Schlesinger v. State of Wisconsin

Decision Date01 March 1926
Docket NumberNo. 146,146
Citation46 S.Ct. 260,70 L.Ed. 557,270 U.S. 230,43 A. L. R. 1224
PartiesSCHLESINGER et al. v. STATE OF WISCONSIN et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Charles F. Fawsett, Edward M. Smart, and Charles E. Monroe, all of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 230-234 intentionally omitted] Messrs. F. E. Bump and Herman L. Ekern, both of Madison, Wis., for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 234-236 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 1087-1, chapter 64ff, of the Wisconsin Statutes 1919, provides:

'A tax shall be and is hereby imposed upon any transfer of property, real, personal or mixed * * * to any person * * * within the state, in the following cases, except as hereinafter provided:

'(1) When the transfer is by will or by the interstate laws of this state from any person dying possessed of the property while a resident of the state.

'(2) When a transfer is by will or interstate law, of property within the state or within its jurisdiction and the decedent was a nonresident of the state at the time of his death.

'(3) When the transfer is of property made by a resident or by a nonresident when such nonresident's property is within this state, or within its jurisdiction, by deed, grant. bargain, sale or gift, made in contemplation of the death of the grantor, vendor or donor, or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after such death. Every transfer by deed, grant, bargain, sale or gift, made within six years prior to the death of the grantor, vendor or donor, of a material part of his estate, or in the nature of a final disposition or distribution thereof, and without an adequate valuable consideration, shall be construed to have been made in contemplation of death within the meaning of this section.'

These provisions were taken from section 1, c. 44, Laws of 1903, except that the last sentence of subdivision 3 (italicized) was added by chapter 643, Laws of 1913.

Section 1087-2, c. 64ff, imposes taxes upon transfers described by section 1087-1 varying from 1 to 5 per centum, according to relationship of the parties, when the value is not above $25,000. On larger ones the rates are from two to five times higher, with 15 per centum as the maximum.

'Section 1087-5 (chapter 64ff). 1. All taxes imposed by this act shall be due and payable at the time of the transfer, except as hereinafter provided; and every such tax shall be and remain a lien upon the property transferred until paid, and the person to whom the property is transferred and the administrators, executors, and trustees of every estate so transferred shall be personally liable for such tax until its payment.'

Other provisions of chapter 64ff provide for determination, assessment and collection of the tax. In the Revised Statutes of 1921 and 1925, chapter 64ff became chapter 72, and section numbers were changed 1087-1 became 72.01, 1087-2 became 72.02, 1087-5 became 72.05, etc.

In Estate of Ebeling (1919) 172 N. W. 734, 169 Wis. 432, 4 A. L. R. 1519, the court held:

'Section 1087-1, Stats., as amended by chapter 643, Laws 1913, which provides that gifts of a material part of a donor's estate, made within six years prior to his death, shall be construed to have been made in contemplation of death so far as transfer taxes are concerned, constitutes a legislative definition of what is a transfer in contemplation of death, and not a mere rule of law making the fact of such gifts prima facie evidence that they were made in contemplation of death.'

Estate of Stephenson, 177 N. W. 579, 171 Wis. 452, 459: A gift of $23,000 constitutes a material part of an estate valued at more than $1,000,000; also, gifts by decedents in contemplation of death must be treated, for purposes of taxation, as part of their estates.

In re Uhilein's Will (Wis.) 203 N. W. 742, May 12, 1925:

'As stated in the Schlesinger Case, the statute was enacted for the purpose of enabling the taxing officials of the state to make an efficient and practical administration of the inheritance tax law. * * * It is settled in this state that the tax attaches, not at the date of the transfer of the gift, but at the date of the death of the donor. * * * Under our decisions the gifts that have been made within six years of the donor's death, together with the amount of the estate left by the donor at the time of his death, constitute his estate, and must be administered, so far as inheritance tax proceedings are concerned, as one estate. The tax does not attach and become vested in the state until the death of the donor. When the gift is made and the donee receives it, there is no certainty that an inheritance tax will ever be levied upon the gift.'

In the present cause the Milwaukee county court found that Schlesinger died testate January 3, 1921, leaving a large estate; that within six years he had made four separate gifts, aggregating more than $5,000,000, to his wife and three children; that none of these was really made in view, anticipation, expectation, apprehension or contemplation of death. And it held that because made within six years before death these gifts 'are by the express terms of section 72.01 (formerly section 1087-1), clause (3), of the statutes subject to inheritance taxes, although not in fact made in contemplation of death.' An appropriate order so adjudged. The executors and children appealed, the Supreme Court affirmed the order (199 N. W. 951, 184 Wis. 1), and thereupon they brought the matter here.

