Indiana Dept. of Revenue Inheritance Tax Division v. Callaway's Estate
Decision Date | 16 March 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 28862,28862 |
Citation | 110 N.E.2d 903,232 Ind. 1 |
Parties | INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE INHERITANCE TAX DIVISION v. CALLAWAY'S ESTATE et al. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. (Jan. 1953) J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John J. McShane, Lloyd C. Hutchinson, Joseph E. Nowak and Robert F. Wallace, Deputys Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Dunbar & Dunbar, Indianapolis, Nolin & McConnell, Fowler, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an amended petition for reappraisement and redetermination of inheritance and transfer taxes. The amended petition was filed pursuant to § 6-2412, Burns' 1933, Acts 1931, Chapter 75, Section 12, page 192.
The record reveals that the Estate of Ernest L. Callaway, Deceased, was opened and that an inventory and appraisement of personal property was filed, after which the Executrix filed an inheritance tax schedule, which was referred by the court to the Assessor. The Assessor filed his report, which was heard, and an order determining inheritance tax was entered by the court showing a total tax of $543.52. Approximately three months thereafter, the Executrix filed her petition to vacate the order determining the tax, showing that an error had been made, and that the amount of the tax due was $740.31. Approximately nine months thereafter, appellant filed its petition for reappraisement and redetermination of inheritance and transfer taxes, which was later amended, to which petitions appellee filed her demurrer. The demurrer to the amended petition was sustained by the trial court. Appellant refused to plead further and judgment was entered for appellee.
Appellant's sole assignment of error is as follows:
'The lower court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's amended petition for reappraisement and redetermination of inheritance and transfer taxes for the reason that said amended petition did state grounds for said reappraisement and redetermination of inheritance and transfer taxes within the meaning of the Indiana Inheritance Tax Law.'
Appellee's memorandum to the demurrer asserts that the finding and determination of the valuation of the assets and tax due is a judicial act, not ministerial, and is a question of law and not of fact; further, that the decision of the court making the determination is a judgment; and therefore § 6-2412, Burns' 1933, is unconstitutional in that it violates Articles 3 and 7 of the Constitution of Indiana and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Section 6-2412, Burns' 1933, provides as follows:
Appellant first asserts that every presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of the act, and that if there is a doubt as to its constitutionality, then the act must be held constitutional. State ex rel. Shea v. Billheimer, 1912, 178 Ind. 83, 96 N.E. 801; Groves v. Board of Commissioners, 1936, 209 Ind. 371, 199 N.E. 137. With this we are in accord, and we therefore approach the question of the constitutionality of § 6-2412, Burns' 1933, with the presumption in favor of the validity of the legislative act. If the act can be sustained upon any reasonable basis, it must not be overthrown. If there is doubt concerning the question of the unconstitutionality of the act, that doubt must be resolved in favor of its validity, Richmond Baking Co. v. Dept. of Treasury, 1939, 215 Ind. 110, 115, 18 N.E.2d 778, 781.
The presumption of validity can be further fortified by acquiescence through approximately the last twenty years, during which neither the people, the courts, nor the Legislature changed the section here in question. Harrell v. Sullivan, 1942, 220 Ind. 108, 127, 40 N.E.2d 115, 41 N.E.2d 354, 140 A.L.R. 455.
In 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 83, p. 705, it is stated:
The presumption above referred to prevails where there are two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other of which it would be valid. Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, 1935, 209 Ind. 172, 199 N.E. 372, 101 A.L.R. 1359. However, it is equally true that usage and practical interpretation of a statute cannot control the interpretation of the constitutionality unless the language of the statute is obscure and doubtful. Further, if a statute is not ambiguous or uncertain in its meaning, then it is not open to construction, but we must take the statute as it is enacted. State v. Martin, 1923, 193 Ind. 120, 122, 139 N.E. 282, 26 A.L.R. 1386.
Section 6-2412, Burns' 1933, is not ambiguous or uncertain in its meaning, and it therefore leaves no room for construction.
Appellant asserts that the determination of the value of assets and the amount of inheritance tax is solely an administrative act, and is not judicial. With this we cannot agree. Section 6-2406, Burns' 1933, provides as follows:
'Any court of the state having probate jurisdiction shall have complete jurisdiction to hear and determine the taxes imposed under the foregoing provisions of this act in all resident decedents' estates and do any act in relation thereto; and if two or more courts in any county shall be entitled to exercise such jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction hereunder shall retain the same to the exclusion of every other court.'
Section 6-2410, Burns' 1933, provides as follows:
* * *'
The last-cited section further provides for notice to all interested parties and those whose residence or postoffice address is unknown; and further provides for the appointment of a special guardian for incompetents and minors. It is to be noted that the statute provides for notice to all interested parties, including appellant, and that the notice is to state the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Book v. State Office Bldg. Commission
...Department of Financial Institutions v. Holt. 1952, 231 Ind. 293, 302, 108 N.E.2d 629; Indiana Department of Revenue Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Callaway, 1953, 232 Ind. 1, 5, 110 N.E.2d 903.4 Fairchild v. Schanke, 1953, 232 Ind. 480, 483, 113 N.E.2d 159; Peden v. Board of Review ......
-
State ex rel. Fox v. La Porte Circuit Court
...unambiguous; there is no room for construction and it must be given effect by the courts. Indiana Department of Revenue Inheritance Tax Div. v. Estate of Callaway, 1953, 232 Ind. 1, 5, 110 N.E.2d 903; Taelman v. Board of Finance of School City of South Bend, 1937, 212 Ind. 26, 33, 6 N.E.2d ......
-
Board of Com'rs of Howard County v. Kokomo City Plan Commission
...in a statutory plan or proceeding fortify the presumption of validity. Department of Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Callaway, Deceased (1953), 232 Ind. 1, 110 N.E.2d 903. Where the constitutional validity of a statute is drawn in issue, it is essential that the party bearing......
-
Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. State Farm Ins. Companies
...of the court on any motion or proceeding by which affirmative relief is granted or relief is denied." Dep't of Revenue v. Estate of Callaway, 232 Ind. 1, 9, 110 N.E.2d 903 (1953), citing McMillan v. Plymouth Electric Light & Power Co., 70 Ind.App. 336, 341, 123 N.E. 446 (1919). A divorce de......