In re Fulham's Estate
Citation | 119 A. 433 |
Decision Date | 04 January 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 394.,394. |
Parties | In re FULHAM'S ESTATE. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Exceptions and Appeal from Windsor County Court; Stanley C. Wilson, Judge.
Proceedings for inheritance tax by the State Commissioner of Taxes against the estate of Volney S. Fulham, deceased. From a pro forma judgment of the county court affirming the decree of the probate court in favor of the estate, the Commissioner excepted and appeals. Reversed, with directions for judgment for claimant.
Argued before WATSON, C. J., and POWERS, TAYLOR, MILES, and SLACK, JJ.
Frank C. Archibald, Atty. Gen., and F. B. Thomas, of Montplier, for appellant.
Charles H. Darling, of Burlington, for estate.
The probate court for the district of Windsor disallowed the claim of the state for a transfer tax on certain property formerly owned by Volney S. Fulham, late of Ludlow. The commissioner of taxes, in behalf of the state, appealed to the county court, wherein a trial by court was had on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was rendered for the defendant estate. The state alleges error. Briefly stated, the essential facts are as follows: At different times, Fulham, being the owner of certain railroad stocks, indorsed the seven certificates representing the same and delivered them to the trustees of Tufts College, a Massachusetts corporation, in trust. He made deposits in certain saving institutions in this state, taking the passbooks in the name of the "Trustees of Tufts College, trustee of the estate of Volney Sewell Fulham," and delivering them to the college. On October 2, 1915, he made a will giving the residue of his estate to the trustees of Tufts College, in trust for educational purposes.
On September 27, 1917, he executed a writing wherein he recited the fact that he had made a will by which he bad bequeathed to the college the residue of his estate, including, as the writing states, "stock in the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company and stock in the New York Central Railroad Company that I had before assigned and delivered to said trustee, in trust, all to be transferred to said trustee on the books of said corporation after my death, so that I might receive the dividends thereon during my life * * * and said trustee accepted said trust in writing. * * *" This writing also recited the fact that be had made the deposits above referred to as a part of said trust fund, and that he then intended in his lifetime to create and establish the trust "projected in said will, independently of the provisions thereof," except as thereinafter provided. The writing then continues:
Then follows a further provision not here important. The college through its president accepted the trust and agreed to administer it according to the will.
The stocks and deposits constituted practically all of the property owned by Fulham. The certificates and passbooks have remained in the possession of the college from the time of their deliveries, but the former have never been transferred on the books of the corporations. The college has never collected the dividends on the stocks, but these were paid to Fulham as long as he lived, and then to his executor. The interest on the deposits has been allowed to accumulate, and none of it has been withdrawn.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that, whatever the understanding may have been between Fulham and the college when this property was delivered to the latter, their ultimate relations to this property and to each other in respect thereof was such as was evidenced by this writing of September 27th. All right, title, or interest Which Fulham theretofore had in or to that property was released and cut off by that writing; not absolutely, however, but provisionally. If, in his own judgment, he had left enough for his personal expenses, the gift stood. If not, he could recall any part of the fund. Not only this, but, if for any reason he desired it, the college was bound to restore any part of the fund, on his demand. In these circumstances, is this property subject to a transfer tax under the statute? In stating the question in this form, and in referring to the taxability of this property elsewhere herein, we do not overlook the fact that such a tax as is here claimed by the state is not a tax on the property itself, but upon the right of succession to the property. In re Joyslin's Est., 76 Vt. 88, 06 Atl. 281; In re Hickok's Est., 78 Vt. 259, 62 Atl. 724, 6 Ann. Cas. 578; In re Howard's Est., 80 Vt. 489, 68 Atl. 513. G. L. 1093 reads as follows:
The college is such a "person" as is referred to; the transaction was not such a purchase as is described; and Fulham was, at the time of his death, an inhabitant of this state. Thus far, there is no controversy.
It is quite generally held that taxing statutes are to be strictly construed against the taxing power, and this rule is applied to statutes providing for inheritance taxes. But the real meaning and purpose of the lawgiver is the thing to be sought after, and if fair and reasonable construction discloses it, it is to be given effect. Then, too, we must remember that the section under consideration is not the one that provides for taxing inheritances, direct or collateral, but the one intended to prevent the evasion of such taxes. The very purpose of its enactment was to make it impossible to escape such taxes by transfers merely colorable or fictitious. The policy of such statutes—now in force in many of the states—is that the owner of property shall not evade the tax, except by full and effective transfers made during his lifetime. State Street Trust Co. v. Stevens, 209 Mass. 373, 95 N. E. 851. Surely, such a statute should be carefully considered and liberally construed in favor of the taxing power (In re Gordon, 186 N. Y. 471, 79 N. E. 722, 10 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1089), lest its purpose be easily circumvented by designing persons. For a construction that would facilitate evasion should be avoided. Endl. Sts. §§ 138, 152.
The legislative history of the statute before us is both interesting and instructive. G. L. 1093, originated in section 2, No. 30, Acts of 1904, which, so far as need be quoted, reads as follows:
"Every person * * * who shall acquire title to real estate or any interest therein by voluntary conveyance or deed of gift made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment upon or after the death of the grantor, or who shall by voluntary conveyance or by gift acquire title to personal estate or any interest therein made or intended to take effect and [in] possession or enjoyment upon or after the death of the grantor or donor," etc.
This became P. S. 823, where it reads:
"Every person * * * who acquires title to real or personal estate or any interest therein by voluntary conveyance or gift made or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment upon or after the death of the grantor or donor," etc.
So far, then, the statute treated real and personal estate transfers alike, and made their taxability depend on when they were to take effect in possession and enjoyment. Then came No. 60, Acts of 1912, section 2 of which amended P. S. 823, so as to read (in the respect here important) just as G. L. 1093, does.
To give effect to this statute according to the purpose of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blodgett v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
... 158 A. 245 114 Conn. 207 BLODGETT, Tax Commissioner, v. GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK (In re SEWELL'S ESTATE). BLODGETT, Tax Commissioner, v. BENNETT et al. (In re BENNETT'S ESTATE). GIBSON (In re GIBSON'S ESTATE) v. BLODGETT, Tax Commissioner ... ...
-
Clifford v. W. Hartford Creamery Co., Inc.
... ... On August 15, 1925, the creamery company executed a mortgage on all of its real estate, machinery, and fixtures to the Richford Savings Bank & Trust Company, hereinafter referred to as the bank, to secure the payment of a demand note ... ...
-
Darnall v. Connor
... ... part, or his successor, may deem expedient and wise." The grantor reserved to herself the right to dispose of the whole or any part of the estate granted, by her will, and provided that, should she fail to do so, the trustee should divide the property, pay it over, and transfer it to her heirs ... ...
-
Sorrell v. White
... ... In re Fulham's Est., 96 Vt. 308, 314, 119 A. 433; In re Estate of Wooley, 96 Vt. 60, 64, 117 A. 370; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152, 157. A statute is to be construed with reference to the old law, the mischief, and ... ...