Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

not borne its just proportion of taxes is | Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 44 reasonable in an inheritance tax stat

ute.

Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 51 L. ed. 310, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Plummer v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 138, 44 L. ed. 998, 1009, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U. S. 553, 562, 51 L. ed. 314, 318, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 542, 63 L. ed. 1124, 1132, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 227, 58 L. ed 1288, 1289, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. 199 U. S. 401, | 411, 50 L. ed. 246, 250, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 81, 55 L. ed. 369, 378, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1601; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 166, 57 L. ed. 164, 169, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 144, 58 L. ed. 539, 543, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 59 L. ed. 105, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Ft. Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, 251 U. S. 532, 534, 64 L. ed. 396, 399, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 609-611, 47 L. ed. 323, 327, 328, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 57 L. ed. 164, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66.

It is not correct to refer to this tax as a penalty.

Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U. S. 642, 651, 58 L. ed. 1135, 1138, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 667-669, 36 L. ed. 1123, 1127, 1128, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Southern R. Co. v. Bush, 122 Ala. 470, 26 So. 168; Southern R. Co. v. Decker, 5 Ga. App. 28, 62 S. E. 678; Re Kollock, 165 U. S. 526, 536, 41 L. ed. 813, 816, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444.

The tax is a lawful condition precedent to the granting of the privilege of inheritance.

1

L. ed. 998, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 540, 63 L. ed. 1124, 1131, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 189, 44 L. ed. 725, 729, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 633; Bradley v. Richmond, 227 U. S. 477, 480, 57 L. ed. 603, 604, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318; Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U. S. 114, 126, 54 L. ed. 688, 694, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 496; Ft. Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, 251 U. S. 532, 534, 64 L. ed. 396, 399, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Tanner v. Little, 240 U. S. 369, 385, 60 L. ed. 691, 702, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379;, Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22. Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Myles Salt Co. v. Iberian & St. M. Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A.1918E, 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204; Gast Realty & Invest. Co. V. Schneider Granite Co. 240 U. S. 55, 60 L. ed. 523, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 254; Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 484, 53 L. ed. 290, 293, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 535, 536, 56 L. ed. 299, 305, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 87, 95, 50 L. ed. 382, 388, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182; Penfold v. Travis, 248 U. S. 537, 63 L. ed. 409, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 21.

This court is not the harbor from illadvised, unequal, and oppressive legislation.

Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 704, 26 L. ed. 238, 242; Roach v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578, 583, 32 L. ed. 544, 546, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; New York ex rel. Metropolitan Street R. Co. v. New York State Tax Comrs. 199 U. S. 37, 50 L. ed. 75, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 705; Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 329331, 57 L. ed. 1213, 1214, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 623, 46 L. ed. 713, 720, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 58, 49 L. ed. 78, 96, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 167, 55 L. ed. 389, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342.

The tax must be upheld unless the classification is so palpably arbitrary as to exclude the conception of judgment and discretion, and to be beyond the pale of governmental authority.

Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 83, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; Re Delano, 176 N. Y. 491, 64 L.R.A. 279, 68 N. E. 871; Re White, 208 N. Y. 64, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 714, 101 N. E. 793, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 75; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 494, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 627, 41 L. ed. 287, 288, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Ar 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Magoun v. Illi-kansas, 235 U. S. 350, 367, 59 L. ed. 265, nois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 58, 44 L. ed. 969, 976, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747;

273, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 105, 196, 24 L. ed. 620; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 33 L. ed. 892, 895,

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the

10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Pacific Exp. Co. | 164, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Citizens' v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 351, 35 L. ed. Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 1035, 1039, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 328-331, 57 L. ed. 1206, 1212-1214, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Adams Exp. Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Miller v. Wilson, 236 Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 228, U. S. 373, 382, 59 L. ed. 628, 631, L.R.A. 41 L. ed. 683, 697, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; 1915F, 829, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsyl- Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wisvania, 167 U. S. 461, 464, 42 L. ed. 236, consin, 247 U. S. 132, 139, 62 L. ed. 237, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Magoun v. 1025, 1037, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444; MidIllinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. dleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. 249 283, 295, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1043, 18 Sup. U. S. 152, 157, 63 L. ed. 527, 531, 39 Ct. Rep. 594; Armour Packing Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Maxwell v. Bugbee, Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 235, 50 L. ed. 451, 250 U. S. 525, 539, 63 L. ed. 1124, 1131, 456, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Michigan C. 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Green v. Frazier, R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245, 293, 50 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. L. ed. 744, 761, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459; Rep. 499. Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 70, 57 L. ed. 730, 734, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. opinion of the court: Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 57 L. ed. 1206, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 143, 58 L. ed. 147, 158, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 204, 215, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1279, 1283, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 609, 47 L. ed. 323, 327, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. 111-118, 61 L. ed. 176-187, 37 Sup. Ct. Rp. 58; Cheney Bros. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 147, 156, 157, 62 L. ed. 632, 637, 638, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 295; Northwestern Mut, L. Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 247 U. S. 132, 139, 140, 62 L. ed. 1025, 1037, 1038, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444.

