MATTER OF HANSON v. Griffiths
| Decision Date | 24 August 1953 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Elizabeth Hanson, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>Charles H. Griffiths, as Surrogate of Westchester County, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Albert C. Jordan for petitioner.
Harry G. Herman, County Attorney (George S. Donaldson of counsel), for respondents.
This special proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act challenges the legal right and duty of the Clerk of the Surrogate's Court of Westchester County to exact a fee of $20 under subdivision 9 of section 29-a of the Surrogate's Court Act in connection with the filing with him of a petition initiating an estate tax proceeding. The return and schedules under oath filed in the proceeding with the estate tax appraiser, pursuant to section 249-v of the Tax Law, listed items of a value of $20,276.05 at the death of the decedent, of which $11,800.21 was insurance on the life of the deceased payable by the terms of the policy directly to his widow, and $8,475.84 were assets which the decedent and his wife had held by a joint title, the survivor to take the whole. The widow here insists that the life insurance is no part of the "estate" upon which the amount of the filing fee is based pursuant to the provisions of said subdivision 9 of section 29-a of the Surrogate's Court Act, and the respondents assert that it is. The relevant provisions of said section 29-a and subdivision 9 thereof are as follows: "§ 29-a. In lieu of the charges provided in section twenty-nine of this act the clerk of the surrogate's court of each of the counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond and Westchester shall charge and receive for the use of his respective county, the following fees:
9. For filing a petition whereby any proceeding is commenced, * * * one dollar, but where the gross value of the estate exceeds one thousand dollars but does not exceed five thousand dollars, three dollars; where the estate exceeds five thousand dollars, but does not exceed ten thousand dollars, five dollars; where the estate exceeds ten thousand dollars but does not exceed twenty thousand dollars, ten dollars; where the estate exceeds twenty thousand dollars, twenty dollars."
The petition filed with the clerk initiating the proceeding, to wit, a petition for the appointment of an appraiser, stated that the approximate gross estate of the decedent was $19,000, and upon filing it, the widow delivered to the Clerk of the Westchester County Surrogate's Court the sum of $10. Although the clerk then accepted it without a demand for further fees, he now refuses to file, enter or record in his office the determination of the Surrogate, made pursuant to section 249-w of the Tax Law, until an additional $10 fee is paid. This proceeding seeks an order in the nature of mandamus to compel him and the Surrogate to file, enter and record that determination without further fee and to refund $5 of the fee paid.
The question before the court is what did the Legislature intend by the use of the term "gross value of the estate" in the particular statute. After the use of such term, the single word "estate" is merely used in the same connection in subsequent phrases in the same sentence, but there can be no doubt but that in each instance that this single word is used the Legislature had in mind the "gross value of the estate", and the court so holds. So the question is, was the Clerk of the Surrogate's Court correct in holding that the life insurance proceeds payable to a specific beneficiary were, for fee-fixing purposes, part of such gross value.
The widow here argues that the fees prescribed by the statute are in the nature of taxes, that there is a serious doubt about the construction of the section and that, therefore, a construction favorable to the taxpayer should, under the familiar rule, be made. She cites no New York authority, however, to establish that these particular fees are taxes and not in the nature of charges for services. A research does disclose that graduated fees of this kind have been held a tax by the weight of precedent in foreign States (see cases in annotation 108 A.L.R. 518). There is no New York decision directly passing upon the particular question. A general distinction between taxes and fees is, however, recognized in this State. (See People v. Brooklyn Garden Apts., 283 N.Y. 373, 380, 381; Fox v. Kern, 12 N. Y. S. 2d 561.) Generally speaking, taxes are burdens of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc. v. F. C. C.
...State Life Insurance Co., supra ; Niemiec v. King, 109 N.H. 586, 258 A.2d 356 (1969); State v. Cox, supra ; Hanson v. Griffiths, 204 Misc. 736, 124 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1953), aff'd, 283 App.Div. 662, 127 N.Y.S.2d 819 (1954); Smith v. Carbon County, supra ; State ex rel. Nettleton v. Case, supra ;......
-
Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue of North Shore, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor
...been expressed as a visitation of the costs of special services upon the one who derives a Benefit from them (see Matter of Hanson v. Griffiths, 204 Misc. 736, 124 N.Y.S.2d 473; City of Buffalo v. Stevenson, 207 N.Y. 258, 100 N.E. 798; People v. Malmud, 4 A.D.2d 86, 164 N.Y.S. 204; People v......
-
Executive Aircraft Consulting, Inc. v. City of Newton
...imposed upon a person to defray or help defray the cost of particular services rendered for his account." Matter of Hanson v. Griffiths, 204 Misc. 736, 738, 124 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1953), aff'd, 283 App.Div. 662, 127 N.Y.S.2d 819 See Mtr. of Joslin v. Regan, 63 App.Div.2d 466, 470, 406 N.Y.S.2d 9......
-
American Ins. Ass'n v. Lewis
...all is said and done, it is a compulsory contribution for the purpose of defraying the cost of government (Matter of Hanson v. Griffiths, 204 Misc. 736, 738, 124 N.Y.S.2d 473, affd. 283 App.Div. 662, 127 N.Y.S.2d 819; Houck v. Little Riv. Dist., 239 U.S. 254, 265, 36 S.Ct. 58, 61, 60 L.Ed. ......