Walsh v. Hall

• Decision Date: 08 November 1944
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WALSH v. HALL et al.

131 Conn. 345

39 A.2d 889

WALSH

v.HALL et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 8, 1944.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Quinlan, Judge.

Proceedings by Walter W. Walsh, Tax Commissioner, against Etta N. Hall, administratrix of the estate of Anne Molner, deceased, and others, for determination of the tax due on certain joint accounts of deceased. An appeal from a decree of the probate court for the District of Norwalk determining the tax due was brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

George R. Tiernan, Inheritance Tax Atty., of New Haven, Francis A. Pallotti, Atty. Gen., and Frederic W. Dauch, Deputy Tax Commissioner, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Douglas A. Finkelstone, Lawrence S. Finkelstone, and George N. Finkelstone, all of Bridgeport, and John Keogh, of South Norwalk, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

Anne Molner died intestate on May 19, 1943, at the age of sixty-nine after an illness of one week. She was in good health up to a short time before her death. Between 1939 and 1943 she created six joint savings bank accounts, aggregating nearly thirty thousand dollars, naming various relatives as joint owners. She had contributed all of this money. The smallest account was established in 1939; four, which accounted for the bulk of the sum named, were established in 1940, and one on January 5, 1943. She retained the books and, except in the case of the smallest account, withdrew the interest as it accrued until her death. Before her death, only one of the survivors knew of the transfer of the accounts to their joint names.

On these facts the trial court concluded that the defendant retained no life estate in any of the accounts, that the several transfers were intended to take effect immediately on the creation of the accounts and that they were taxable under General Statutes Sup.1941, § 184f, rather than under General Statutes, Cum.Sup.1939, § 395e(d), as claimed by the plaintiff.

The defendant admits that the accounts are taxable under § 184f as joint savings bank accounts. This provides for the taxation of the right of the survivor or survivors to the immediate ownership or possession and enjoyment of property held in the joint names of two or more persons, and it contains a provision that it shall not be construed to prevent the taxability in whole or in part under § 395e(c) or (d) of any property held in the names of two or more persons, specifically including joint savings bank accounts. Section 395e(d) provides that even such accounts shall be taxed fully if they were intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after the death of the transferor. It goes on to say ‘Such a transfer as last mentioned shall include, among other things, a transfer under which the decedent retained for his life, or for any period not ascertainable without reference to his death, or for a period of such duration as to evidence an intention that he should retain for...