Hooper v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 18 May 1900
• Citation: 176 Mass. 190,57 N.E. 361
• Parties: HOOPER et al. v. SHAW, Treasurer.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

176 Mass. 190

57 N.E. 361

HOOPER et al. v. SHAW, Treasurer.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1900

COUNSEL

John C. Gray, for executors.

A. W De Goosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Shaw.

OPINION

HOLMES C.J.

Only two questions were argued before us. The first of these is whether the legacy tax paid to the United States under St June 13, 1898, c. 448, §§ 29, 30, is to be deducted before paying the state succession tax, under St. 1891, c. 425. We are of opinion that it is to be deducted.

Whatever the nature of the state succession tax, it is admitted and is obvious that the value of the property concerned is made the measure of the tax. This appears from the words of the act which also show at what moment the value is to be taken. The words are, 'property * * * which shall pass * * * to any person.' Without throwing doubt upon the power of the state to adopt a harsher rule, such as has been applied by some of the surrogates in New York, we are of opinion that these words most naturally signify the property which the legatee actually would get were it not for the state tax imposed by the sentence in which the words occur. See In re Merriam's Estate, 141 N.Y. 479, 484, 36 N.E. 505. s. c. sub nom. U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 630, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 41 L.Ed. 287. It already has been decided upon this ground that expenses of administration are to be deducted. Callahan v. Woodbridge, 171 Mass. 595, 599, 600, 51 N.E. 176.

The question is not one of precedence between the commonwealth and the United States, as it was put by the assistant attorney general. It is, in substance, one of justice, and in form one of construction. The United States recognizes, as it ought, the same principle by deducting the state succession tax before computing its own. State inheritance tax laws are apt to aim at seizing all that they can get without regard to consistency of principle, but, when it is possible to interpret them to mean what is just, we must do so Compare St. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 30, § 7, subd. 4; Id. § 20.

The other question is whether a succession tax is payable on a legacy left to the New England Trust Company of Boston 'the interest of which they will pay to needy aged men and women who had been in better circumstances in early life, but had become in want when in old age.' The legacy was $100,000, but was cut down to $80,000 by a compromise approved as provided in Pub. St. c. 142,...