Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

157 U. S. 429, 557, 39 L. ed. 759, 810, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, 369, 370, 48 L. ed. 481, 483, 484, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 221, 227, 64 L. ed. 871, 10 A.L.R. 1504, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 544, 19 L. ed. 482, 486; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 205, 206, 64 L. ed. 521, 528, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 519, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 793, 794, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Pierce v. United States, 232 U. S. 290, 291, 58 L. ed. 609, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 59, 44 L. ed. 969, 977, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. The exaction lacks the essential characteristics of an excise tax, as it affects the estate of every decedent; it does not rest upon any right or privilege, and the demand is absolute and unavoidable.

South Carolina v. United States, 39 Ct. Cl. 286, affirmed in 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 793, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 293, 45 L. ed. 862, 866, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Thomas v. United States, 192 U. S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 58 L. ed. 596, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Pierce v. United States, 232 U. S. 290, 291, 58 L. ed. 609, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; United States v. Goelet, 232 U. S. 293, 58 L. ed. 610, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; United States v. Bennett, 232 U. S. 299, 58 L. ed. 612, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed. 99; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 441, 446, 38 L. ed. 773, 776, 778, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 664, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 617, 618, 46 L. ed. 713, 718, 719, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. MeClain, 192 U. S. 397, 401, 403, 48 L. ed. 496, 498, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376; Eliot v. Freeman, 220 U. S. 178, 187, 55 L. ed. 424, 428, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 360; United States v. Whitridge, 231 U. S. 144, 147, 58 L. ed. 159, 161, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway Co. 239 U. S. 69, 72, 60 L. ed. 152, 154, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17.

The exaction is a tax upon property by reason of its ownership.

Re Swift, 137 N. Y. 85, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. 1096; United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, 629, 41 L. ed. 287, 288, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Re Vanderbilt, 172 N. Y. 74, 64 N. E. 782; Re Keeney, 194 N. Y. 285, 87 N. E. 428, affirmed in 222 U. S. 525, 56 L. ed. 299, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 20 U. S. 107, 163, 164, 55 L. ed. 389, 418, 419, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Hanson, Death Duties, 4th ed. p. 63; Atty. Gen. v. Beech, [1899] A. C. 53, 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 130, 63 J. P. 116, 47 Week. Rep. 257, 79 L. T. N. S. 565, 15 Times L. R. 85; Winans v. Atty. Gen. [1910] A. C. 27, 79 L. J. K. B. N. S. 156, 101 L. T. N. S. 754, 26 Times L. R. 133, 54 Sol. Jo. 133, 47 Scot. L. R. 593; People v. Pasfield, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. E. 286; Roebling's Estate, 89 N. J. Eq. 166, 104 Atl. 295; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 158 U. S. 601, 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912; Gallatin, Sketch of Finances of United States, published in 1796; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 19, 60 L. ed. 493, 502, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B 713; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 205, 64 L. ed. 521, 528, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747.

The words "the transfer of," in the phrase, "is hereby imposed upon the transfer of the net estate of every decedent," are of no effect, and cannot overcome the actual character of the exaction.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 145, 55 L. ed. 389, 411, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372, 376, 23 L. ed. 657, 660; Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238, 244, 24 L. ed. 118, 122; Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 29 L. ed. 414, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 80, 83, 44 L. ed. 969, 985, 986, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605, 611, 47 L. ed. 614, 616, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Kansas City Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Botkin, 240 U. S. 227, 231, 235, 60 L. ed. 617, 618, 620, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Wagner v. Covington, 251 U. S. 95, 102, 64 L. ed. 157, 167, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v.

The exaction complained of is a mere unjustifiable taking of private property without due process of law.

State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 321, 21 L. ed. 179, 187; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 283, 42 L. ed. 710, 747, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45, 38 L. ed. 896, 901, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1108; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. ed. 443, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. 324, 344, 45 L. ed. 879, 889, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 384, 385, 45 L. ed. 900, 906, 907, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241, 256, 51 L. ed. 461, 472, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Phillip Wagner v. Leser, 239 U.. S. 207, 220, 60 L. ed. 230, 237, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 24, 25 60 L. ed. 493, 504, L.R.A.1917D 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Green v. Frazier, 253 U. S. 233, 238, 239, 64 L. ed. 878, 881, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499.

