Page v. Comptroller of Treasury
Decision Date | 09 January 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 127,127 |
Citation | 313 A.2d 691,270 Md. 725 |
Parties | Charles G. PAGE et al., Co-Executors of Estate of Alice Carter Middendorf v. COMPTROLLER OF the TREASURY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Charles G. Page, Baltimore (White, Page & Lentz, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
Francis X. Pugh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.
Stripped of its not inconsiderable complexities, this case turns on the question whether the State may collect interest on that portion of the Maryland estate tax payable by a decedent's estate which was not paid until final distribution of the estate, at a time more than 15 months after the death of the decedent.1
Alice Carter Middendorf died domiciled in Baltimore County, Maryland on 27 August 1967, leaving an estate in excess of $2,500,000.00.Her will, which named her husband, J. William Middendorf, Jr., and Charles G. Page as executors, was admitted to probate.On 22 November 1968, the executors filed a timely federal estate tax return which developed a gross tax of $227,875.00; claimed a credit for State death taxes of $29,321.66, 2 and recognized a net federal estate tax liability of $248,553.34, which was paid when the return was filed.
Three days later, on 25 November, the executors filed a Maryland Estate Tax Return with the Comptroller of the Treasury.This developed a gross Maryland estate tax liability of $29,321.66 (identical with the amount of credit for State death taxes claimed on the federal return); credit was taked for Maryland collateral inheritance tax and Maryland direct inheritance tax which had been paid, in amounts of $405.40 and $124.00 respectively, 3 as well as for an additional Maryland direct inheritance tax in the amount of $17,895.26 which the executors estimated would be paid upon final distribution of the estate.It can be seen that the aggregate amount taken as credits against the tax liability of $29,321.66 totalled $18,424.66, reducing the net amount of the Maryland estate tax to $10,897.00, which was paid when the return was filed.
On final audit of the federal estate tax return, the gross federal estate tax was increased from $277,875.00 to $283,079.70, causing a corresponding increase in the credit for State death taxes from $29,321.66 to $30,109.36.An additional federal estate tax of $4,417.00 was then paid by the executors together with interest of.$446.78.
Upon completion of the audit of the federal estate tax return, the executors were then in a position to make final distribution of the estate, which would generate the proof of payment of State death taxes required by the District Director of Internal Revenue.4Accordingly, they then filed an amended Maryland Estate Tax Return, reflecting the increase in the State tax credit from the original figure of $29,321.66 to $30,109.36; claimed allowance for Maryland collateral inheritance taxes previously paid in the amount of $405.40 and for direct inheritance taxes in the amount of $18,656.56, which by then had been paid, as well as the Maryland estate tax payment of $10,897.00 made when the return had originally been filed.There then remained a deficiency of $150.40, which was paid together with two years' interest at 6%, or $18.05.
The Comptroller's response was something less than enthusiastic.Apparently relying on 54 Op.Atty.Gen. 438(1969), and44 Op.Atty.Gen. 382(1959), he countered with a suit against the executors in the Baltimore County District Court for the recovery of $2,140.50, being 6% interest on $18,424.66-the aggregate of credits claimed against the original Maryland estate tax liability-from 27 November 1968[313 A.2d 693] to 30October 1970, the date when the amended Maryland Estate Tax Return showing a Maryland estate tax balance of $150.40 due was filed and thereupon paid.
The case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, where the executors pleaded the general issue.While the suit was pending on 6 March 1973, Mr. Middendorf died.On suggestion of Mr. Middendorf's death, Charles G. Page and The Equitable Trust Company, his personal representatives, were substituted as co-defendants.
The case was tried by the court, without a jury, on a stipulation of facts from which our narrative is largely derived.After a consideration of the comprehensive memoranda submitted by the parties, judgment was entered in favor of the Comptroller for $2,140.50 and costs.Mrs. Middendorf's estate has appealed.
A maximum 80% credit for State death taxes was first allowed against the federal estate tax by Section 301(b) of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 70.No effort was made by the General Assembly to take advantage of this early example of revenue sharing until the enactment of Chapter 275 of the Laws of 1929, seeCross v. Downes, 164 Md. 216, 218-219, 164 A. 758-759(1933), apparently because the then Governor, Albert C. Ritchie, regarded the idea of the credit as an interference with his concept of States' Rights.5Whatever the reason for the delay, Maryland has since 1929 imposed an estate tax, now found in Maryland Code(1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) Art. 62A, § 2, which is coordinated with the federal estate tax law.In simple terms, a tax is imposed in an amount by which the aggregate of inheritance taxes paid to the State incident to the settlement of a decedent's estate is less than the credit allowed by the Internal Revenue Code.Article 62A, § 2 provides:
'In addition to the tax and/or taxes imposed by Article 81, a 'Maryland estate tax' is hereby imposed upon the transfer of the 'Maryland estate' of every 'decedent,' the amount of which 'Maryland estate tax' shall be equal to the extent, if any, of the excess of the 'credit' over the aggregate of 'State taxes' paid by or out of the 'Maryland estate' of the 'decedent' or any part thereof, provided, however, that such 'Maryland estate tax' hereby imposed shall in no case exceed the extent to which its payment will effect as saving or diminution in the amount of the 'federal estate tax' payable by or out of the 'Maryland estate' of the 'decedent' had this article not been enacted.'
