In re Bourquin's Estate, 12362.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | 12362. |
| Parties | In re BOURQUIN'S ESTATE. v. GRANT. WEISS |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1930.
In Department.
In the matter of the estate of Auguste Ali Bourquin, deceased wherein a dispute arose between the legatees as to how the amount which Frank L. Grant, administrator with the will annexed, advanced on account of inheritance tax should be deducted and paid. Ruling adverse to Paul Weiss, and he brings error.
Reversed with directions.
Appeal from County Court, City and County of Denver; George A Luxford, Judge.
L. J. Stark and Royal R. Irwin, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Pershing, Nye, Tallmadge & Bosworth, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Auguste Ali Bourquin died testate in the city and county of Denver on the 14th day of January, 1928. His will was duly admitted to probate in the county court, and Frank L. Grant was appointed administrator with the will annexed. The will provided for certain specific bequests to his close relatives, and disposed of the residuum as follows: 'After paying all court costs, taxes and administrators fees, I hereby give to the Salvation Army of Denver, Colorado, all balance in money, furniture, goods, objects belonging to me as stated above, and also of any moneys credited to me in my account book in the Denver National Bank after payment of all funeral costs and dues, in fact of all residue of the estate after solving all above mentioned legacies and expenses.'
The administrator having advanced the sum of $7,557.75 on account of inheritance tax due the state of Colorado, a dispute arose between the legatees as to how the amount thereof should be deducted and paid. The county court held: 'That the state inheritance tax in this estate shall be paid by those who inherit the legacies and is not to come out of the corpus of the estate--in this instance the residuary.' A review of this ruling is now sought.
Subdivision 1 of section 2, Session Laws of Colo. 1927, p. 393, provides: 'A tax is hereby imposed, under the conditions and subject to the exemptions and limitations hereinafter prescribed, upon transfers, in trust or otherwise, of the following property, or any interest therein or income therefrom.'
The statute also provides that every tax imposed by the act shall be a lien upon the property passed and transferred until paid, and that the person to whom the property passes, and all executors, administrators, and trustees, shall be personally liable for the payment of the tax.
The tax imposed by this section is upon on the transfer of property by will, and, in the absence of any contrary intention expressed by the testator in his will, such tax should be deducted from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Morgantown v. McGill
... ... 180 W.Va. 472 ... FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MORGANTOWN, a WV corp., as Executor ... of the Estate of Georgia S. Wilkinson, Plf. Below, Appellee, ... George McGILL and Mary Grace Gilmer, Defendants ... ...
-
Ogburn's Estate, In re
...essentially the same as the tax clause before us. To illustrate, appellees place great reliance upon the case of In re Bourquin's Estate, 87 Colo. 144, 286 P. 114, 115, which dealt with the State inheritance tax. The tax clause there said: '* * * 'After paying all court costs, taxes and adm......
-
Estate of Shoemaker, Matter of, 74063
...burden has been altered by the will. See Wendland v. Washburn University, 8 Kan.App.2d 778, 780, 667 P.2d 915 (1983); Weiss v. Grant, 87 Colo. 144, 147, 286 Pac. 114 (1930). Rules of construction, however, should not be applied where the language of the will is not ambiguous. See Cline, 258......
-
Wendland v. Washburn University
...taxes evidences an intention to shift the tax burden. See Annot., 69 A.L.R.3d 122, 174-78, 350-53. Appellants rely on Weiss v. Grant, 87 Colo. 144, 286 P. 114 (1930), in which the court construed the following phrase contained in the residuary clause: "After paying all court costs, taxes an......