Hollis v. Treasurer and Receiver General
| Decision Date | 28 June 1922 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAMUEL J. HOLLIS & others, executors, v. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL. |
May 17, 1922.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, CROSBY CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ. Suffolk. May 18, 1922. -- June 28 1922. Present: RUGG, C.J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, CROSBY, & JENNEY, JJ.
Tax, Succession. Statute, Construction.
A succession tax law ought not to be so interpreted as to exact an excise on the succession of that which in fact cannot pass to any beneficiary because it has been seized by the State on its way from the dead to the living, unless the words of the statute leave no other alternative.
Excise taxes lawfully paid to other States upon the succession of property of a deceased resident of this Commonwealth within their jurisdiction, may be deducted in ascertaining the value of the estate on which the succession tax authorized by G.L.c. 65, Section 1, is to be computed.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Essex on August 24, 1921, by the executors of the will of James R. Martin, late of Lynn, for abatement of a portion of a succession tax paid under protest; also a
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Suffolk on April 13, 1922, by the executor of the will of Julia R. Longley, late of Boston, for a like purpose.
In both suits the facts were agreed upon. In the first suit by order of Dow, J., a decree was entered granting the abatement sought, and the defendant appealed. The second suit was reserved by Grant, J., for determination by this court.
The cases were submitted on briefs. S. H. Hollis, for the plaintiffs in the first case.
C. M. Rogerson, for the plaintiff in the second case.
J. W. Allen, Attorney General, & C.
R. Cabot, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
These cases present the question whether the amount of excise taxes, lawfully paid to sister States of the Union upon the succession of property within their jurisdiction of a deceased resident of this Commonwealth, may be deducted in order to ascertain the value of the estate on which the succession excise tax required by the statutes of this Commonwealth is to be computed. Stated conversely the question is whether this Commonwealth may under existing statutes levy its succession tax on the amount of money lawfully paid for succession taxes to other States respecting estates of deceased residents of this Commonwealth.
It is plain as a practical matter that the amount of money so paid for excise taxes never passes to anybody by succession from the deceased resident. Money so paid is a pecuniary burden laid for the support of government upon the privilege of transmitting and receiving property by will or by intestate succession. A succession tax law ought not to be so interpreted as to exact an excise on the succession of that which in fact cannot pass to any beneficiary because seized by the State on its way from the dead to the living, unless the words of the statute leave no other alternative. Newcomb v. Paige, 224 Mass. 516 . Such a tax, apart from its technical legal significance, would be in substance and effect a tax on a tax and not a tax on the succession of property.
By G.L.c. 65 Section 1 (), "All property within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth . . . which shall pass by will, or by laws regulating intestate succession . . . shall be subject to a tax."
The executor, in order to carry out the provisions of the will in each of these cases, was obliged to secure possession of the property in the other States. If there had been ancillary administration in each of the taxing States, then the amount transmitted to the domestic executor would have been only the balance left after the settlement of ancillary administration including the payment of such taxes. Putnam v Middleborough, 209 Mass. 456 . If the executor takes the property directly...
To continue reading
Request your trial