Dommerich v. Kelly, 226.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 226.,226. |
| Citation | 33 A.2d 893,130 N.J.L. 542 |
| Parties | DOMMERICH et al. v. KELLY, Tax Com'r. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Prerogative Court.
Proceeding in the matter of the transfer inheritance tax of the estate of Otto L. Dommerich, deceased, between Caroline C. Dommerich and others, and William D. Kelly, State Tax Commissioner, involving the taxability of gratuitous inter vivos transfers of property in trust by the decedent. To review an adverse decree, 132 N.J.Eq. 220, 27 A.2d 871, Caroline C. Dommerich and others bring certiorari.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Evidence examined, and held that the Prerogative Court properly found as a fact that certain transfers of securities in trust by decedent Otto L. Dommerich were made in contemplation of death, and taxable under the statute.
May term, 1943, before PARKER, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.
Pitney, Hardin & Ward, of Newark (Charles R. Hardin, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutors.
David T. Wilentz, Atty. Gen. (William A. Moore, of Trenton, of counsel), for respondent.
The only question raised on this appeal is one of fact, namely, whether three inter vivos trusts set up by the decedent, Otto L. Dommerich, in December, 1935, a little more than two years before his death, were, in fact, gifts in contemplation of death, and consequently taxable. Under the statute in effect at the date of the transfer, P.L.1935, page 264, and likewise under the statute in effect at the date of death, R.S. 54:31-1, N.J.S.A. subdivision c, as the interval between the transfer and the death was over two years, the presumption of fact provided by the second paragraph of that subdivision did not arise, and ‘contemplation of death’ was a fact to be proved. Proofs were taken accordingly before the State Tax Commissioner, who held that the transfers in question were made in contemplation of death; and on appeal to the Prerogative Court the finding of the Commissioner was affirmed, ubi supra.
We have carefully examined and considered the proofs in the cause and the arguments and briefs of counsel, and concur in the result reached in the Prerogative Court and in the findings of fact on which it is based.
The decree under review is accordingly affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Reddert v. US
... ... INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84, 112 S.Ct. 1039, 1042-43, 117 L.Ed.2d 226 (1992) ("the Court has noted the `familiar rule' that a ... `tax deduction 925 F. Supp. 266 is a ... to the income earned by the estate from the date of decedent's death"); see also Dommerich v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 220, 227, 27 A.2d 871 (N.J.Prerog.Ct.1942), aff'd, 130 N.J.L. 542, 33 A.2d ... ...
-
Montclair Trust Co. v. Zink
...of such gifts. Kavanagh v. Kelly, 131 N.J.Eq. 398, 25 A.2d 547; Dommerich v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 220, 27 A.2d 871, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 542, 33 A.2d 893, affirmed 132 N.J.L. 141, 39 A.2d 30. In Coffin v. Kelly, 133 N.J.Eq. 188, 31 A.2d 186, affirmed 131 N.J.L. 241, 36 A.2d 11, affirmed 133 N.......
-
Avery v. Walsh.
...accomplished by will. Squier v. Martin, 131 N.J.Eq. 263, 24 A.2d 865; Dommerich v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 220, 27 A.2d 871, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 542, 33 A.2d 893, affirmed 132 N.J.L. 141, 39 A.2d 30; Voorhees v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 230, 28 A.2d 61, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 61, 31 A.2d 404, affirmed 13......
-
Johnson v. Zink, 7703.
...N.J.Eq. 398, 25 A.2d 547; Plum v. Martin, 132 N.J.Eq. 1, 26 A.2d 529; Dommerich v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 220, 27 A.2d 871, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 542, 33 A.2d 893, affirmed 132 N.J.L. 141, 39 A.2d 30; Voorhees v. Kelly, 132 N.J.Eq. 230, 28 A.2d 61, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 61, 31 A.2d 404, affirmed 13......