In re Pierce's Estate
| Decision Date | 21 June 1918 |
| Citation | 104 A. 298 |
| Parties | In re PIERCE'S ESTATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In the matter of the assessment of an inheritance tax against the estate of John P. Pierce, deceased. On appeal from assessment. Assessment corrected.
Gilbert Collins and J. Stanley Griffin, both of Jersey City, for appellants. Herbert W. Boggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
BACKES, Vice Ordinary. This appeal is from an assessment of an inheritance tax upon the succession of a foreign decedent's estate, and in respect of so much as attacks the refusal of reduction in the appraisal to the extent of the federal war tax under Act Sept. 8, 1916, c. 463, § 201, 39 Stat. 777 (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 6336 1/2b) amended March 3, 1917 (39 Stat. 1002, c. 159), is controlled by Estate of Ferdinand W. Roebling, 104 Atl. 295, and the deduction will be allowed.
An appeal was also taken from an appraisement at $280 per share of 15,961 shares of the common capital stock of the American Radiator Company, on the ground that it was excessive. At the hearing on the appeal, testimony was offered of elements of value which had not been previously submitted to the Comptroller, and thereupon the assessment was remanded for further consideration by him. The additional factors moved the Comptroller to reduce the appraisement to $260 per share and to revise the assessment accordingly, and by agreement the appeal stands against the assessment as revised.
It is not the duty nor the privilege of this court, on appeal, to weigh the evidence, or to substitute its judgment as to values for that of the Comptroller, and assessments will be upheld, if legal principles have been correctly applied and the appraisement is supported by the evidence. The presumption is in favor of the correctness of the assessment, and the burden is upon the appellant to point out and establish wherein it is wrong, and as the valuation, fixed by the Comptroller, is amply sustained by the proofs, it is affirmed.
The practice which has grown up of introducing testimony, on appeal, on questions of values, is indefensible, and unfair to the Comptroller. Jurisdiction is broadly confers upon the court "to hear and determine all questions in relation to any tax levied under the provisions of this act," but it certainly was not the intention of the Legislature to burden the court with the labor of appraising estates de novo. That function is committed to the Comptroller, and on appeal his judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Squier v. Martin
...to investigate judicially the legal and basic factual propriety of the tax assessment. Kellogg v. Martin, supra; (In re Pierce's Estate, 89 N.J.Eq. 171, at page 172, 104 A. 298, overruled on this In MacGregor v. Martin, supra, the Chief Justice observed (126 N.J.L. at page 501, 20 A.2d at p......
-
Renwick v. Martin
...that his valuation is excessive,—is of course on the appellants. In re Bottomley's Estate, 92 N.J.Eq. 202, 111 A. 605; In re Pierce's Estate, 89 N.J.Eq. 171, 104 A. 298; In re Grabfelder's Estate, 107 N.J. L. 520, 153 A. 532. They must show either that there was no evidence to support Commi......
-
Lyon v. Glaser
...modified 99 N.J.L. 1, 125 A. 246 (Sup.Ct.1923), aff'd o.b. 100 N.J.L. 405, 126 A. 924 (E. & A.1924); In re Pierce's Estate, 89 N.J.Eq. 171, 104 A. 298 (Prerog.Ct.1918). Later cases rejected that rule and approved a De novo review on appeal. Undoubtedly the change was stimulated by a realiza......
-
In Re Nicklas' Estate. Grell v. Kelly
...to weight the evidence on appraisals or to substitute its judgment as to the values for that of the taxing office. In re Pierce's Estate, 89 N.J.Eq. 171, 104 A. 298; In re Hall's Estate, 94 N.J.Eq. 398, 119 A. 669; In re Moore's Estate, supra; Spalding v. Martin, 119 N.J.Eq. 603, 183 A. 281......