Vervaecke v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S-93-735,S-93-735 |
| Citation | 529 N.W.2d 779,247 Neb. 707 |
| Parties | Donald M. VERVAECKE, Assignee of Lucille A. Vervaecke, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Maurice M. Vervaecke, Deceased, Appellant, v. STATE of Nebraska and M. Berri Balka, Nebraska State Tax Commissioner, Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
2. Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
4. Decedents' Estates: Taxation. Nebraska's estate tax is computed as a percentage of the federal estate tax liability. If the amount of federal estate tax liability increases or decreases, the Nebraska estate tax shall be adjusted accordingly.
5. Statutes. In the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
6. Statutes: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
7. Taxation: Interest. When any amount of transfer tax in excess of that legally due has been paid to the State Treasurer, the party making such overpayment or Michael McCormack, of McCormack, Cooney, Hillman & Elder, Omaha, for appellant.
his or her successors or assigns shall be entitled to refund of such overpayment plus interest.
Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel, Lincoln, for appellees.
Donald M. Vervaecke appeals a summary judgment that held the State of Nebraska, when it refunded an unintentional overpayment of an estate tax, was not required to pay interest from the date of the overpayment.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law. As a result of our interpretation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2106.01 (Cum.Supp.1992), we reverse the judgment of the district court for Lancaster County and hold that Vervaecke is entitled to the additional interest he claims is due him as assignee of the personal representative of his father's estate and as assignee of his mother's interest in the refund.
Originally filed in the Nebraska Court of Appeals, this appeal was removed to this court pursuant to our authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts.
In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Huntwork v. Voss, 247 Neb. 184, 525 N.W.2d 632 (1995); New Light Co. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 247 Neb. 57, 525 N.W.2d 25 (1994). Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Huntwork, supra; New Light Co., supra.
Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Grady v. Visiting Nurse Assn., 246 Neb. 1013, 524 N.W.2d 559 (1994); No Frills Supermarket v. Nebraska Liq. Control Comm., 246 Neb. 822, 523 N.W.2d 528 (1994).
When we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Vervaecke and give Vervaecke the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence, the undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
On August 26, 1989, Donald M. Vervaecke's father, Maurice M. Vervaecke, died. On August 30, 1990, the Vervaecke estate filed both a federal estate tax return and a Nebraska estate tax return. The Vervaecke estate paid $122,472 in state estate taxes to the State of Nebraska.
On June 22, 1992, following an audit, the Internal Revenue Service notified the Vervaecke estate that the marital deduction on its federal return should be increased. This adjustment resulted in a federal estate tax refund to the estate of $703,691, together with interest in the amount of $143,332.86.
Nebraska's estate tax is computed as a percentage of the federal estate tax liability. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2101.01 (Cum.Supp.1994). Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2103 (Cum.Supp.1994) provides that if the amount of federal estate tax liability increases or decreases, the Nebraska estate tax shall be adjusted accordingly. A reduction in the federal estate tax entitled the Vervaecke estate to a reduction in its Nebraska estate tax liability.
The Vervaecke estate filed an amended Nebraska estate tax return claiming a refund in the amount of $117,652. The estate also calculated interest on the refund at 14 percent from August 30, 1990, the date of payment of the estate tax, to December 28 Section 77-2106.01 is silent as to interest on overpayment of taxes. In 1992, L.B. 1004 amended § 77-2106.01 to provide for interest as follows:
1992, the date of the refund, in the amount of $34,732.48.
When any amount of transfer tax [state estate tax] in excess of that legally due has been paid to the State Treasurer, the party making such overpayment or his or her successors or assigns shall be entitled to refund of such overpayment plus interest at the rate specified in section 45-104.01, as such rate may from time to time be adjusted by the Legislature.
(Emphasis supplied.) The effective date of L.B. 1004 was July 15, 1992.
On October 21, 1992, the State of Nebraska refunded to the Vervaecke estate $117,652 as an overpayment of Nebraska estate tax. On December 28, 1992, the State of Nebraska paid $4,196.76 in interest to the Vervaecke estate. The interest was calculated on the overpayment of $117,652 Nebraska estate tax from July 15, 1992, the effective date of L.B. 1004, which provided for interest, through December 28, 1992, the date of the refund.
The parties stipulated that the accepting and cashing of the State's warrant representing the interest refund would not constitute a waiver or estoppel to Vervaecke asserting his claim for interest from the date of the payment of the estate taxes through the effective date of L.B. 1004.
On July 1, 1993, Vervaecke brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that he is entitled to additional interest on the Nebraska estate tax refund from the date of payment, August 30, 1990, to July 15, 1992, at the rate of 14 percent per annum.
Both Vervaecke and the State filed motions for summary judgment. The district court sustained the State's motion and denied Vervaecke's motion. The district court determined that "in Nebraska, interest on claims against the state is allowable only when authorized by statute and that unless the [intent] and purpose of a legislative act show that it is to be applied retroactively, it applies prospectively only."
Vervaecke claims that the district court erred as a matter of law in granting the State's motion for summary judgment and in denying his motion for summary judgment.
In the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. No Frills Supermarket v. Nebraska Liq. Control Comm., 246 Neb. 822, 523 N.W.2d 528 (1994); State ex rel. Wieland v. Beermann, 246 Neb. 808, 523 N.W.2d 518 (1994). An appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Id.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 77-2101 (Cum.Supp.1994) provides that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omaha Public Power Dist. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue
...an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Vervaecke v. State, 247 Neb. 707, 529 N.W.2d 779 (1995); State ex rel. Perkins Cty. v. County Superintendent, 247 Neb. 573, 528 N.W.2d 340 (1995); In re Application of City o......
-
Union Ins. Co. v. Land and Sky, Inc.
... ... 7. Declaratory Judgments: Justiciable Issues. Declaratory judgment cannot be used to decide the legal effect of a state of facts which are future, contingent, or uncertain. There must, at the time that declaration is sought, be an actual justiciable issue ... ...
-
Keefe v. Glasford's Enterprises, Inc.
...inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Vervaecke v. State, 247 Neb. 707, 529 N.W.2d 779 (1995); Lewis v. Board of Comrs. of Loup Cty., 247 Neb. 655, 529 N.W.2d 745 FACTS On February 14, 1992, Keefe filed a petition......
-
Abboud v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources Dist.
...retrospectively are clearly disclosed. Proctor v. Minnesota Mut. Fire & Cas., 248 Neb. 289, 534 N.W.2d 326 (1995); Vervaecke v. State, 247 Neb. 707, 529 N.W.2d 779 (1995). When the Legislature amended § 76-711 so that it referred to § 45-104.02 for the interest rate to be applied to a conde......