Williams v. Inhabitants of Brookline
| Decision Date | 04 January 1907 |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 779,194 Mass. 44 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. INHABITANTS OF BROOKLINE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Frank M. Forbush and Holland Bennett, for appellants.
Wm. D. Turner, for appellee.
The death of Williams dissolved the partnership in every other respect except that his share of the capital was to remain in the business for two years, the surviving partner to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. This was not a provision for the continuation of the business by the executor of the deceased partner, and there is much to be said in favor of the view that the intention of the parties was that the interest of the deceased partner should be regarded merely as a loan to the firm. But however that may be, there can be no doubt that by the agreement of May, 1904, the relation of partnership between the surviving partners and the estate was entirely severed, and that the sum due had taken the form of a debt owing from the surviving partners. It is the same in result as though the sum due the estate had been paid to the petitioners and then lent by them to the firm. That was the substance of the transaction.
It is said by the petitioners that this leads to double taxation,--a result which it is said courts are slow to reach. But the answer is that the taxation of a debt, especially where the debtor has property enough to pay, generally results in double taxation; and while it is true that in cases of debts secured by mortgages on taxable real estate the Legislature has made provision to relieve to some extent from double taxation, there still stands liability to double taxation in other kinds of debts.
Under the circumstances of this case we think that the question whether the tax is invalid by reason of being assessed to the petitioners as executors rather than as trustees is not open to the petitioners. They are executors and trustees under the will, and seem to have considered this property as held by themselves as executors, and so represented to the assessors. It is not a case where the property is not taxable, as in Milford Water Co. v. Hopkinton (Mass.) 78 N.E. 451.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malden Trust Co. v. Brooks (In re Ball's Estate)
...amount [291 Mass. 277]received on account of the indebtedness of the partnership to the estate (see Williams v. Inhabitants of Brookline, 194 Mass. 44, 79 N. E. 779) on the so called surplus account. The propriety of the transaction is attacked in this proceeding. This proceeding is a petit......
-
Malden Trust Co. v. Brooks
... ... received on account of the indebtedness of the partnership to ... the estate (see Williams v. Inhabitants of ... Brookline, 194 Mass. 44, 79 N.E. 779) on the so called ... surplus ... ...
-
Dead River Co. v. Assessors of Houlton
...therefore not taxable in Milford Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Hopkinton, 192 Mass. 491, 78 N.E. 451. However, in Williams v. Inhabitants of Brookline, 194 Mass. 44, 79 N.E. 779, the court seems to accept the principle of estoppel as applicable under some circumstances in these 'Under the cir......
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...in theory not infrequently results from the taxation of a debt as well as of the property by which it is secured. Williams v. Brookline, 194 Mass. 44, 46, 79 N. E. 779. We incline to the view that no provision of the Constitution of the Commonwealth would be violated by such a tax as is des......