In re Estate of Dorrance

Decision Date10 May 1934
Docket NumberNo. 4148.,4148.
CitationIn re Estate of Dorrance, 116 N.J. Eq. 204, 172 A. 503 (1934)
PartiesIn re estate of JOHN T. DORRANCE, deceased. ETHEL M. DORRANCE et al., executors, &c., appellants, v. J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, tax commissioner, respondent
CourtNew Jersey Prerogative Court

Syllabus by the Court.

In computing transfer inheritance tax under the provisions of P. L. 1929, c. 144, p. 250 (Comp. St. Supp. § 208—537), no deduction from the gross estate is allowable for personal property tax or transfer inheritance taxes, assessed by a sister state against the estate of a decedent domiciled in New Jersey, upon property or the transfer thereof, when the said property is not located in said state.

Supplemental opinion.

For former opinion, see 115 N. J. Eq. 268, 170 A. 601.

See, also, 113 N. J. Eq. 266, 166 A. 177.

William D. Lippincott, of Camden, John Milton, of Jersey City, and Nathan Miller and Harold Otis, both of New York City, for appellants.

William A. Stevens, Atty. Gen., and Duane E. Minard and William A. Moore, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.

BUCHANAN, Vice Ordinary.

Since the filing of the earlier conclusions in this matter (In re Dorrance's Estate, 115 N. J. Eq. 268, 170 A. 601), opposing counsel have come to agreement as to certain of the items then in process of negotiation; namely, that the so-called "Compromise Tax" (assessed, by way of compromise and commutation for present payment, in respect of legacies in expectancy which are contingent and defeasible), should be eliminated from the assessment under review, inasmuch as, under the terms of the statute, tax on these transfers is not assessable until the occurrence of the contingencies, except by agreement and consent of the decedent's estate, which is here lacking; also that the appellants are entitled to credit (as a deduction from the gross estate, in the computation of the tax), as an administration expense, of the additional commissions and counsel fees allowed the executors by the Burlington county orphans' court.

In the propriety and legality of this result, this court concurs.

With respect to two other items, however, the parties have not been able to agree.

The statute (P. L. 1929, c. 144) provides (page 252 [Comp. St. Supp. § 208—537]), that in determining the value of the property transferred, for the purpose of computing the tax on the transfer, certain deductions "and no others" shall be allowed. Included in the specified deductions are:

"Debts of the decedent owing at the date of death," and

"Transfer taxes paid or payable to other States * * * on any property the transfer of which is taxable hereunder."

Appellants contend that, under the first of the above specifications, they are entitled, in the computation of the tax, to be credited with deduction in the amount of the personal property tax of $1,099,552.52, assessed by the state of Pennsylvania against Dr. Dorrance or his estate, subsequent to his death in respect of his entire personal estate (over and above the small amount thereof actually located in Pennsylvania), for a period of several years prior to the decedent's death. The basis, and of course the only possible basis, for the assessment of this tax was the contention that Dr. Dorrance had been legally domiciled in Pennsylvania. That he was so domiciled in Pennsylvania was determined by the highest court in Pennsylvania (309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303), and it is a logical conclusion from the proofs and circumstances in this case that the present appellants were, or would have been, compelled to pay this tax, which they did in fact pay.

"Debts of the decedent owing at the date of death" must necessarily mean debts "legally owing." In view of the Pennsylvania decision in the transfer tax case, it must be deemed that it was decided by the Pennsylvania courts that this personal property tax was legally due and owing, even if the executors did not actually carry the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
13 cases
  • State of Texas v. State of Florida
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1939
    ... ... bill of interpleader, brought to determine the true domicile of decedent as the basis of rival claims of four states for death taxes upon his estate, raises two principal questions: Whether this Court has jurisdiction of the cause and, if so, whether the report of the Special Master, finding that ... See New Jersey v. Pennsylvania, 287 U.S. 580, 53 S.Ct. 313, 77 L.Ed. 508; Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 56 S.Ct. 278, 80 L.Ed. 293; Dorrance's Estate, 309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303, certiorari denied, Dorrance v. Pennsylvania, 287 U.S. 660, 53 S.Ct. 222, 77 L.Ed. 570; Id., 288 U.S. 617, 53 S.Ct ... ...
  • Riley v. Worcester County Trust Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 15, 1937
    ... ... Hunt died on June 11, 1935, possessing at the time of his death certain real estate and a sizeable bank deposit in the state of California, and a like bank deposit in Massachusetts and considerable intangible property, the bulk of ... of domicile was before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari to the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Dorrance et al. v. Martin, 298 U.S. 678, 56 S.Ct. 949, 80 L.Ed. 1399, where that court declined to take the case on certiorari. There the tax officials of New ... ...
  • Worcester County Trust Co. v. Long, 4292.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 27, 1936
    ... ...         On June 11, 1935, Robert H. Hunt died testate, leaving real estate and bank deposits in California and bank deposits in Massachusetts and considerable intangible personal property, most of which is in the custody and ... The difficulties are well illustrated in the case of Estate of John T. Dorrance where the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have each exacted a tax of several million dollars upon the transfer of intangibles which Dorrance ... ...
  • Worcester County Trust Co v. Riley
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1937
    ... ... Ancillary administration of the estate has been granted in California. Petitioner brought the present suit in the District Court for Massachusetts, joining as defendants Commissioner of ... Dorrance's Estate, 309 Pa. 151, 163 A. 303; In re Estate of Dorrance, 115 N.J.Eq. 268, 170 A. 601; Id., 116 N.J.Eq. 204, 172 A. 503, with New Jersey v ... ...
  • Get Started for Free