Sears v. Town of Nahant
| Decision Date | 22 June 1915 |
| Parties | SEARS et al. v. TOWN OF NAHANT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Lloyd E. White, Judge.
Petition by Frederick R. Sears and others, as executors of Frederick R. Sears, deceased, against the Town of Nahant, for an abatement of taxes. The superior court ruled that petitioners were not entitled to abatement, and reported the case to the Supreme Judical Court. Petition dismissed.
See also, 215 Mass. 329, 102 N.E. 494.
Tyler Corneau & Eames and Wm. C. Rice, all of Boston, for plaintiffs.
Samuel H. Hudson and Philip Nichols, both of Boston, for defendant.
This is a petition for the abatement of taxes assessed for the year 1910 list, held in Sears v. Nahant, 205 Mass. 558 R. Sears. The testator died in June, 1907, having last been a resident of Nahant. The petitioners were appointed executors of his will in July, 1907. Under ordinary circumstances, unless his estate were settled and distributed in accordance with the statutes and due notice given to the assessors of Nahant, it would continue liable to taxation in Nahant for three years, which included the year 1910. St. 1909, c. 490, part 1, § 23, clause 7. The assessors of Nahant in accordance with law (St. 1903, c. 157; St. 1909, c. 490, part 1, § 41) gave seasonable notice to all persons to bring in true lists of all their personal estate not exempt from taxation. The petitioners filed no list as executors. They did not comply with the notice. The assessors did not assess any tax against the executors at the time of the regular assessment in 1910, but in December, 1910, acting under St. 1909, c. 490, part 1, § 85, a tax was assessed upon the same valuation of the estate as that made in 1909. The petitioners thereafter in June, 1911, seasonably filed a petition for the abatement of this tax and filed also what purported to be a list of their property subject to taxation, which was in substance a simple statement that they had no such property. This was the first list ever filed by them as executors of the will of Frederick R. Sears, although appointed in the summer of 1907 and having been liable as such executors for a tax on some personal property each succeeding year. They had filed no inventory or account in the probate court until March 20, 1911.
This case was before us in 215 Mass. 329, 102 N.E. 494. It there was decided (1) that the tax for 1910 rightly was assessed in December; (2) that since beyond question the tax assessed against the executors for 1908 was a legal tax, and substantially the same tax was assessed in 1909, the assessors were required by the provisions of St. 1909, c. 490, part 1, § 49, to assess against the executors 'an amount not less than that last assessed * * * until a true list of' the property subject to taxation 'is brought in to the assessors in accordance with the provisions of section forty-one'; (3) that the tax for 1910 was lawful as to its amount.
It is not necessary to review the grounds of that decision upon these points. It expressed the deliverate judgment of the court and is affirmed.
Taking all the facts now disclosed on this record, it is plain that the executors lawfully were taxable in Nahant in 1910, at least for the amount devised to them as trustees. They had not then transmuted this property held by them as executors into property held by them as trustees. Hall v. Cushing, 9 Pick. 395, 404. It was subject to taxation in their hands as executors, and it would have been the duty of the assessors even if they had known in 1910 all the facts now known, and proper lists had been filed, to have assessed at least that much property to the executors. Hardy v. Yarmouth, 6 Allen, 277; Welsh v. Boston, 211 Mass. 178, 97 N.E. 893.
It was decided in Sears v. Nahant, 205 Mass. 558, 91 N.E. 913, in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Hammond, after an exhaustive review of the colonial, provincial and state statutes and an interpretation of the present law in their light, that the court has no authority to abate a tax where the required list of taxable property was not brought to the assessors within the time specified in their notice, unless the assessors have found or unless the superior court has found that there was good cause for the delay (St. 1909, c. 490, part 1, § 76), and that the power of the court on appeal from a decision by the assessors is narrower than that of the assessors themselves. In the case at bar there is no finding by the assessors that there was 'reasonable excuse' (section 73), or by the superior court that there was 'good cause' (section 76), for the delay by the petitioners in filing the list. The general finding of the superior court was that the petitioners were not entitled to an abatement. Although there was no detailed statement of specific findings, the single general one involved a finding of all essential subsidiary matters. The failure to make the definite finding of good cause for delay in filing the list, held in Sears v. Nahant, 205 Mass. 558, 91 N.E. 913, to prerequisite to jurisdiction of the superior court to grant an abatement, is equivalent to a finding that there was no good cause or reasonable excuse. Whether or not there is good cause or reasonable excuse is a question of fact dependent upon the specific facts found and the rational inferences to be drawn therefrom. In a proceeding like the present this court cannot find the facts. It passes only upon questions of law. The case is reported
'with all questions of law arising thereon--including the question whether the petitioners had reasonable excuse for their failure to file a list as executors for 1910 prior to June 19, 1911, and for their filing of the list then filed in the form in which it was filed--for the consideration and determination of the full court.'
This form of report means, when taken in connection with the general finding for the defendant, that the point reported is whether, as matter of law, the finding was wrong.
We are of opinion that such finding was warranted. A brief narration of the salient facts will make this clear. The testator died in June, 1907. The petitioners were appointed executors in the following July. Although it now is agreed that a true inventory was made and sworn to by one of the executors in August, 1907, showing a total value of about $4,200,000, of which about $2,900,000 was taxable property, this was never disclosed to the assessors until it was filed in the probate court in March, 1911. Moreover, the assessors in September 1909, petitioned to the probate court that the executors be compelled to file an inventory. This petition was opposed by the executors and was dismissed. In May, 1908, a tax on a valuation of $101,500 of personal property was levied against the executors, the tax on this valuation, amounting to $1,116.50, was paid without protest in August. In October, 1908, a courteous letter was sent by the assessors to two of the executors, stating that by direction of the tax commissioner of the commonwealth a tax on $4,000,000 must be assessed, unless a sworn return showing the amount in truth subject to taxation was made. This letter was ignored and no reply sent. In December, 1908, an additional assessment was made in accordance with the statute as to omitted assessments on $4,000,000 of personal estate. Petition for abatement of this tax was filed on the ground that complete distribution of the estate had been made before May 1, 1908, but no list was presented. This was decided adversely to the executors. 205 Mass. 558. Subsequently, proceedings by mandamus and certiorari to abate this tax were dismissed. Sears v. Nahant, 208 Mass. 208, 94 N.E. 467. In 1909 the executors filed a statement purporting to show a distribution of about $4,100,000 among the legatees under the will, but they declined to file any list as executors and refused to answer any questions touching the property which came to them as executors. The assessors, as they were bound to do under the law, assessed the executors on substantially the same amount in 1909 as they had in 1908. No proceedings for abatement of the 1909 tax were brought, and it was paid under protest. An action at law to recover it back is disposed of in the case just decided. 109 N.E. 373. In 1910 again no list was filed by the executors, and substantially the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial