Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. State Tax Commission

Utah Supreme Court

Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. State Tax Commission

422 P.2d 201, 18 Utah 2d 300, 1967 Utah LEXIS 656

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1967

DocketNo. 10629

StatusPublished

This text of 422 P.2d 201 (Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. State Tax Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. State Tax Commission, 422 P.2d 201, 18 Utah 2d 300, 1967 Utah LEXIS 656 (Utah 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a Tax Commission decision that “step-children” were not “children” under Title 59-12-2, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, giving a $40,000 exemption where the surviving spouse “and/or children of the deceased” are involved. Affirmed, with no costs awarded.

The legislation is clear. It says “children,” not “step-children.” In re Walton’s Estate¹ said “grandchildren” were not “children” under such a statute. We think that case is somewhat significant here, and affirm it. The complications of twisting the language to include any one but a natural or legally adopted child seem obvious. Otherwise, the words “cousin” or “mistress” might acquire added significance if either claimed his or her benefactor was a loco “parentis.”

This is a matter for the legislator and his lexicographer, — not us.

CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., and PARLEY E. NORSETH, District Judge, concur. CALLISTER, J., does not participate herein.

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

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a Tax Commission decision that “step-children” were not “children” under Title 59-12-2, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, giving a $40,000 exemption where the surviving spouse “and/or children of the deceased” are involved. Affirmed, with no costs awarded.

The legislation is clear. It says “children,” not “step-children.” In re Walton’s Estate¹ said “grandchildren” were not “children” under such a statute. We think that case is somewhat significant here, and affirm it. The complications of twisting the language to include any one but a natural or legally adopted child seem obvious. Otherwise, the words “cousin” or “mistress” might acquire added significance if either claimed his or her benefactor was a loco “parentis.”

This is a matter for the legislator and his lexicographer, — not us.

CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., and PARLEY E. NORSETH, District Judge, concur. CALLISTER, J., does not participate herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 P.2d 201, 18 Utah 2d 300, 1967 Utah LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-bank-trust-co-v-state-tax-commission-utah-1967.