In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Seligmann

114 N.E. 853, 219 N.Y. 656, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1004
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 28, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 114 N.E. 853 (In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Seligmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Seligmann, 114 N.E. 853, 219 N.Y. 656, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. 1916).

Opinion

Pound, J.

This proceeding was properly disposed of by the Appellate Division (170 App. Div. 837). The extract from the opinion in Matter of Terry (218 N. Y. 218, 223): “In all cases we must carve out of one total — the value of the property transferred as of the death of the decedent — the value of the present and the future interest, and the parts can never be greater than the whole,” which is relied upon by the appellant, must be read in connection with the context. It relates to present taxation where the fair market value of the future interest is ascertained, and does not relate to cases *657 where the future interest cannot be or is not presently-valued and taxed. Where taxation has been held in abeyance, the contingent or defeasible estate in expectancy is to be appraised at its full value when the persons entitled thereto shall come into the beneficial enjoyment or possession thereof. (Tax Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 60], § 230.) Thus, in the Terry case, if the legacy to the McGregor Home should revert to the heirs, it would then be appraised and taxed at its full value without any deduction. In such a case, because we cannot presently carve out of one total the value of the present and future estates, the legislature has established the rule of giving both estates the highest possible value, as the persons entitled thereto respectively take possession. In the case at bar, the entire future interests of the sons might, in the first place, have been appraised for taxation and the tax then paid on such valuation, but as payment was postponed the tax should now be upon the full value.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Notman
2 Misc. 2d 465 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1956)
In re the Estate of Bergen
157 Misc. 313 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1935)
In re the Estate of Jones
151 Misc. 859 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1934)
In re the Estate of Huntington
134 Misc. 873 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1929)
Salomon v. State Tax Comm'n of NY
278 U.S. 484 (Supreme Court, 1929)
In re the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Wysong
223 A.D. 407 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
In re the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Hecht
219 A.D. 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
In re the Estate of Auchincloss
128 Misc. 307 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1926)
In re the Estate of Hecht
127 Misc. 211 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1926)
Wonderly v. Tax Commission
147 N.E. 509 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1925)
In re the Estate of Wright
103 Misc. 353 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 N.E. 853, 219 N.Y. 656, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-transfer-tax-upon-the-estate-of-seligmann-ny-1916.