Matter of Pflomm

150 N.E. 534, 241 N.Y. 513, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 585
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 20, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 150 N.E. 534 (Matter of Pflomm) 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
Matter of Pflomm, 150 N.E. 534, 241 N.Y. 513, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 585 (N.Y. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division has decided that the will suifitiiently shows an intent on the part of the testator that such parts of the Federal and State income taxes as are assessed against his widow, Kate A. Johnson, by reason of her receipt of half of the net income of the *514 trust fund created under paragraph third of the will should be borne and paid out of the general estate ” as provided in paragraph fourth of the will. A majority of the judges of this court have reached the same conclusion.

The Appellate Division has further decided that the words general estate ” as used in that paragraph refer to the balance of the net income arising from the trust fund after payment of one-half of the income to the widow. A majority of the judges of this court have reached the conclusion that even though these words in the context in which they are found may refer to income of the estate rather than to principal, yet they show a clear intent to include all the income of the general estate and not merely one-half thereof. The share of the income to be paid to the widow, like the share to be paid to other legatees, is part of the general estate and must bear its proportion of the income tax assessed against the widow.

The order of the Appellate Division and decree of surrogate should be modified by providing that the taxes imposed should be borne and paid out of the entire net income of the trust estate and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondent and appellants payable out of the estate.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Lehman, JJ., concur; McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ., dissent and vote for affirmance.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Cline
898 P.2d 643 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1995)
Nevil Estate
79 A.2d 415 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
In re the Construction of the Will of Milleg
196 Misc. 761 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1949)
Toretta v. Wilmington Trust Co.
71 F. Supp. 281 (D. Delaware, 1947)
Bergan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
80 F.2d 89 (Second Circuit, 1935)
Bergan v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 526 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 N.E. 534, 241 N.Y. 513, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pflomm-ny-1925.