The New York Tax Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 60) provides (art. 1, § 9) that personal property shall be assessed and taxed to the owner at the place where he resides, but exempts (art. 15) from such taxation certain bonds and other obligations, called in the act "investments," on which there has been paid an optional tax at a lower rate, which payment is evidenced by a stamp affixed. The Tax Law also provides (art. 10) for an inheritance or transfer tax which varies, among other things, according to the relationship of the beneficiary to the decedent. By § 221b, Laws of 1917, chap. 700, § 2, an additional tax, equal to 5 per cent of the appraised value of the investment, is imposed on the transfer of investments held by the decedent at his death, on which neither the genThe decisions under the 14th Amend-eral property tax nor the stamp tax ment uphold the right of the state thus to classify and tax.

Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 33 L. ed. 892, 895, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 464, 42 L. ed. 236, 237, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 295, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1043, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 562, 43 L. ed. 552, 554, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 606, 33 L. ed. 1025, 1031, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592, 615, 43 L. ed. 823, 831, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245, 293, 302, 50 L. ed. 744, 761, 765, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 75, 55 L. ed. 369, 376, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 57 L. ed.

above described has been paid during a fixed period prior thereto, provided that the estate is larger than the exemptions to relatives and charities.

Watson, a resident of New York city, held, at his death in 1917, certain bonds on which neither the general property tax nor the stamp tax had been paid. The transfer tax appraiser, appointed by the surrogate's court, reported that there was payable by the executors in respect to those bonds the additional transfer tax prescribed by the Act of 1917. The surrogate disallowed the tax on the ground that the statute violated the state Constitution; and his decision was affirmed by the appellate [124] division of the supreme court (186 App. Div. 48, 174 N. Y. Supp. 19). The court of appeals of New York held that the act violated neither the state nor the Federal_Constitution (226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758); and the case comes here on writ of error.

The con

tention is that the tax imposed denies to | fication must be deducible from the Watson's estate equal protection of the nature of the things classified,-here laws. the right to receive property by devolution. It is enough, for instance, if the classification is reasonably founded in "the purposes and policy of taxation." Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 354, 35 L. ed. 1035, 1040, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 732, 47 L. ed. 669, 672, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 401; Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 136, 137, 58 L. ed. 147, 156, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; Farmers' & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 519, 529, 530, 58 L. ed. 706, 712, 713, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354. And what classification could be more reasonable than to distinguish, in imposing an inheritance or transfer tax, between property which had, during the decedent's life, borne its fair share of the tax burden, and that which had not?1

The occasion and the purpose of the statute are shown by the court of appeals. An owner of investments is not required either to list them for assessment locally under the General Property Tax Law, or to present them for stamping under the Investment Tax Law. Whether the investments of a resident are taxed during his life depends either upon his own will or upon the vigilance and discretion of the local assessors. This condition led to loss of revenue by the state, and to inequality in taxation among its citizens. To remedy both evils this additional transfer tax was imposed upon investments of a decedent which had wholly escaped taxation. It is insisted that the tax is discriminatory because under it other property of the same kind, bequeathed to persons standing in the same relationship to the decedent, will not be taxed. But the power to classify for purposes of taxation is fully established. The executors admit, as they must, that a classification is reasonable if made with respect to the kind of property transferred; or, to the amount or value of property transferred; or, to the relationship of the transferees; or, to the character of the transferee, for instance, as engaged in charity. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 300, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1045, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97, 47 L. ed. 400, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 87, 50 L. ed. 382, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182. But their list does not exhaust the possibilities of legal classification. See Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 484, 53 L. ed. 290, 293, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; Keeney v. New York, 222 1 Connecticut (Gen. Stat. 1918, § 1190) U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) and Louisiana (Const. 1898, arts. 235, 236; 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Maxwell v. Act 45 of 1904) also impose a special inBugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 heritance tax on the transfer of property Sup. Ct. Rep. 2. Compare New York ex which has not borne its share of taxation rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 51 during a period prior to the owner's death. L. ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. The latter statute has been frequently beCas. 736. Any classification is permis- 377, 385, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1180, 39 So. 37, fore the courts (Levy's Succession, 115 La. sible which has a reasonable relation to 5 Ann. Cas. 871, affirmed in Cahen v. Brewsome permitted end of governmental ac- ster, 203 U. S. 543, 51 L. ed. 310, 27 Sup. tion. It [125] is not necessary, as Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Pritchard's the plaintiff in error seems to con- Succession, 118 La. 883, 43 So. 537; Westtend, that the basis of the classi-feldt's Succession, 122 La. 836, 48 So. 287).' 65 L. ed.

