In re Estate of Metcalf

• Citation: 282 P. 27,41 Wyo. 36
• Decision Date: 12 November 1929
• Docket Number: 1574
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD D. METCALF, DECEASED; v. THEODORE THULEMEYER, INHERITANCE TAX COMMISSIONER [*] BURT GRIGGS, ET AL.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

282 P. 27

41 Wyo. 36

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD D. METCALF, DECEASED;

BURT GRIGGS, ET AL. v. THEODORE THULEMEYER, INHERITANCE TAX COMMISSIONER ^[*]

No. 1574

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 12, 1929

ERROR to District Court, Johnson County; JAMES H. BURGESS, Judge.

Proceedings by Lyle E. Jay, as Inheritance Tax Commissioner of the State of Wyoming, for whom Theodore Thulemeyer was substituted against Burt Griggs and William Holt, executors of the last will and testament of Edward D. Metcalf, deceased, and another. Inheritance tax assessment was confirmed by District Court, and executors and beneficiary bring error.

Affirmed.

For the plaintiffs in error there was a brief by C. A. Kutcher of Sheridan, and Burt Griggs of Buffalo, and oral argument by Mr. Kutcher.

The Inheritance Tax Law, Chap. 78, Sec. 2, Laws 1925, expressly exempts gifts for state, municipal, charitable, educational or religious purposes; the gift made to American Genetic Association comes within the statute, unless construed to exclude foreign charities. The Inheritance Tax Law of 1923 limited exemptions to charities within the state, but the Act of 1925, by omitting such restriction, effected a change of legislative policy and indicated an intention to exempt resident and non-resident charities alike; moreover, the language of the present statute is clear, free from injustice, oppression or absurd consequences and therefore not susceptible of construction; 4570 C. S., 25 R. C. L. 957 961, 963, 972, Sutherland (2d) Ed. Sec. 385; Midwest Company v. State of Wyo., 273 P. 963. If the general words of exemption found in this statute, be construed to exclude foreign charities, then non-resident heirs must likewise be excepted for the same reason. When this law was enacted in 1925, there was a marked difference in the policies of various states, by statute and decision, in the matter of exempting foreign charities, and in the face of this well known state of the law, the legislature of 1925 eliminated the restriction found in the law of 1923, as to exemptions of foreign charities, showing a clear intention, that the exemption should apply to all alike. Where the exemption language is general, the following authorities hold that the exemption applies to both domestic and foreign charities: Re Fiske's Estate, (Calif.) 172 P. 390; In re Frain, (La.) 75 So. 847; Harvard College v. State, (Oh.) 140 N.E. 189; Sages' Ex'rs. v. Com., (Ky.) 244 S.W. 779; In re Mayes' Estate, (Wash.) 204 P. 596. The only opposite case we have found with a statute similar to ours is: Re: Quirk, 164 S.W. 1062, which contains a vigorous dissenting opinion by three of the judges, and the Illinois case and Re: Speed, 74 N.E. 810, relied on by opposing counsel below is criticised in the Louisiana case above cited. The exemption is denied by the following authorities: Gleason and Otis Inheritance Tax, (3d) Ed. page 229, 26 R. C. L. 227, and note; 34 A. L. R. 681; but it will be found that statutes there involved contain express restrictions as to foreign charities. The significant change made in the law now in effect, from language found in former statutes, clearly shows a change of legislative policy; the words "within the State of Wyoming," having been omitted; 25 R. C. L. 1050, 1051, 36 Cyc. 1067, 1166; Sch. Dist. etc., (Id.) 200 P. 138; Dailey v. Pugh, et al., (Ind.) 131 N.E. 836; Bailey v. Brd., (Ind.) 142 N.E. 655.

For defendant in error there was a brief by W. O. Wilson, Attorney General; J. A. Greenwood, Deputy Attorney General, and Richard J. Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, and oral argument by Mr. Jackson.

