Norris v. Cary
| Decision Date | 12 June 1931 |
| Citation | 237 N.W. 113,205 Wis. 626 |
| Parties | NORRIS v. CARY, COUNTY CLERK, ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; August E. Braun, Judge.
Appeal to the circuit court by Abbie S. Norris, executrix of the estate of George H. Norris, deceased, from an order of the Wisconsin Tax Commission affirming a determination of the Board of Review of Milwaukee County, which affirmed an income tax assessment. From a judgment reducing the assessment, William J. Cary, County Clerk, and others appeal.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
This is an appeal from a judgment ordering and adjudging that an assessment of income against respondent for the year 1927 at $31,172 be corrected eliminating therefrom the sum of $24,551.46 representing capital in the hands of respondent and not taxable income, and that said taxable income for the year 1927 be fixed and confirmed at the sum of $6,621.
By contract George H. Norris sold certain stock at a profit to be paid for in installments. At the time of his death on July 7, 1926, there was a balance of $140,000 due on the contract. The contract was inventoried at this amount in the hands of the executrix, and was subjected to an inheritance tax. In 1927 a further payment on this contract balance of $45,090 was made. The assessor levied an assessment as income on this 1927 payment of $24,551.46. By the judgment eliminating this item the assessment was reduced. Interest paid on the contract balance and received by the executrix is returned for income tax and is not involved in this appeal.
The assessor of incomes for Milwaukee county made the complaint of assessment against the executrix, the income tax board of review of Milwaukee county affirmed the assessment so made, and the Wisconsin tax commission affirmed the determination of the board of review. Then appeal was taken to the circuit court in accordance with the provisions of the statutes where the assessment was corrected as above set forth.John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., F. C. Seibold, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George A. Bowman, Dist. Atty., and C. Stanley Perry, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Upham, Black, Russell & Richardson and Perry J. Stearns, all of Milwaukee, for respondent.
The circuit court by its judgment held the $24,551.46 to be capital in the hands of the respondent and not taxable income. It is a fact that after Mr. Norris died July 7, 1926, the contract which brought the above amount into respondent's estate was treated as corpus. Under the rule that the clear market value of the inventoried assets of an estate of a deceased person constitutes the corpus or principal to the executor, this amount was considered as a part thereof, and its value was used to make up the total value on which the inheritance tax was based. Section 72.01 (8).
[1][2][3] The law under which the tax authorities are proceeding and which they interpret to warrant holding this item as income did not become effective until August, 1927. The title, rights, and responsibilities of respondent so far at least as what is the corpus of the estate is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernwood Lumber Co. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
...(Ill.), 182 N.E. 909, at 914; Norman v. Bradley, 160 S.E. 413, 416; Smart v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 237 N.W. 114, at 115; Norris v. Cary, 237 N.W. 113; Norris v. (Wis.), 238 N.W. 415; Falk v. Ross (Wis.), 230 N.W. 64, Syl. 3; Sims v. Ahrens (Ark.), 271 S.W. 720, Syl. 1; In re Opinion of ......
-
Welch v. Henry
...previous years upon a class of property not then subject to taxation,” and this statement is cited with approval in Norris v. Tax Commission, 205 Wis. 626, 628, 237 N.W. 113, 238 N.W. 415. In Weber v. City of Detroit, 158 Mich. 149, 150, 122 N.W. 570, it is held that a statute imposing pers......
-
Scobie v. Wis. Tax Comm'n
...Justice (dissenting). An income tax is not a tax on property, but one against the recipient of the income. Norris v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 205 Wis. 626, 237 N.W. 113, 238 N.W. 415. This proceeding, under the statutory construction advocated by the Tax Commission, is an effort by Wisconsin to......
-
Siesel v. Wis. Tax Comm'n (In re Siesel)
...is to be interpreted in accordance with its common, ordinary meaning as understood in every day life.” In Norris v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 205 Wis. 626, 630, 237 N. W. 113, 238 N. W. 415, the court said: “* * * An act which attempts to impose an income tax on what is, and is commonly und......