It does not follow, as is also argued, that the act in question imposes a property tax, merely because its existence may induce owners of investments to present them for taxation under the Investment Tax Law. Nor is it to be deemed a law imposing a penalty merely because the decedent's estate may, under it, be required to pay more in taxes than the deceased would have paid if he had presented his property for taxation under the Investment Tax Law. Whether this additional transfer tax would be obnoxious to the 14th Amendment if it could be deemed a property tax or a penalty, we have no occasion to consider.

The judgment of the Surrogate's Court, entered on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals of New York, is affirmed.

175,

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:

10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Pacific Exp. Co. | 164, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Citizens' v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339, 351, 35 L. ed. Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 1035, 1039, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 328-331, 57 L. ed. 1206, 1212-1214, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Adams Exp. Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Miller v. Wilson, 236 Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 228, U. S. 373, 382, 59 L. ed. 628, 631, L.R.A. 41 L. ed. 683, 697, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; 1915F, 829, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsyl- Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wisvania, 167 U. S. 461, 464, 42 L. ed. 236, consin, 247 U. S. 132, 139, 62 L. ed. 237, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Magoun v. 1025, 1037, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444; MidIllinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. dleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. 249 283, 295, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1043, 18 Sup. U. S. 152, 157, 63 L. ed. 527, 531, 39 Ct. Rep. 594; Armour Packing Co. v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Maxwell v. Bugbee, Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 235, 50 L. ed. 451, 250 U. S. 525, 539, 63 L. ed. 1124, 1131, 456, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Michigan C. 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Green v. Frazier, R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245, 293, 50 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. Ct. L. ed. 744, 761, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459; Rep. 499. Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 70, 57 L. ed. 730, 734, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Citizens' Teleph. Co. v. Fuller, 229 U. S. 322, 57 L. ed. 1206, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 143, 58 L. ed. 147, 158, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 204, 215, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1279, 1283, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 609, 47 L. ed. 323, 327, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. 111-118, 61 L. ed. 176-187, 37 Sup. Ct. Rp. 58; Cheney Bros. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 147, 156, 157, 62 L. ed. 632, 637, 638, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 295; Northwestern Mut, L. Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 247 U. S. 132, 139, 140, 62 L. ed. 1025, 1037, 1038, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444.

The New York Tax Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 60) provides (art. 1, § 9) that personal property shall be assessed and taxed to the owner at the place where he resides, but exempts (art. 15) from such taxation certain bonds and other obligations, called in the act "investments," on which there has been paid an optional tax at a lower rate, which payment is evidenced by a stamp affixed. The Tax Law also provides (art. 10) for an inheritance or transfer tax which varies, among other things, according to the relationship of the beneficiary to the decedent. By 221b, Laws of 1917, chap. 700, § 2, an additional tax, equal to 5 per cent of the appraised value of the investment, is imposed on the transfer of investments held by the decedent at his death, on which neither the genThe decisions under the 14th Amend-eral property tax nor the stamp tax ment uphold the right of the state thus to classify and tax.

Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237, 33 L. ed. 892, 895, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 464, 42 L. ed. 236, 237, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 295, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1043, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 562, 43 L. ed. 552, 554, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 606, 33 L. ed. 1025, 1031, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592, 615, 43 L. ed. 823, 831, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245, 293, 302, 50 L. ed. 744, 761, 765, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 459; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 75, 55 L. ed. 369, 376, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 57 L. ed.

above described has been paid during a fixed period prior thereto, provided that the estate is larger than the exemptious to relatives and charities.