The general language of the statute should be limited to such persons and subjects as it is reasonable to presume, the legislature intended it should apply; State v. Holcomb, (Kan.) 116 P. 251; U. S. v. Palmer, 4 U.S. 314; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 U.S. 374. A thing may be within the letter of the statute, but not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. 143 U.S. 457; Re: Quirk's Estate, (Mo.) 165 S.W. 1062. Exemption from taxation is bottomed upon a presumption of services to the state. Morgan v. Rwy. Co., (Kan.) 225 P. 1029. Exemptions to individuals are based upon relationship to deceased. Gleason & Otis Inh. Tax (3d) 42. The allegation in the petition that the gift was for charitable and educational purposes is a presumption, so far as the word "charitable" is involved. When the language of the will is considered, it will appear that the sole question presented here, is whether a non-resident educational corporation is entitled to exemption. If the legislature intended to exempt non-resident educational corporations by the Act of 1925, it would have so provided. We note Chap. 135, Laws 1925, exempts gifts for the education of youths of this state from Inheritance Tax. If a general policy had been intended by Chap. 28, Laws 1925, it would have been included. Legal conclusions are not admitted by failure to deny. 31 Cyc. 209; Kramer v. Co., (Mo.) 279 S.W. 43. Statutes in pari materia should be read together in order to determine legislative intent; 36 Cyc. 1147, 1150; In re Moore, 4 Wyo. 98; People v. Dolan, 5 Wyo. 245; State v. Scott, 35 Wyo. 108. The general rule is that Inheritance Tax exemptions are confined to domestic corporations, unless foreign corporations are specified in the Act. Ross Inh. Tax 193; Gleason & Otis Inh. Tax (3d Ed.) 229, 37 Cyc. 1573; Re: Speed's Estate, (Ill.) 74 N.E. 809; Board v. Ill., 203 U.S. 553; People v. Soc., (Ill.) 135 N.E. 749; People v. Tr. Co., (Ill.) 159 N.E. 266; Re: Quirk's Est., (Mo.) 165 S.W. 1062; Univ. v. Hancock, (N. J. Eq.) 46 A. 178; Re: Crawford's Est., 126 N.W. 774; In re Hicock, (Vt.) 62 A. 724; Minot v. Winthrop, (Miss.) 38 N.E. 512; Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1. The general policy of the law of this state has not been to exempt non-resident charities. This is disclosed by the Acts of 1903, 1915, 1921 and 1923. The present law is not an amendment but a new act governing the subject of Inheritance Tax. It should not be construed to work a change in fixed policies of the state. In re Quirk's estate, supra. The overwhelming weight of authority, at least, is that whether the language is general, or restricted, the exemption is confined to gifts to local institutions. The judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

C. A. Kutcher and Burt Griggs in reply.

It was contended below, and the court apparently decided, that Chapters 78 and 135 of the Laws of 1925, were inconsistent and as Chap. 135 was a later act, it must govern, insofar as it restricts Inheritance Tax Exemptions to gifts for resident, educational purposes only. Chap. 135 is an amendment of Sec. 5408 C. S., by adding a proviso, which has nothing to do with our question, and so far as we are concerned Chap. 135 is not a new law, speaking from the date of its approval. Inheritance Tax Exemptions were enlarged in 1921 by Chap. 126, which repealed all acts in conflict therewith including, of course, that part of Sec. 5408 respecting inheritance tax exemptions. The exemption clause in the Act of 1921 was carried forward into Chap. 80, Laws 1923, which in turn was superseded by the Act of 1925, all of which are later acts than the original Sec. 5408, and repealed all acts in conflict therewith; Chap. 135 contains no repealing clause; the only new portion thereof is the proviso. The rule is that original provisions appearing in an amended act, are to be regarded as having been the law, since first enacted and speak from that time. 36 Cyc. 1223, 1165, 25 R. C. L. 907. Hence no repugnancy exists between Chaps. 78 and 135 of the Laws of 1925; in fact, Chap. 78 should be considered as if Chap. 135 had never been enacted. Authorities cited by opposing counsel in support of their position, except the Missouri case, are clearly distinguishable. They construe statutes different from ours which have no history or significant changes and amendments like ours.

KIMBALL, Justice. BLUME, Ch. J., and RINER, J., concur.

OPINION

KIMBALL, Justice.

Under the will of Edward D. Metcalf, deceased, the American Genetic Association, of Washington, D. C., is entitled to an interest upon which the Inheritance Tax Commissioner assessed a tax of some $ 7500. On appeal to the District Court the tax was confirmed and ordered paid. The executors and the interested beneficiary bring the case here by proceeding in error.

The sole question is whether this testamentary gift is exempt from tax by Section 2 of the Inheritance Tax Law, Ch. 78, Laws of 1925. The statute exempts from the tax:

"Gifts for State, Municipal, Charitable, Educational or Religious purposes or to any institution for use in the preservation of wild fowls or game."

The American Genetic Association, a corporation of the District of Columbia, with headquarters at Washington, is engaged, without profit, in educational work, particularly in the advancement and diffusion throughout the United States of knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. The gift to it is "for the uses and purposes of increasing and diffusing knowledge regarding the laws of heredity." It is conceded that the gift is for educational purposes to a foreign educational corporation. There are no facts from which it can be inferred that the people of Wyoming will receive from the gift any benefit, except remotely by sharing in an assumed general benefit to mankind. Whether the gift be considered as one for educational purposes only, or for both educational and charitable purposes, is immaterial, as the applicable rules of construction would be the same in either case.

The Tax Commissioner contends, and the District Court held, that the statute does not exempt bequests to a foreign corporation for use in...