Beidler v. South Carolina Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 24 November 1930
• Docket Number: No. 2,2
• Citation: 75 L.Ed. 131,282 U.S. 1,51 S.Ct. 54
• Parties: BEIDLER et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION. Re
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

282 U.S. 1

51 S.Ct. 54

75 L.Ed. 131

BEIDLER et al.

v SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION.

No. 2.

Reargued Oct. 23, 24, 1930.

Decided Nov. 24, 1930.

Mr. P. F. Henderson, of Aiken, S. C., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. J. Fraser Lyon and John M. Daniel, both of Columbia, S. C., for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-5 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

On March 4, 1924, Francis Beidler, a resident of Chicago, Ill., died in that state, leaving a will by which he bequeathed a portion of his personal property to his wife and children directly, and gave the residue in trust for their benefit and for charitable uses. The will was probated in Illinois, and Francis Beidler, II, and George Engelking, the appellants, qualified as executors.

At the time of the death of the testator, he owned 8,000 shares of the capital stock of Santee River Cypress Lumber Company, a corporation organized under the laws of South Carolina and doing business in that state. The remind er, 7,000 shares, were owned by the testator's wife and children. In addition, the Santee River Cypress Lumber Company was indebted to the testator in the sum of $556,864.22, for advances made by him to the company, and in the sum of $64,672 for dividends previously declared on his shares. The indebtedness was an open un- secured account which was entered upon the books of the company kept in South Carolina. The testator also kept a complete set of personal books in Chicago upon which appear entries of the amounts due him by the company except the item of dividends.

The total amount of the indebtedness for advances and dividends, $621,536.22, was included by the Attorney General of Illinois in the computation of the value of the decedent's estate for the purpose of fixing the inheritance tax payable to that state.

The executors filed with the South Carolina Tax Commission, as required by the Inheritance Tax Law of South Carolina (Act Feb. 23, 1922 (32 St. at Large, p. 800)), an affidavit setting forth all the above-mentioned assets. The payment of the succession tax to the state of South Carolina with respect to the shares of stock owned by the testator in the Santee River Cypress Lumber Company was not contested by the executors, and by agreement the value of these shares was fixed at $204 per share, or $1,632,000. The South Carolina Tax Commission also levied a tax upon the transfer of the indebtedness, overruling the claim of the executors that the state of South Carolina had no jurisdiction to impose such a tax, and that the levy of it would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. This contention was renewed upon the appeal of the executors to the Supreme Court of the state of South Carolina. That court sustained the action of the Tax Commission with respect to the taxability of the transfer of the indebtedness, and the executors bring this appeal to review that part of the judgment.

In reaching its conclusion as to the validity of the tax, the state court relied chiefly upon the decision of this Court in Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 S. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439. That decision has been overruled, and it is now established that the mere fact that the debtor is domiciled within the state does not give it jurisdiction to impose an inheritance or succession tax upon the transfer of the debt by a decedent who is domiciled in another state. Farmers Loan & Trust Company v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204, 50 S. Ct. 98, 101, 74 L. Ed. 371, 65 A. L. R. 1000; Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U. S. 586, 50 S. Ct. 436, 74 L. Ed. 1056. The transfer is taxable by the state of the domicile of the deceased owner. Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U. S. 1, 48 S. Ct. 410, 72 L. Ed. 749. Open accounts, including credits for cash deposited in bank, fall within this principle, and its application is not defeated by the mere presence of bonds or notes, or other evidences of debt, within a state other than that of the domicile of the owner. Baldwin v. Missouri, supra.

It is sought to sustain the tax by South Carolina upon the ground that the indebtedness had what is called a 'business situs' in that state, and the state court adverted to this basis for the tax. In Farmers Loan & Trust Company v. Minnesota, supra, this court reserved the question of business situs, saying: 'New Orleans v. Stemple, 175 U. S. 309, 20 S. Ct. 110, 44 L. Ed. 174; Bristol v. Washington County, 177 U. S. 133, 20 S. Ct. 585, 44 L. Ed. 701; Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Orleans Assessors, 221 U. S. 346, 31 S. Ct. 550, 55 L. Ed. 762, L. R. A. 1915C, 903, recognize the principle that choses in action may acquire a situs for taxation other than at the domicile of their owner, if they have become integral parts...