People v. Bemis

68 Colo. 48
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJanuary 15, 1920
DocketNo. 9696
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 68 Colo. 48 (People v. Bemis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Bemis, 68 Colo. 48 (Colo. 1920).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

Alice Cogswell Bemis died, testate, a resident of El Paso County, Colorado, and left a large estate. The tax under U. S. Comp. St. 1916, Ch. 10 A; 39 St. L. 777, was about $87,000.

The County Court held that the so-called State Inheritance Tax should be computed, not upon the whole net estate, but upon such estate less the sum of $87,000. The State brings error. We think the judgment is right. It has been held by this court that the inheritance tax law of this State, S. L. 1902, Sec. 21, imposes a tax on the privilege of receiving the legacy or inheritance, and not on the right to transmit by will or by intestate laws. In re Inheritance Tax Macky Estate, 46 Colo. 79, 102 Pac. 1075; Brown v. Elder, 32 Colo. 527, 539, 77 Pac. 853; People v. Koenig, 37 Colo. 283, 85 Pac. 1129, 11 Ann. Cas. 140. The Federal tax is “imposed upon the transfer of the net estate * * 39 St. at L. 777, Sec. 201; U. S. Comp. St., 1916, Sec. 6636½b, therefore it is the .power to transfer upon death that is taxed by the National law, and the estate, upon the death, is, to the extent of the tax, instantly depleted. In re Sherman, 179 App. Div. 497, 166 N. Y. Supp. 19, 22; U. S. v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 630, 41 L. Ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. 1073, and, thus diminished, goes to the legatees. 163 U. S. 630. The case last cited construes statutes of New York in one of which the vital words, “imposed upon the transfer”, are the same as in the present Federal statute. It therefore has the force of a construction of the latter. [50]*50The argument that the transfer, transmission and receipt are one and the same thing is a strong one, but this court is committed to the doctrine that the right to transmit or transfer upon death is one thing and the right to receive a legacy or inheritance is another. Mack case, supra. It follow^ that the State tax must be measured by the estate less the $87,000.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Garrigues, C. J. and Scott, J. concur.

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

Related

Camden v. People
518 P.2d 1172 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1974)
Central Trust Co. v. James
199 S.E. 881 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1938)
In Re Estate of Rosing v. State of Mo.
85 S.W.2d 495 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
People v. City & County of Denver
272 P. 629 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1928)
Waldron v. People
267 P. 191 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1928)
Jones v. Bowman
234 P. 953 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)
Tax Commission ex rel. Price v. Lamprecht
107 Ohio St. (N.S.) 535 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1923)
State v. Spokane
211 P. 734 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Davis
106 Ohio St. (N.S.) 366 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1922)
In re Fish's Estate
219 Mich. 369 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Poulsen v. Hoff
199 P. 615 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1921)
In Re Estate of Miller
195 P. 413 (California Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 Colo. 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bemis-colo-1920.