Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Estate of Schweitzer

2008 WI App 2, 744 N.W.2d 861, 307 Wis. 2d 298, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1069
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedDecember 6, 2007
Docket2006AP984
StatusPublished

This text of 2008 WI App 2 (Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Estate of Schweitzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Estate of Schweitzer, 2008 WI App 2, 744 N.W.2d 861, 307 Wis. 2d 298, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1069 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J.

¶ 1. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) appeals a circuit court order determining that DOR lacked statutory authority to include gifts made in contemplation of death in Ott E. Schweitzer's Estate for purposes of calculating the Wisconsin estate tax. Because we conclude that the relevant statutes plainly establish that the gross estate for purposes of calculating the Wisconsin estate tax is the taxable estate as determined under federal law, and do not authorize DOR to add gifts made in contemplation of death to the federal taxable estate when calculating the Wisconsin estate tax, we affirm.

*301 Background

¶ 2. The parties stipulated to the following facts. Ott E. Schweitzer died on November 4, 2003. His will was admitted into informal administration in probate court on December 19, 2003. Prior to his death, Schweitzer made gifts of $119,000 in January 2003 and $390,000 in September 2003. These gifts were properly reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on U.S. Gift Tax Return Form 709. For purposes of this appeal only, the personal representatives of Schweitzer's Estate (the Estate) concede that the gifts were made in contemplation of his death.

¶ 3. In August 2004, the Estate filed a U.S. Estate Tax Return Form 706 with the IRS, and a Wisconsin Estate Tax Return Form W706 with DOR. The state return was accompanied by a Schedule TC, which calculated the Estate's Wisconsin estate tax liability at $70,936. The Estate paid this amount to DOR. In a March 2005 letter, a DOR auditor informed the Estate that it had miscalculated its Wisconsin estate tax owed because it failed to add the 2003 gifts made in contemplation of death to the gross estate, as mandated, according to DOR, by Wis. Stat. § 72.01(6) (2005-06). 1 With the inclusion of these gifts in the gross estate, the DOR calculated the Estate's total Wisconsin estate tax liability was $109,431.00, and issued a certificate pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 72.30(3) 2 declaring that the Estate owed $45,177.98 in estate taxes and interest.

*302 ¶ 4. In May 2005, the Estate made a demand for formal proceedings before the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 72.30(4) 3 challenging DOR's calculation of the Estate's Wisconsin estate tax liability. In June 2005, the Estate and DOR entered into a stipulation as to the relevant facts and requested that the circuit court decide whether the statutes authorized DOR to add the 2003 gifts made in contemplation of death to the decedent's gross estate for Wisconsin estate tax purposes.

¶ 5. The parties briefed the issue and a hearing was held before the court. The Rock County Circuit Court, Honorable John W Roethe, issued a written decision concluding that DOR did not have the statutory authority to add gifts made in contemplation of death to the gross estate when determining the Wisconsin estate tax, and an order ending the formal proceedings. DOR appeals.

¶ 6. We granted a motion of a nonparty, Chier Revocable Trust, requesting permission to file a brief. Chier states that the issue presented in the instant case is identical to the issue presented in its pending litigation with DOR, Russell R. Chier and Laura Chier Revocable Trust of 2001 v. DOR, Green Lake County Circuit Court Case No. 06-CV-0056. Exhibits provided with Chier's motion show that its case challenges DOR's addition of certain gifts made in contemplation of death *303 to the gross estate in DOR's determination of Chier's Wisconsin estate tax.

Discussion

¶ 7. The sole question presented on appeal is whether the statutes authorize DOR to add gifts made in contemplation of death to the gross estate when calculating an estate's Wisconsin estate tax liability. DOR contends that Wis. Stat. § 72.02, the section imposing an estate tax, when read with two definitional provisions, Wis. Stat. §§ 72.01(6) and (11m), authorizes DOR to add gifts made in contemplation of death to the gross estate for purposes of calculating the amount owed in Wisconsin estate tax. DOR also argues that its interpretation of Chapter 72 is entitled to great weight deference. The Estate contends that the statute does not authorize DOR to add such gifts to the gross estate when determining the estate tax, and that DOR's interpretation is not entitled to any deference. We address the standard of review first.

¶ 8. At issue is DOR's interpretation of certain provisions of Wisconsin's estate tax. Statutory interpretation is generally a question of law that we review de novo. See Weston v. DWD, 2007 WI App 167, ¶ 12, 304 Wis. 2d 418, 737 N.W.2d 74. However, we may defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency has been charged with administering. Acuity Ins. Co. v. Whittingham, 2007 WI App 210, ¶ 8, 305 Wis. 2d 613, 740 N.W.2d 154. "A reviewing court accords an interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency one of three levels of deference — great weight, due weight or no deference — based on the agency's expertise in the area of law at issue." Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. LIRC, 2007 WI 105, ¶ 26, 303 Wis. 2d 514, 735 N.W.2d 477.

*304 ¶ 9. We will sometimes grant either great weight or due weight deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute depending upon the circumstances. Id., ¶¶ 26-29. However, granting either level of deference presupposes that the agency's interpretation is at least reasonable. When applying great weight deference, we will uphold an agency's interpretation when that interpretation is reasonable even if a more reasonable interpretation is available. Id., ¶ 55. When applying due weight deference, we will uphold an agency's interpretation if it is reasonable unless we determine there is a more reasonable interpretation. Id., ¶ 28. Because we conclude that DOR's interpretation is unreasonable, we accord no deference to it. 4

¶ 10. The parties dispute whether the statutes authorize DOR to add gifts in contemplation of death to the gross estate for purposes of computing the Wiscon *305 sin estate tax. We begin with the language of the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter 72 of the statutes is devoted to Wisconsin's estate tax. The language imposing the estate tax is contained in Wis. Stat. § 72.02

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

Related

Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
2007 WI 105 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2007)
Acuity Insurance v. Whittingham
2007 WI App 210 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2007)
Weston v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
2007 WI App 167 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 WI App 2, 744 N.W.2d 861, 307 Wis. 2d 298, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisconsin-department-of-revenue-v-estate-of-schweitzer-wisctapp-2007.