William Coach v. Dundas Pratt
Citation | 35 S.Ct. 421,236 U.S. 562,59 L.Ed. 720 |
Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 149,149 |
Parties | WILLIAM McCOACH, Collector, etc., Petitioner, v. DUNDAS F. PRATT et al., Executors, etc |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Wallace and Solicitor General Davis for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 562-564 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Walter C. Noyes, H. T. Newcomb, and E. Hunn for respondents.
Whether a succession tax collected under §§ 29 and 30 of the act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 448, 464, chap. 448, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 6144), shall be refunded, is the matter here in controversy. The facts bearing upon its solution are these: Ferdinand J. Dreer, a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, died May 24, 1902, leaving a will directing that certain legacies be paid out of his personal estate to two sons and two grandchildren. The executors took charge of the property and proceeded to administer it under the supervision of the orphans' court, as the local law required, first for the benefit of the creditors and next for the benefit of the legatees. The former had a year within which to file their claims, and the latter were not entitled to demand payment of the legacies until that time expired, and then only in the event there was a residue available for the purpose. Jones's Appeal, 99 Pa. 124, 130; Rastaetter's Estate, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 549, 553-555. On July 1, 1902, a date the importance of which will be seen presently, less than two months of the prescribed year had passed, and whether there would be a residue for the payment of legacies was as yet undetermined. In July, 1903, the collector of internal revenue demanded of the executors a succession tax of $1,692.75 on account of the legacies, and the tax was paid under protest. Shortly thereafter the executors sought, in the appropriate way, to have the tax refunded, but the request was denied, and they then sued the collector to recover back the amount. In the circuit court the executors prevailed, and the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 119 C. C. A. 666, 201 Fed. 1021.
By § 29 of the act of 1898 an executor, administrator, or trustee having in charge a legacy or distributive share, exceeding $10,000 in actual value, arising from personal property, and passing from a decedent to another by will or intestate laws, was subjected to a tax graduated according to the value of the legacy or distributive share; but that section was repealed by the act of April 12, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 96, chap. 500, Comp.Stat. 1913, § 6144), with a qualification that the repeal should not be effective until July 1 following, and should not prevent the collection of any tax imposed prior to the latter date. Next came the act of June 27, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 406, chap. 1160), the 3d section of which reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Trantham
... 286 B.R. 650 ... In re William Farris TRANTHAM, Debtor ... Monsanto Company, Plaintiff, ... William ... ...
- Zohlman v. Zoldan, 98 Civ. 3592(WCC).
- In re Harmer, Bankruptcy No. 81C-03791
- In re Martin