In re the Estate of Arbib

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Arbib

127 Misc. 820, 216 N.Y.S. 522, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1212

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedJuly 6, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 820 (In re the Estate of Arbib) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Arbib, 127 Misc. 820, 216 N.Y.S. 522, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1212 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Brien, S.

The application to modify the order fixing the transfer tax is denied. The decedent was a resident of this State. The money belonging to him in the Republic of France was not tangible property. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Frick v. Pennsylvania (268 U. S. 473) holds that a State has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the transfer of tangible property physically situated outside the State of domicile. Tangible property is synonymous with “ goods, wares and merchandise.” (Matter of Brooks, 119 Misc. 738; affd., 212 App. Div. 868.)

The cases cited by the petitioner (Matter of Houdayer, 150 N. Y. 37; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.. S. 189) are not in point since they deal with the right of the State to tax intangible property. In the Frick Case (supra) the court in its opinion said: “ Counsel for the state cite and rely on Blackstone v. Miller (188 U. S. 189) and Bullen v. Wisconsin (240 U. S. 625). Both cases related to intangible personalty, which has been regarded as on a different footing from tangible personalty.” The order fixing tax is affirmed.

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

O’Brien, S.

The application to modify the order fixing the transfer tax is denied. The decedent was a resident of this State. The money belonging to him in the Republic of France was not tangible property. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Frick v. Pennsylvania (268 U. S. 473) holds that a State has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the transfer of tangible property physically situated outside the State of domicile. Tangible property is synonymous with “ goods, wares and merchandise.” (Matter of Brooks, 119 Misc. 738; affd., 212 App. Div. 868.)

The cases cited by the petitioner (Matter of Houdayer, 150 N. Y. 37; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.. S. 189) are not in point since they deal with the right of the State to tax intangible property. In the Frick Case (supra) the court in its opinion said: “ Counsel for the state cite and rely on Blackstone v. Miller (188 U. S. 189) and Bullen v. Wisconsin (240 U. S. 625). Both cases related to intangible personalty, which has been regarded as on a different footing from tangible personalty.” The order fixing tax is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 820, 216 N.Y.S. 522, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-arbib-nysurct-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack