson v. Department of Taxation

53 N.W.2d 185, 261 Wis. 481, 1952 Wisc. LEXIS 292

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 6, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 53 N.W.2d 185 (Atkinson v. Department of Taxation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. Department of Taxation, 53 N.W.2d 185, 261 Wis. 481, 1952 Wisc. LEXIS 292 (Wis. 1952).

Pincite

Opinions

Broadfoot, J.

The appellant contends that his testimony is competent and that it establishes the fact that there was no joint tenancy as to either the real estate or the government bonds. This testimony is immaterial and the county court was correct in giving it no consideration.

*

It is difficult to see how he is aggrieved by the order determining that the property in the two names was held by the parties as joint tenants. This order terminates the joint tenancy and makes him the sole owner thereof. That, in effect, is what he is claiming. If he is aggrieved, it is by the order determining that said property was subject to an inheritance tax under the provisions of sec. 72.01 (6), Stats. This statute, so far as it is pertinent in this case, reads as follows:

“(6) Joint interests. Whenever any property, real or personal, is held in the joint names of two . . . persons, . . . upon the death of one of such persons the right of the surviving . . . person ... to the immediate ownership or possession and enjoyment of such property shall be deemed a transfer of one half . . . thereof taxable under the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as though the property to which such transfer relates . . . had been bequeathed or devised to the surviving . . . person ... by will.”

[484]*484This case is governed by Estate of Hounsell, 252 Wis. 138, 31 N. W. (2d) 203. In that case the appellant attempted to show that the deceased wife had no actual interest in the property, either through purchase or contribution, and that no gift had been made to her. Neither that case nor the present one is a gift-tax case. The statute is entirely different than that applicable to the tax on gifts. An inheritance tax is not a tax upon property or property rights, but is an excise tax levied upon the transfer or transaction, and the amount of the property involved is used merely as a measure of the amount of the tax.

In Estate of Hounsell, supra (p. 143), the court made this statement: “. . . all that is needed to set the statute in motion is to have property in the joint names of the parties.” In view of this interpretation of the statute the county court was correct in determining that an inheritance tax was due. The computation of the tax is not challenged.

By the Court. — The orders are affirmed.

For deletions, see the memorandum on motion for rehearing, post, p. 484. Reporter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broadfoot, J.

The appellant contends that his testimony is competent and that it establishes the fact that there was no joint tenancy as to either the real estate or the government bonds. This testimony is immaterial and the county court was correct in giving it no consideration.

*

It is difficult to see how he is aggrieved by the order determining that the property in the two names was held by the parties as joint tenants. This order terminates the joint tenancy and makes him the sole owner thereof. That, in effect, is what he is claiming. If he is aggrieved, it is by the order determining that said property was subject to an inheritance tax under the provisions of sec. 72.01 (6), Stats. This statute, so far as it is pertinent in this case, reads as follows:

“(6) Joint interests. Whenever any property, real or personal, is held in the joint names of two . . . persons, . . . upon the death of one of such persons the right of the surviving . . . person ... to the immediate ownership or possession and enjoyment of such property shall be deemed a transfer of one half . . . thereof taxable under the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as though the property to which such transfer relates . . . had been bequeathed or devised to the surviving . . . person ... by will.”

[484]*484This case is governed by Estate of Hounsell, 252 Wis. 138, 31 N. W. (2d) 203. In that case the appellant attempted to show that the deceased wife had no actual interest in the property, either through purchase or contribution, and that no gift had been made to her. Neither that case nor the present one is a gift-tax case. The statute is entirely different than that applicable to the tax on gifts. An inheritance tax is not a tax upon property or property rights, but is an excise tax levied upon the transfer or transaction, and the amount of the property involved is used merely as a measure of the amount of the tax.

In Estate of Hounsell, supra (p. 143), the court made this statement: “. . . all that is needed to set the statute in motion is to have property in the joint names of the parties.” In view of this interpretation of the statute the county court was correct in determining that an inheritance tax was due. The computation of the tax is not challenged.

By the Court. — The orders are affirmed.

For deletions, see the memorandum on motion for rehearing, post, p. 484. Reporter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.W.2d 185, 261 Wis. 481, 1952 Wisc. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-department-of-taxation-wis-1952.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack