Nunnemacher v. State
Decision Date | 16 July 1906 |
Parties | NUNNEMACHER v. STATE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Herman Nunnemacher, as trustee, against the state of Wisconsin. Heard on demurrer to the complaint. Complaint dismissed.
L. M. Sturdevant, Atty. Gen., and R. M. Bashford, Special Counsel, for the State.
This is an action commenced in this court under the provisions of section 3200, Rev. St. 1898, to recover from the state the amount of an inheritance tax paid under protest pursuant to an order of the county court of Waukesha county. The complaint is based upon the ground that chapter 44, p. 65, of the Laws of 1903, under which the tax was levied and paid, is unconstitutional. The Attorney General interposed a general demurrer to the complaint, and thus the question of the constitutionality of the law is squarely presented.
A previous law attempting to tax inheritances and bequests (chapter 355, p. 668, Laws 1899), was before this court in the case of Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 89 N. W. 522, 90 Am. St. Rep. 853, and was there held unconstitutional, for the reason that it provided for unlawful discrimination, in that a beneficiary receiving a legacy or inheritance from an estate under $10,000 paid no tax, while a beneficiary standing in exactly the same relation to the decedent and receiving a legacy or inheritance of the same amount from an estate exceeding $10,000 was obliged to pay a tax. In that case it was not contended that an inheritance or succession tax could not lawfully be levied in this state. In fact, the validity of such legislation, as a general proposition, was conceded; but the contention was that the law in question made unlawful discriminations and hence was void. From this concession it resulted that this court assumed, rather than decided, in that case that an inheritance tax law making no unlawful discrimination between heirs or beneficiaries could be passed in this state which would be constitutional. It was doubtless in response to the suggestions of the opinion in that case that chapter 44, p. 65, of the Laws of 1903, which is now attacked, was passed. Section 1 of the last-named law provides in substance that a tax shall be imposed upon any transfer of property or interest in property, real, personal, or mixed, to any person, association, or corporation (except corporations organized solely for religious, charitable, or educational purposes), when made by will or by operation of the intestate laws, or by transfer made by the grantor or by another person under a power of appointment in contemplation of death, to take effect at or after the death of the grantor, which tax shall be based upon the clear market value of such property at the rates thereinafter prescribed, and only upon the excess over the exemptions thereinafter granted. Section 2 provides that when the property or interest transferred exceeds the exemption and does not exceed $25,000 the tax shall be (1) 1 per cent. of the clear value where the person entitled to such property shall be the husband, wife, lineal issue, lineal ancestor of the decedent, or lawfully adopted or mutually recognized child of the decedent, or a descendant of such child; (2) 1 1/2 per cent. in case of the brother or sister of the decedent, or a descendant of such brother or sister, or the wife or widow of a son, or the husband of a daughter, of the decedent; (3) 3 per cent. in case of the brother or sister of the father or mother of the decedent, or a descendent of such brother or sister; (4) 4 per cent. in case of the brother or sister of the grandfather or grandmother of the decedent, or a descendant of such brother or sister; (5) 5 per cent. in case of a beneficiary in any other degree of collateral consanguinity, or a stranger in blood, or a body politic or corporate. These rates are termed the primary rates. Section 3 provides that when the value of the property exceeds $25,000 the rates of tax upon the excess shall be as follows: (1) Upon the excess over $25,000 up to $50,000, 1 1/2 times the primary rates; (2) from $50,000 to $100,000, 2 times; (3) from $100,000 to $500,000, 2 1/2 times; (4) upon all in excess of $500,000, 3 times the primary rates. Section 4 provides for exemptions as follows: (1) All property transferred to domestic corporations organized solely for religious, charitable, or educational purposes and used exclusively for such purposes; (2) property of the value of $10,000 transferred to the widow, and property of the value of $2,000 transferred to each of the other persons named in the first division of section 2; (3) property of the value of $500 transferred to each of the persons named in the second division of section 2; (4) property of the value of $250 transferred to each of the persons named in the third division of section 2; (5) property of the value of $150 transferred to each of the persons named in the fourth division of section 2; and (6) property of the value of $100 transferred to each of the persons or corporations named in the fifth division of section 2. The remaining sections contain full provisions for the administration of the law and the collection of the tax, which are not necessary to be stated here.