Watson, a resident of New York city, held, at his death in 1917, certain bonds on which neither the general property tax nor the stamp tax had been paid. The transfer tax appraiser, appointed by the surrogate's court, reported that there was payable by the executors in respect to those bonds the additional transfer tax prescribed by the Act of 1917. The surrogate disallowed the tax on the ground that the statute violated the state Constitution; and his decision was affirmed by the appellate [124] division of the supreme court (186 App. Div. 48, 174 N. Y. Supp. 19). court of appeals of New York held that the act violated neither the state nor the Federal Constitution (226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758); and the case comes here on writ of error.

The

The con

tention is that the tax imposed denies to | fication must be deducible from the Watson's estate equal protection of the nature of the things classified,-here laws. the right to receive property by devoThe occasion and the purpose of the lution. It is enough, for instance, if statute are shown by the court of ap- the classification is reasonably foundpeals. An owner of investments is not ed in "the purposes and policy of required either to list them for assess- taxation." Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, ment locally under the General Prop- 142 U. S. 339, 354, 35 L. ed. 1035, erty Tax Law, or to present them for 1040, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 810, 12 stamping under the Investment Tax Sup. Ct. Rep. 250; Kidd v. Alabama, 188 Law. Whether the investments of a U. S. 730, 732, 47 L. ed. 669, 672, 23 Sup. resident are taxed during his life de- Ct. Rep. 401; Clement Nat. Bank v. pends either upon his own will or upon Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 136, 137, 58 L. the vigilance and discretion of the local ed. 147, 156, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; Farmassessors. This condition led to loss of ers' & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 revenue by the state, and to inequality U. S. 519, 529, 530, 58 L. ed. 706, 712, in taxation among its citizens. To rem- 713, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354. And what edy both evils this additional transfer classification could be more reasonable tax was imposed upon investments of a than to distinguish, in imposing an indecedent which had wholly escaped tax- heritance or transfer tax, between propation. It is insisted that the tax is dis- erty which had, during the decedent's criminatory because under it other prop- life, borne its fair share of the tax burerty of the same kind, bequeathed to den, and that which had not ?1 persons standing in the same relationship to the decedent, will not be taxed. But the power to classify for purposes of taxation is fully established. The executors admit, as they must, that a classification is reasonable if made with respect to the kind of property transferred; or, to the amount or value of property transferred; or, to the relationship of the transferees; or, to the character of the transferee, for instance, as engaged in charity. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 300, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1045, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97, 47 L. ed. 400, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 87, 50 L. ed. 382, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182. But their list does not exhaust the possibilities of legal classification. See Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 484, 53 L. ed. 290, 293, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186; Keeney v. New York, 222 1 Connecticut (Gen. Stat. 1918, § 1190) U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) and Louisiana (Const. 1898, arts. 235, 236; 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Maxwell v. Act 45 of 1904) also impose a special inBugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 heritance tax on the transfer of property Sup. Ct. Rep. 2. Compare New York ex which has not borne its share of taxation rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 51 during a period prior to the owner's death. L. ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. The latter statute has been frequently beCas. 736. Any classification is permis-fore the courts (Levy's Succession, 115 La. 377, 385, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1180, 39 So. 37, sible which has a reasonable relation to 5 Ann. Cas. 871, affirmed in Cahen v. Brewsome permitted end of governmental ac-ster, 203 U. S. 543, 51 L. ed. 310, 27 Sup. tion. It [125] is not necessary, as Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Pritchard's the plaintiff in error seems to con- Succession, 118 La. 883, 43 So. 537; Westtend, that the basis of the classi- feldt's Succession, 122 La. 836, 48 So. 287). 65 L. ed. 175

It does not follow, as is also argued, that the act in question imposes a property tax, merely because its existence may induce owners of investments to present them for taxation under the Investment Tax Law. Nor is it to be deemed a law imposing a penalty merely because the decedent's estate may, under it, be required to pay more in taxes than the deceased would have paid if he had presented his property for taxation under the Investment Tax Law. Whether this additional transfer tax would be obnoxious to the 14th Amendment if it could be deemed a property tax or a penalty, we have no occasion to consider.

The judgment of the Surrogate's Court, entered on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals of New York, is affirmed.

« ForrigeFortsett »