State v. First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank

125 N.E. 200, 71 Ind. App. 467, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 229
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided November 26, 1919·No. No. 10,541·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Nichols, C. J.

— This action and proceeding is under the Indiana Inheritance Tax Law (Acts 1913 p. 79, §10143a et seq. Burns 1914), as amended by act of 1917 (Acts 1917p.367, §10143a et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1918). The inheritance tax appraiser of Laporte county, Indiana, on November 9, 1918, filed in the office of the clerk of Laporte Circuit Court his report of the appraisement of the estate of Charles W. Hotchkiss, deceased, who died testate the owner of property in Laporte county, Indiana, on October 28, 1916. After due notice, at the time fixed the court found that the total gross value of the said estate located in Laporte county was $499,505.64; that there should be deducted as debts, claims and expenses, etc., therefrom $117,069.74, such deduction including'the $28,389.71 federal estate tax, leaving a net value for distribution of $382,435.90, and assessed the inheritance tax thereon, less exemptions allowed by law, at a total of $9,574.05. The auditor of state then filed a motion in the Laporte Circuit Court, on behalf of the State'of Indiana, for a rehearing and new trial of said cause under and pursuant to §15 of the act of 1913, supra, which motion was overruled. Judgment was [469] then rendered, assessing'the inheritance tax upon the transfer of the property of said estate at $9,574.05, and appellee was ordered to pay such sum to the treasurer of Laporte county, Indiana. In such judgment a claim for deductions on account of debts, etc., in the sum of $117,069.74 was allowed and deducted. From this judgment the State of Indiana prosecutes this appeal.

The substantial question presented by appellant is whether the court erred in allowing a deduction from the value of decedent’s property, so assessed for inheritance tax, the said sum of $28,389.71, being the federal estate tax paid by appellee to the United States, the question involved being whether the unit of taxation shall be the'net value of said estate after the federal estate tax is paid, or the value of said estate before such federal estate tax is deducted. The Federal Estate Tax Law of 1916 is found in 39 U. S.Stat. at L., 64th Congress, part 1, p. 777. Section 201 (<§6336%b U. S. Comp. Stat. 1916) of that act provides that a tax be imposed upon the transfer of the net estate of any decedent dying after the passage of the act, whether a resident or nonresident of the United States. Section 203 (§6336y2d, supra) of such act provides that for the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined in the case of a resident by deducting from the value of the estate such amounts for funeral expenses, administration expenses, claims against the estate, unpaid mortgages, losses incurred during the settlement of the estate arising from fires, storms, shipwrecks, or other casualties, or from theft, support during the settlement of the estate of those dependent upon the estate, and such other charges against the estate as are al[470] lowed by tbe laws of the jurisdiction, whether within or without the United States, under which the estate is being administered, and an exemption of $50,000, Section 208 provides that it is the purpose and intent of the act that, so far as is practicable, and unless otherwise directed by- the will of the decedent, the taxes shall b¿ paid out of the estate before its distribution.

It is to be noted that the subtitle of the act is “Estate Tax.” From the foregoing it is evident that the tax imposed by the federal government is upon the estate, and that it is payable out of the residue of the estate after deductions therefrom are allowed by the respective jurisdictions. It is a tax imposed upon the transfer by death, and not upon the succession resulting from death, for it is payable out of the estate before its distribution. From the foregoing it is apparent that the unit of taxation under the Federal Estate Tax Law is the net estate after such deductions as are allowed by the jurisdictions in which the estate is located.

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

State v. First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank, 125 N.E. 200, 71 Ind. App. 467, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919).

125 N.E. 200 (State v. First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pearcy v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
96 N.E.2d 918 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1951)
Estate of Atwell
193 P.2d 519 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
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)
Simmons v. South Carolina Tax Commission
132 S.E. 37 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
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)
Bingham's Administrator v. Commonwealth
244 S.W. 781 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)
In re Fish's Estate
219 Mich. 369 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Poulsen v. Hoff
199 P. 615 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1921)
Hazard v. Board of Tax Commissioners
113 A. 469 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1921)
In Re Estate of Miller
195 P. 413 (California Supreme Court, 1921)