Although the thinking behind the legislative scheme can be simply stated, the practical application of the law is fraught with complexity, seePage, Maryland Death Taxes, 25 Md.L.Rev. 89, 104-10(1965);Eney, Death and Taxes-Maryland Style, 17 Md.L.Rev. 101, 111-12(1957).
In the administration of substantial estates, it is customary to delay distribution of a major portion of the assets until the federal estate tax liability is finally determined, which may come a year or more after the date of death.Anticipating our decision in Comptroller v. Davidson, 234 Md. 269, 199 A.2d 360(1964)( ), it was the practice to pay the Maryland estate tax within the prescribed period of 15 months from death, and later seek a refund to the extent that the amount of Maryland estate taxes was reduced by inheritance taxes paid at the time of final distribution.6
Immediately following the decision in Davidson, supra, Chapter 794 of the Laws of 1965amendedArticle 62A, § 5 to comport with the contention made by the Comptroller in that case: that interest was payable only on a refund of Maryland estate tax occasioned by a reduction of federal estate tax liability, and not on a refund resulting from the subsequent payment of inheritance taxes.As amended, Code(1957, 1972 Repl.Vol., 1973 Cum.Supp.) Art. 62A, § 5 now provides:
7(Emphasis supplied.)
The Comptroller finds comfort in Comptroller v. Campanella, 265 Md. 478, 290 A.2d 475(1972), the first case involving Article 62A, § 5 after it had been amended by Chapter 794 of the Laws of 1965.The holding in Campanella however, must be confined to the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Attorney Grievance v. Thompson
... ... "Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury (`Comptroller') repeatedly notified Respondent of this obligation and requested ... The Estate taxes should have been paid at the time of the distribution. Page v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 270 Md. 725, 313 A.2d 691 (1974) ... Further, Respondent held the ... ...
-
Comptroller of Treasury v. Phillips
... ... We affirm ... I ... Background ... Since 1926, the federal government has shared estate tax revenue with states through an eighty percent credit for state death taxes, now codified as I.R.C. § 2011 (2004). 1 See Page v. Comptroller, 270 Md. 725, 729, 313 A.2d 691, 693 (1974) ... The General Assembly enacted the Maryland estate tax in 1929, 1929 Md. Laws Chap. 275, to take advantage of this federal revenue sharing. See Page, 270 Md. at 729, 313 A.2d at 693 ... As such, the Maryland estate tax, unlike the ... ...
-
Pledger v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co., Inc.
... Page 732 ... 889 S.W.2d 732 ... 319 Ark. 155 ... Jim C. PLEDGER, Director, Department of Finance ... (1975); State v. Merchants Nat'l Bank, 265 Ala. 375, 91 So.2d 480 (1956); Page v. Comptroller, 270 Md. 725, 313 A.2d 691 (1974); In re Gallagher's Will, 57 N.M. 112, 255 P.2d 317 (1953); & In ... ...
-
Comptroller of Treasury v. Jameson
... Page" 723 ... 332 Md. 723 ... 633 A.2d 93 ... COMPTROLLER OF the TREASURY ... Mary JAMESON & W. Ronald Jameson, Personal Representatives ... of the Estate of Mary Louise Jameson ... No. 16, Sept. Term, 1993 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... Nov. 22, 1993 ... Page 724 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
1997 Statutory Amendment
...pay the excess funds directly to the register. This approach comes close to what the Court suggested in Page v. Comptroller of Treasury, 270 Md. 725, 313 A.2d 691 (1974), at footnote 6, to be an "eminently sensible solution to the problem," whereby the excess estate tax was simply taken as ......
-
Historic Approaches
...so estimated was too low, additional estate tax, plus interest, is paid. This approach was specifically sanctioned by the Court in Page, 270 Md. 725, 313 A.2d 691: To say that the statutory scheme required an overpayment of estate tax within 15 months after death, and the subsequent filing ......