Cochran's Ex'r and Trustee v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 18 December 1931 |
Citation | 241 Ky. 656,44 S.W.2d 603 |
Parties | COCHRAN'S EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE et al. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County.
Agreed case by the Commonwealth against John Cochran's executor and trustee and others, submitted under Civ. Code Prac. § 637. From the judgment, the executor and trustee and others appeal.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, for judgment in accordance with opinion.
Thomas J. Wood, Edmund F. Trabue, and Trabue, Doolan, Helm & Helm all of Louisville, for appellants.
J. W Cammack, Atty. Gen., and N. B. Holifield, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.
This was an agreed case submitted to the court under and in accordance with section 637 of the Civil Code of Practice. It involves an interpretation of the inheritance tax statutes of the state. The controversy which was submitted came up in this way. John Cochran died testate July 7, 1929. He devised his residuary estate to his two sisters and a niece. A surviving brother contested the will. The contest was settled by the parties. By the terms of the settlement, the will was duly established by a consent judgment, but the executor of the will, upon the authority and at the direction of the residuary legatees, paid $25,000 to the contestant.
The commonwealth collected the inheritance tax on the entire residuary estate without making any deduction of the amount paid to the contestant. The first question concerns the correctness of the computation on the basis of the whole value of the residuary estate, without deducting the $25,000 paid the contestant of the will. The second question raised relates to the date of valuation for the purpose of computing the inheritance tax. The commonwealth adopted the date of the testator's death as the time for fixing the value of the estate subject to the tax. It is contended by the legatees that the valuation should be made as of April 15, 1930, almost a year after the death of the testator when the value of the property was substantially less. The latter date was the time of distribution, or at least the date when a distribution could be demanded by the legatees. The third question is whether the amount of federal income tax which was assessed against the estate and paid by the executor should be allowed as a deduction in computing the tax due the commonwealth. The circuit court decided all the questions in favor of the commonwealth, and the executor has appealed.
1. Kentucky Statutes, § 4281a-1, provides:
It will be observed that no express provision is made for the taxation of money derived from the compromise of a will contest. The tax is levied upon property "which shall pass by will," or "by the laws regulating intestate succession," or by a transfer made by the decedent in contemplation of death. The taxation of the estate in question under the statute must be applied to the property disposed of by the will, since all of the property of John Cochran passed under his will. No one inherited anything from him, and nothing passed by the laws regulating succession as in cases of intestacy. Whilst the legatees could not receive the property under the will until it was duly established, neither could the heirs inherit the property unless the will was set aside. The will was legally established, and the question is whether money paid by the legatees to secure the probation of the will and the withdrawal of the contest is deductible under the statute from the taxable residuary estate. When the will was established, the legatees became entitled to the entire residuary estate. The money paid to the contestant by the executor was paid by the express authority of the residuary legatees. In that way the residuary legatees exercised dominion and control over the entire residuary estate, and disposed of the part of it paid to the contestant. The portion was not received by the contestant from the estate by devise or by descent, but it was received by him from the legatees as a contractual payment in compromise of existing litigation. Although his right to maintain the contest of the will was derived from his relationship to the testator, his title to the money came from the contract with the legatees.
The authorities upon this question are not in harmony. In Taylor v. State, 40 Ga.App. 295, 149 S.E. 321, the testator devised his property to a charitable institution. His heir interposed a contest. A compromise was consummated. The court held that each party to the compromise agreement should pay an inheritance tax on the amount received, treating the amount received by the heir as descended estate, and the amount received by the charitable institution as devised by the will.
In People v. Rice, 40 Colo. 508, 91 P. 33, the testator had devised his estate in trust. His son instituted a contest, and was paid a large sum to dismiss the proceeding. It was held that the inheritance tax was imposed upon the residue of the estate after deducting the amount paid in compromise. The court held that what the son got he took by virtue of his heirship, which made it subject to taxation.
In re Pepper's Estate, 159 Pa. 508, 28 A. 353, a will contest was compromised. It was held that the amount paid the contestant was not received by the legatee as such, and the legatee was taxable only to the extent of the money actually received by virtue of the will. A like result was reached in Re Kerr's Estate, 159 Pa. 512, 28 A. 354, and In re Hawley's Estate, 214 Pa. 525, 63 A. 1021 6 Ann.Cas. 572. In the case last cited the compromise was assailed on the ground that it was made fraudulently to escape a portion of the tax. It was said that In State v. Probate Court, 143 Minn. 77, 172 N.W. 902, 903, it was held that, when a will was probated, by agreement, as a result of compromise to avoid a contest, each party to the agreement was liable to the extent of money received. The court said: To the same effect is In re Thorson's Estate, 150 Minn. 464, 185 N.W. 508. In the case of Stone's Estate, 132 Iowa 136, 109 N.W. 455, 10 Ann.Cas. 1033, the devisee renounced the will, the estate was not taxable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lyeth v. Hoey
...120 N.W. 713; Estate of Graves, 242 Ill. 212, 89 N.E. 978; Estate of Rossi, 169 Cal. 148, 146 P. 430; Cochran's Executor v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 656, 44 S.W.2d 603, 78 A.L.R. 710; MacKenzie v. Wright, 31 Ariz. 272, 252 P. 521; In re O'Neill's Estate, 111 N.J.Eq. 378, 162 A. 425; Lynchburg ......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Clarion Oil Co.
...cases cited therein), 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 229, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 842, 51 S.Ct. 489, 75 L.Ed. 1452; Cochran's Ex'r v. Commonwealth, 241 Ky. 656, 44 S.W.2d 603, 78 A.L.R. 710. 19 49 Stat. 1727 (1936), amended 50 Stat. 813 (1937), now 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § ...
-
Bailey v. McLain
... ... In ... Cochran's Ex'r v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, ... 241 Ky. 656, 44 S.W.2d 603, 604, 78 A.L.R. 710, it is ... ...
- Cochran's ex'or and Trustee v. Commonwealth