Carson's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 26 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 1082,1082 |
| Citation | 83 N.J.Super. 287,199 A.2d 407 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of William T. CARSON, Deceased. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court. New Jersey County Court — Probate Division |
James P. MacLean, III, Camden, for executors (Archer, Greiner, Hunter & Read, Camden, attorneys).
Charles H. Nugent, Camden, for Mary A. Carson, individually.
PASCOE, J.C.C.
The Philadelphia National Bank and Mary A. Carson, executors of the estate of William T. Carson, deceased, filed a complaint seeking allowance of the first and final account of their administration. Mary A. Carson, individually, objects to that portion of the accounting wherein a federal income tax refund of $1,144.36 is declared to be a charge on Corpus.
William T. Carson died on May 7, 1962. The fiduciaries of his estate and the decedent's widow filed a joint return for the year 1962 in accordance with section 6013(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The joint return listed the income of both the deceased William T. Carson and his widow. There were credits arising out of withholding payments on the decedent's earnings, but no credits were attributable to the income of Mary A. Carson. The sole question before this court is whether the refund check drawn by the Treasury Department belongs to the estate of William T. Carson, the surviving widow Mary A. Carson or jointly.
It is the contention of the attorney for Mary A. Carson, individually, that section 6013(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 grants her part ownership in the refund. That section of the Code provides,
'if a joint return is made, the tax shall be computed on the aggregate income and the liability with respect to the tax shall be joint and several.'
Since the widow was liable for any overpayment of taxes, she should be the recipient at least in part of any overpayment of taxes on a joint return.
It is the opinion of this court that the arguments of the attorney for Mary A. Carson are not valid in light of the elementary rules involving statutory construction. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted for the express purpose of providing an efficient and fair method of collecting the necessary tax revenue for the support of the Federal Government. Any provisions of this Code must be read with this purpose in mind. Congress may prescribe tests of ownership which are reasonably designed to prevent tax avoidance and to promote uniformity in the operation of federal law. Since the income tax is imposed by the federal statute, all questions of liability are ultimately to be resolved under federal law. Nevertheless, where the tax depends upon a property right, the existence of that right must be determined under local law. Contested adjudications of state courts are controlling as to such property rights. The importance of local law concerning property rights when dealing with federal revenue statutes is well documented. 5 Rabkin & Johnson, Federal Income Gift & Estate Taxation, § 71.08, pp. 7166--7171 (1962).
The purpose of section 6013 was to equalize the tax burden for married persons in all states, whether the persons are residents of a community property state or not. It was not intended to deal with ownership rights between taxpayers, but merely concerns itself with the efficient and orderly process of collecting the tax revenue of the Federal Government.
A second contention by attorney for Mary A. Carson individually is that section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 supports the claim of the widow for a portion of the refund. This section of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder merely provide that refund checks can be made payable to both husband and wife. There is nothing in this section of the Code nor the regulations of the Treasury Department which would indicate that in a factual situation such as we have before us the widow would be entitled by federal law to the benefits of the overpayment.
The sole case cited by Mary A. Carson individually is Maragon v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 365, 139 Ct.Cl. 544 (1957). That case involved a situation where the husband had filed a separate income tax return in 1944. A joint return was filed in 1951, resulting in an overpayment of $189.45 for the year 1951. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zeeman v. United States
...husband, 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a), and the refund payment, in whole or in part, might belong to his estate. See In re Carson's Estate, 83 N.J.Super. 287, 199 A.2d 407 (P.Div. 1964). Since a net operating loss deduction must be carried to the earliest year possible, 26 U.S.C. § 172(b) (2), circum......
-
Hoffman, In re
...interest deductions and capital losses of the decedent. The estate would seem to be the owner of the refund. See In re Carson, 83 N.J.Super. 287, 199 A.2d 407 (Cty.Ct.1964). In the absence of any direction by the court for a remand to settle this issue, if there is thought to be any doubt a......
-
In re Mecka
...must be applied to determine tax liability issues since the income tax is imposed by federal law. See In the Matter of Carson , 83 N.J.Super. 287, 290, 199 A.2d 407 (N.J.Super.1964)6 . Consistent with the later holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Butner, it noted "[t]he importance of local......
-
In re Wdh Howell, LLC, 01-50618.
...Mrs. Hurley as a non-debtor and non-creditor does not possess an equitable right to distribution.5 In, In the Matter of William T. Carson, 83 N.J.Super. 287, 199 A.2d 407 (N.J.Super.1964), a New Jersey court addressed the distribution of tax refunds, in a probate context, and held that a wi......