Plaintiffs in error maintain that, as construed and applied below, the quoted tax provisions deprive them of property without due process of law, deny them the equal protection of the laws, and conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court of the state said:

'The tax in question is not a property tax but a tax upon the right to receive property from a decedent. It is an excise tax.'

'Such (legislative) intent was to tax only gifts made in contemplation of death. That is the only class created. The legislature says that all gifts made within six years of the donor's death shall be construed to be made in contemplation of death,' (which means) 'that they shall conclusively be held to be gifts made in contemplation of death and shall fall within the one taxable class of gifts created by the legislature.' 'In our case the legislative intent, we think, is clear that the specified gifts were to be conclusively construed to be gifts in contemplation of death.' 'We agree with the appellants that the classification made will not support a tax as one on gifts inter vivos only. Under such taxation the classification is wholly arbitrary and void. We perceive no more reason why such gifts inter vivos should be taxed than gifts made within six years of marriage or any other event. It is because only one class of gifts closely connected with and a part of the inheritance tax law is created that the law becomes valid. Gifts made in contemplation of death stand in a class by themselves, and as such they are made a part of the inheritance tax law to the end that it may be effectively administered. We adhere to the ruling in the Ebeling Case.'

No question is made of the state's power to tax gifts actually made in anticipation of death, as though the property passed by will or descent; nor is there denial of the power of the state to tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
217 cases
  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1957
    ...64 L.Ed. 989; Air-way (Electric Appliance) Corp. v. Day, 266 U.S. 71, 85, 45 S.Ct. 12, 69 L.Ed. 169; Schlesinger v. (State of) Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 240, 46 S.Ct. 260, 70 L.Ed. 557. That is to say, mere difference is not enough: the attempted classification 'must always rest upon some di......
  • City of Jackson v. McPherson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1932
    ... ... Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not impair the ... police power of a state or a municipality. [162 Miss. 166] ... 113 ... U.S. 27; Chicago & Burlington R. R. Co ... 603, 47 S.Ct. 675; ... Washington, State v. Roberge, 144 Wash. 74, 256 P ... 781; Wisconsin, Carter v. Harper, 182 Wis ... 148, 196 N.W. 451; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 247 15. S ... Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402, 46 S.Ct ... 320, 70 L.Ed. 654; Schlesinger v. Wis., 270 U.S ... 230, 46 S.Ct. 260, 70 L.Ed. 557, 43 A. L. R. 1224 ... Of ... ...
  • State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1943
    ... ... In ... [141 P.2d 664] ... support of the same principle defendant relies upon the ... Michigan, Nebraska and the most recent Wisconsin case cited, ... all supra (filled milk cases) and People v. Weiner, ... 271 Ill. 74, 78, 110 N.E. 870, L.R.A.1916C, 775, ... Ann.Cas.1917C, ... convenience." Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson, ... supra, [276 Mich. 172, 267 N.W. 610], Schlesinger v ... Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 46 S.Ct. 260, 70 L.Ed. 557, 43 ... A.L.R. 1224 ... It may ... be simpler and more convenient to the ... ...
  • Heiner v. Donnan
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1932
    ...most positive character. Thus stated, the first question submitted is answered in the affirmative by Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 230, 46 S. Ct. 260, 70 L. Ed. 557, 43 A. L. R. 1224, and Hoeper v. Tax Commission, 284 U. S. 206, 52 S. Ct. 120, 76 L. Ed. 248. The only difference betwee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-3, March 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...See Handy v. Delaware Trust Co., 285 U.S. 352, 354-55 (1932); Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 322-29 (1932); Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 239-40 (1926). Another held it unconstitutional to assess against a husband an income tax based on his income plus his wife's income. Hoeper v......
  • A comparative proposal to reform the United States gift tax annual exclusion.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 30 No. 5, November 1997
    • November 1, 1997
    ...a surprise to Congress, as the Supreme Court had earlier struck down a similar state death tax provision. See Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230 (39.) Bowe, supra note 22, at 30. (40.) Revenue Act of 1932. Pub. L. No. 72-154. [sections] 501-531, 47 Stat. 169, 245-259. (41.) Id. (42.) St......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT