Harwood v. Maxwell
| Decision Date | 02 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 307.,307. |
| Citation | 195 S.E. 54,213 N.C. 55 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARWOOD. v. MAXWELL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; A. Hall Johnston, Judge.
Civil action by A. Leslie Harwood, Jr., administrator, against A. J. Maxwell, commissioner, to recover back an alleged overpayment of inheritance tax. From a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover back alleged overpayment of inheritance tax.
The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1934, J. Frederick Kistler, a resident of North Carolina, died domiciled in Burke county, and a few days thereafter the plaintiff duly qualified as administrator of his estate.
The plaintiff filed with the defendant Commissioner of Revenue an inheritance and estate tax inventory, showing a deduction of $3,244.12 tentative estate taxes levied by the federal government under the 1926 federal estate tax law, which is not in dispute.
Thereafter, the plaintiff paid to the federal government "additional estate taxes" amounting to $57,017.65 under "Acts of Congress applicable thereto, " and proceeded to claim as a deduction from decedent's gross estate the amount thus paid to the federal government as additional estate taxes.
This deduction was disallowed, whereupon on June 1, 1936, the plaintiff paid under protest $7,927, the amount of taxes represented by the difference between allowing and disallowing the deduction in question, and proceeded agreeably to the terms of the statute, to preserve his rights, and this action is to recover back the alleged overpayment with interest and costs.
From judgment dismissing plaintiff's action, he appeals, assigning error.
Harwood & Spalding, of Boston, Mass., and Mull & Patton, of Morganton, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The case presents a question of statutory construction.
It is provided by the Reyenue Act of 1933, chapter 445, section 7, Public Laws 1933, that in determining the clear mar-ket value of property taxed under the inheritance tax article, "the following deductions, and no others, shall be allowed: * * * Federal estates taxes, except additional estate taxes levied by act of Congress, effective June 6, 1932."
It is agreed that the federal taxes here in question, which plaintiff claims the right to deduct from decedent's gross estate, were "additional estate taxes" levied by "Acts of Congress applicable thereto."
The schedule of additional estate taxes levied by Act of Congress, effective June 6, 1932, Revenue Act 1932, § 401, 26 U. S.C.A. § 535 and note, was changed by amendment effective May 10, 1934, Revenue Act 1934, § 405, 26 U.S.C.A. § 535 and note, and a new schedule substituted therefor. The tax-levying provision of the 1932 act, however, was not re-enacted, but remained unchanged, and the effectiveness of the 1934 schedule is dependent upon the tax-levying provision in the 1932 act. The taxes in question were computed under the 1934 schedule, as plaintiff's intestate died after its adoption.
The controversy arises over whether these additional estate taxes were levied by Act of Congress effective June 6, 1932, within the meaning of the Revenue Act of 1933.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the additional estate taxes here in question were levied by Act of Congress ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Camp
...357 Ill. 208, 191 N.E. 689, 93 A.L.R. 789, 792; In re Estate of Wilson, 102 Mont. 178, 56 P.2d 733, 105 A.L.R. 367, 375; Harwood v. Maxwell, 213 N.C. 55, 195 S.E. 54, 55; Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 56 S.Ct. 349, 353, 80 L.Ed. 351; Mortimer v. Chambers, 63 Hun. 335, 17 N.Y.......
-
State v. Camp
...208, 191 N.E. 689, 93 A.L.R. 789, 792; In re Estate of Wilson, 102 Mont. 178, 56 P.2d 733, 105 A.L.R 367, 375; Harwood v. Maxwell, 213 N.C. 55, 195 S.E. 54, 55; Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 56 349, 353, 80 L.Ed. 351; Mortimer v. Chambers, 63 Hun. 335, 17 N.Y.S. 874; Ely v. H......
-
Belk Bros. Co. of Charlotte v. Maxwell
... ... discernment, albeit the language used to express it is ... awkward enough. Indeed, our principal concern is to ascertain ... whether the tax-levying provision of the statute covers every ... "chain store" as subsequently defined in the ... Act. Harwood v. Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, 213 ... N.C. 55, 195 S.E. 54. That the plaintiff comes within the ... statutory definition of a chain store seems clear, but ... whether the act is so drawn as to levy a chainstore license ... tax on the 46 "Belk" Stores having similarity of ... name and benefit ... ...
- Calcutt v. McGeachy