In re the Estate of Turner

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Turner

127 Misc. 205, 216 N.Y.S. 521, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1031

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedApril 21, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 205 (In re the Estate of Turner) 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 Turner, 127 Misc. 205, 216 N.Y.S. 521, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1031 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Brien, S.

This appeal is taken by the executors from the order fixing the transfer tax on the ground that certain real property over which decedent exercised a power of appointment was appraised in excess of its market value, in that no allowance or deduction was made for the fact that the appointed property was a fractional interest.

The father of the decedent was the owner of the entire parcel. [206]*206Under- his will the decedent was given the income from one-sixth of the real property with power of appointment over that share.

The appeal must be denied. The decedent was not the owner of an undivided one-sixth interest in the realty. If he had‘been, Matter of Gibert (176 App. Div. 850), relied on by the appellants, might apply, in view of the testimony of the real estate expert that a fractional interest was worth less than the proportionate value of the whole. The actual transfer was initiated by the will of decedent’s father, the donor of the power. (Matter of Delano, 176 N. Y. 486; affd., sub nom. Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466; Matter of Dows, 167 N. Y. 227; Matter of Vanderbilt, 50 App. Div. 246; affd., 163 N. Y. 597.) The provision of section 220, subdivision 6, of the Tax Law,

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

O’Brien, S.

This appeal is taken by the executors from the order fixing the transfer tax on the ground that certain real property over which decedent exercised a power of appointment was appraised in excess of its market value, in that no allowance or deduction was made for the fact that the appointed property was a fractional interest.

The father of the decedent was the owner of the entire parcel. [206]*206Under- his will the decedent was given the income from one-sixth of the real property with power of appointment over that share.

The appeal must be denied. The decedent was not the owner of an undivided one-sixth interest in the realty. If he had‘been, Matter of Gibert (176 App. Div. 850), relied on by the appellants, might apply, in view of the testimony of the real estate expert that a fractional interest was worth less than the proportionate value of the whole. The actual transfer was initiated by the will of decedent’s father, the donor of the power. (Matter of Delano, 176 N. Y. 486; affd., sub nom. Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U. S. 466; Matter of Dows, 167 N. Y. 227; Matter of Vanderbilt, 50 App. Div. 246; affd., 163 N. Y. 597.) The provision of section 220, subdivision 6, of the Tax Law,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 205, 216 N.Y.S. 521, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-turner-nysurct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack