In re the Appeal of Tyler

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In re the Appeal of Tyler

104 A. 298, 89 N.J. Eq. 170, 4 Stock. 170, 1918 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 22

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 21, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A. 298 (In re the Appeal of Tyler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Appeal of Tyler, 104 A. 298, 89 N.J. Eq. 170, 4 Stock. 170, 1918 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 22 (N.J. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Backes, Vice-Ordinary.

Michael Allen, a resident of Woodstown, Salem county, died January 14th, 1917, intestate, leaving a net estate for distribution of $300,000, in round figures, at which sum the comptroller of the treasury appraised the estate and upon which he levied a transfer inheritance tax. The appellant, the administrator of the estate, claimed a'reduction from the assessment to the amount of $5,217, paid by him to the United States government for “estate tax,” which the comptroller refused to allow, and from his ruling this appeal was taken.

[171]*171The judgment is controlled by the decision in “Estate of Ferdinand W. Roebling.” The case is not distinguishable, on the ground that in intestacy the federal estate tax falls upon all of the transferees uniformly and not upon the residuary estate, as in cases of testacy. The same principles govern.

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

Backes, Vice-Ordinary.

Michael Allen, a resident of Woodstown, Salem county, died January 14th, 1917, intestate, leaving a net estate for distribution of $300,000, in round figures, at which sum the comptroller of the treasury appraised the estate and upon which he levied a transfer inheritance tax. The appellant, the administrator of the estate, claimed a'reduction from the assessment to the amount of $5,217, paid by him to the United States government for “estate tax,” which the comptroller refused to allow, and from his ruling this appeal was taken.

[171]*171The judgment is controlled by the decision in “Estate of Ferdinand W. Roebling.” The case is not distinguishable, on the ground that in intestacy the federal estate tax falls upon all of the transferees uniformly and not upon the residuary estate, as in cases of testacy. The same principles govern.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A. 298, 89 N.J. Eq. 170, 4 Stock. 170, 1918 N.J. Prerog. Ct. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appeal-of-tyler-njsuperctappdiv-1918.