People ex rel. Dunbar v. White, 19153
| Decision Date | 10 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19153,19153 |
| Citation | 144 Colo. 212,355 P.2d 963 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, ex rel. Duke W. DUNBAR, Attorney General and Neil Tasher, Inheritance Tax Commissioner, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Julian WHITE, Executor of the Estate of Burdella A. Henderson, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Neil Tasher, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Inheritance Tax Commissioner, Floyd B. Engeman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance by defendant in error.
Hodges, Silverstein, Hodges & Harrington, Denver, Arthur E. Otten, Jr., Denver, amici curiae.
We will refer to plaintiffs in error as the Inheritance Tax Department, and to the defendant in error as the transferee. The defendant in error has not appeared in this court. Amici Curiae have filed a brief and participated in oral argument. They take the same position here with reference to the subject matter as was asserted by the defendant in error in the county court.
The matter involves an inheritance tax problem. One Burdella A. Henderson died in 1958, a resident of Denver. In her last will and testament, she designated the transferee, an adopted son of testatrix' sister, as residuary legatee of the estate. The Inheritance Tax Department made its tax assessment and filed a report in the estate, but on the assumption that the transferee was a nephew by blood rather than by adoption. The tax so assessed was paid.
Thereafter, the department filed in the estate an additional assessment for inheritance tax, claiming that the transferee had the legal status of a stranger to the decedent under the inheritance tax laws, for which reason the transfer to him was taxable at a higher rate than that first assessed by the department.
The transferee, as executor, filed objections to the later assessment. At a hearing the objections were sustained by the county court. The department, claiming error, is here seeking a reversal of the judgment.
There is only one issue for determination.
Does an adopted child have a legal status different from that of a child born to the adopting parent or parents?
Resolution of this controversy is not difficult. Our Legislature has evidenced a benign policy toward adopted persons. C.R.S. '53, 4-1-11, provides in part as follows:
'From and after the entry of a final decree of adoption the following legal effects shall result:
It is the contention of the Inheritance Tax Department that for tax purposes a 'nephew' within the meaning of the inheritance tax laws must be a lineal descendant in order to be classified as a nephew under 'Class C.'
The pertinent portion of the inheritance tax law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Denver v. People
...urges that, since adopted children and their issue are given the 'legal' status of natural children and their issue (People v. White, 144 Colo. 212, 355 P.2d 963), the same 'legal' status must be given to the issue of stepchildren. However, adopted children and their issue achieve their sta......
-
Denver U.S. Nat. Bank v. People ex rel. Dunbar, s. 70--398
...that, since adopted children and their issue are given the 'legal' status of natural children and their issue (People ex rel. Dunbar v. White, 144 Colo. 212, 355 P.2d 963), the same 'legal' status must be given to the issue of stepchildren. However, adopted children and their issue achieve ......
- Spomer v. City of Grand Junction
-
Wright v. Wysowatcky
...parents, * * *.' These provisions were considered and construed with respect to inheritance tax assessments in People ex rel. Dunbar v. White, 144 Colo. 212, 355 P.2d 963, 965, where it was 'In considering the quoted statutes together, it is obvious that the Legislature intended to give an ......