Reish, Adm'R. v. Commonwealth.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1884 |
| Citation | 106 Pa. 521 |
| Parties | Reish, Administrator, <I>versus</I> Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Union county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 417.
Charles S. Wolf (Leiser with him), for the plaintiff in error.—John Reish did not "die seised or possessed" of the property upon which the collateral inheritance tax was levied, so as to bring said property within the provisions of the Act of April 7, 1826, § 1; nor did it pass from him "by will or under the intestate laws," but by deed of August 10, 1878. It is not a question of the intent with which the transfer was made, but of what interest was transferred. A man's disposition of his property before his death, in order to prevent its becoming subject to collateral inheritance tax, is no more a fraud on the commonwealth, than his bequeathing his entire estate to strangers would be a fraud on his heirs. The liability of an estate to the payment of collateral inheritance tax, depends upon whether the decedent was owner of it at the time of his death: Stinger v. Commonwealth, 2 Casey, 423. In Wright's Appeal, 2 Wr. 507, and Tritt v. Crotzer, 1 Harris 451, the estates were conveyed by deeds "intended to take effect in possession after the grantor's death," thus coming within the express provisions of the statute. John Reish conveyed his estate absolutely and presently, and the bonds executed at the same time by Isaac, show no intention of the parties to reserve any interest in the grantor. Under the bond there was simply a personal charge created against Isaac Reish to pay John certain moneys during the latter's life. This in no way affected Isaac's absolute and present ownership of the property transferred to him by the deed.
Andrew H. Dill (with whom were Beale and A. Hayes) for the defendant in error.—The evidence afforded by the deed and bond alone, bring the case within the Act of 1826, imposing collateral inheritance tax. The Act contemplates three classes of cases, to wit: Death with a will; death without a will; transfer by deed made or intended to take effect after the death of the grantor. It is clear, under the statute, that where a deed absolute on its face, is accompanied by an agreement, that the enjoyment of the estate conveyed, shall be postponed until after the death of the grantor, said estate will be subject to the payment of the collateral inheritance tax. The bond executed by Isaac Reish, is such an agreement, and under it the covenantor was simply trustee of the legal title to John Reish's estate until the latter's death. This deed and bond were a mere contrivance to evade the payment of the collateral inheritance tax, and cannot be sustained for that purpose under the statute.
John Reish, late a resident of Lewis township, Union county, died on the 15th of August 1878, intestate and unmarried, leaving to survive him no lineal and but one collateral heir, his brother Isaac Reish, the plaintiff in error. On the 10th of August, 1878, the said John Reish, whilst suffering with the disease of which he in a few days died, executed a deed in fee simple, for all his real estate, and by the same instrument transferred all his personal estate to Isaac Reish; who, at the same time, gave to his brother, a bond in the penal sum of five thousand dollars, containing the following condition, viz:
"The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden Isaac Reish, his heirs, executors, administrators, or any of them, shall and do well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the above named John Reish, his executors, administrators, or assigns, the one half of the net income arising from the real estate held prior to this date by the said John Reish and Isaac Reish, as tenants in common; and one half of the net income, arising from the tract of land, conveyed by Hudson Mench, administrator of Reuben Mench, deceased, to the said Isaac Reish, containing eighty-four acres and thirty-four perches; and the income of the bank stock and interest bearing obligations, of the said John Reish, this day assigned and transferred to the said Isaac Reish; and shall allow to the said John Reish the free use, enjoyment, occupancy, and control of the premises, where he now lives, including the house and out-buildings, garden, yard and barn, and all the household goods and other personal property thereon, in the manner he has heretofore been accustomed to use and enjoy the same, without fraud or further delay, then this obligation to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blodgett v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...of a life estate is such postponement of possession and enjoyment as that the tax attaches under such a statute as we have. See Reish v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 521." Brown v. Gulliford, 181 Iowa, 897, 898, N.W. 182, 183. The next question, common to all of the cases, is, Does the imposition ......
-
Spiegel Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Church Estate
...as in the actual enjoyment of an estate, who has no right to the profits or incomes arising or accruing therefrom.' Reish, Adm'r v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 521, 526. That court further held that the Possession or enjoyment' clause did not involve a mere technical question of title, but that t......
-
Darnall v. Connor
...240 U. S. 625, 36 S. Ct. 473, 60 L. Ed. 830; Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 271, 48 S. Ct. 225, 72 L. Ed. 565; Reish v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 521; People v. Moir, 207 Ill. 180, 69 N. E. 905, 99 Am. St. Rep. 205; Crocker v. Shaw, 174 Mass. 266, 54 N. E. 549; Coolidge v. Commissio......
-
Lacy v. State Treasurer
...the grantor's lifetime. This is the conclusion of all the courts which have been called upon to construe similar statutes. See Reish v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 521;In re Johnson's Estate (Sur.) 19 N. Y. Supp. 963;Genet v. Hunt, 113 N. Y. 158, 21 N. E. 91;Wright's Appeal, 38 Pa. 507;Seibert's ......