The constitutionality of this law, and of any similar law, is now attacked upon the following general grounds: First, that the right to take property by inheritance or by will is a natural right protected by the Constitution, which cannot be wholly taken away or substantially impaired by the Legislature; second, that the Constitution of this state limits the power of taxation to property only, and that this tax is an excise levied upon a right or privilege, and hence unconstitutional; third, that even if the Legislature has power, under the Constitution, to levy such a tax, this law violates the constitutional requirement that the rule of taxation shall be uniform.
And they should keep who can.”
The fallacy of the idea that the government creates or withholds property rights at will is very apparent. Under our system the government is the creature of the people, the product of a social compact. The people, in full possession of liberty and property, come together and create a government to protect themselves, their liberty, and their property. The government which they create becomes their agent; the officers their servants. Under the theory of the North Carolina court these agents, in turn, create property rights and confer them upon their creators, who possessed these rights long before. The people create an agency to protect their existing rights which assumes to confer or withhold these same rights. But the question is chiefly historical. From the historical standpoint the idea that all rights of property and rights to transmit the same by inheritance or will have their origin in the positive enactments of law by an established government cannot stand the test. Governments have, indeed, from the earliest times, regulated the exercise of these rights, prescribed ways and forms for their exercise, and protected them by positive law; and so they do now. From this universal exercise of the right of regulation the idea of governmental right to create and destroy may have arisen, but it seems more likely to have arisen from failure to keep in mind the radical difference between our republican theory of the origin of government and the European medieval theory. Our theory is that the people, in full possession of inalienable rights, form the government to protect those rights. The medieval idea was that the government was sent down from above, and that from it rights and privileges were allowed to flow in gracious streams to the people, who otherwise would not possess them.
That there are inherent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Peterson v. Dunlap
... ... power to levy the former. ( People v. Griffith, 245 ... Ill. 532, 92 N.E. 313; In re House Bill No. 122, 23 ... Colo. 492, 48 P. 535; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate ... Judge, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N.W. 1101; In re ... Knoedler's Estate, 140 N.Y. 377, 35 N.E. 601; ... Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 108 N.W. 627, 9 ... Ann. Cas. 711, 9 L. R. A., N. S., 121; State v ... Ferris, 53 Ohio St. 314, 41 N.E. 579, 30 L. R. A. 218; ... State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495, 41 Am. St. 569, 30 A ... 76, 25 L. R. A. 632.) ... A ... review of the authorities shows no ... ...
-
Enochs v. State ex rel. Roberson
... ... Clark, 30 Wash. 439, ... 71 P. 20 ... WeST ... VIRGINIA--The law in this state was passed in 1904 and ... re-enacted in 1921. We find no reported cases on ... constitutional grounds ... WISCONSIN--The ... law in this state was held constitutional in Nunnemacher ... v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 108 N.W. 627; Beals v ... State, 139 Wis. 544, 121 N.W. 347; State v ... Pabst, [133 Miss. 130] 121 N.W. 351; Estate of Bullen, ... 143 Wis. 512, 128 N.W. 109, affirmed by the supreme court of ... the United States, 240 U.S. 625 ... WYOMING--This ... ...
-
State v. Rodgers
...by federal decisions which are contrary to our state constitutional values. This court clearly stated this view in Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 198, 108 N.W. 627 (1906), as follows: "We are fully aware that the contrary proposition has been stated by the great majority of the courts ......
-
State ex rel. Bolens v. Frear
...of the state, though not forbidding excise taxation, as determined in the inheritance tax case (Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 108 N. W. 627, 9 L. R. A. [N. S.] 121), contained only one brief section on the general subject of taxation, namely, section 1 of article 8, reading as follows......