Taxpayers are entitled to a liberal construction of § 203.

Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. | Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 64 L. ed. 887, 11 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; St. A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362, 59 L. ed. 265, 271, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661, 31 L. ed. 205, 210, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 444, 6 L. ed. 678, 687; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. 435, 10 L. ed. 1022; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, 174, 16 L. ed. 644, 646; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745; Northern C. R. Co. v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262, 19 L. ed. 88; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 268, 23 L. ed. 543, 547; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 568, 24 L. ed. 1015; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas. 105 U. S. 460, 465, 26 L. ed. 1067, 1068; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, 135, 29 L. ed. 830, 831, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1201, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty-Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 552, 31 L. ed. 790, 794, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 62 L. 961; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 649, 32 ed. 211, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63; Vanhorne L. ed. 311, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 134, 8 v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, 316, 1 L. ed. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1389; Postal Teleg. Cable 391, 396, Fed. Cas. No. 16,857; United Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698, 39 L. States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 504, 21 ed. 311, 316, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 1, 15 L. ed. 728, 730; Tennessee v. Whitworth, Sup. Ct. Rep. 268, 360; Chicago, B. & 117 U. S. 129, 137, 29 L. ed. 830, 832, Q. R. Co. v Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645; Hartranft v. Wieg41 L. ed. 979, 984, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581;|mann, 121 U. S. 609, 30 L. ed. 1012, 7 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 527, 42; L. ed. 819, 842, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 516, 43 L. ed. 786, 792, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 296, 45 L. ed. 862, 868, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, 15 Am. Crim. Rep. 135; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 59, 49 L. ed. 78, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U. S. 210, 226, 53 L. ed. 150, 158, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 54 L. ed. 378, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 16, 60 L. ed. 493, 501, L.R.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U. S. 625, 630, 631, 60 L. ed. 830, 835, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 55, 64 L. ed. 445, 457, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 221; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Evans v.

Sup. Ct. Rep. 1240; Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38, 55, 48 L. ed. 331, 338, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 35 L. ed. 821, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Treat v. White, 181 U. S. 264, 267, 45 L. ed. 853, 854, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 578, 583, 46 L. ed. 697, 701, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 515; Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223, 233, 63 L. ed. 573, 576, 2 A.L.R. 1601, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270; Edwards v. Wabash R. Co. C. C. A., 264 Fed. 618; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 373, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Re Ullmann, 263 Ill. 530, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1075, 105 N. E. 292, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 321; Martin L. Hall Co. v. Com. 215 Mass. 329, 102 N. E. 364; Atty-Gen. v. Clark, 222 Mass. 294, L.R.A.1916C, 679, 110 N. E. 299, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 119; Hill v. Treasurer, 229 Mass. 475, L.R.A.1918D, 337, 118 N. E. 891; Re Cooley, 186 N. Y. 220, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1010, 78 N. E. 939; State

ex rel. Pettit v. Probate Ct. 137 Minn. | equality and injustice, and should be 239, L.R.A.1917F, 436, 163 N. W. 285; avoided. Torrance v. Edwards, 89 N. J. L. 510, 99 Atl. 136; Re Enston, 113 N. Y. 177, 3 L.R.A. 464, 21 N. E. 87; Re Vassar, 127 N. Y. 12, 27 N. E. 394; Re Fayerweather, 143 N. Y. 119, 38 N. E. 278; Smith v. Browning, 225 N. Y. 358, 122 N. E. 217; English v. Crenshaw, 120 Tenn. 539, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 753, 127 Am. St. Rep. 1025, 110 S. W. 210; Crenshaw v. Moore, 124 Tenn. 531, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1161, 137 S. W. 924, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 165; Re Bullen, 47 Utah, 102, L.R.A.1916C, 670, 151 Pac. 533; Schoolfield v. Lynchburg, 78 Va. 373; Re Curtis, 88 Vt. 449, 92 Atl. 965.

It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.

United States v. Goelet, 232 U. S. 293, 58 L. ed. 610, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; People ex rel. Savings Bank v. Coleman, 135 N. Y. 235, 31 N. E. 1022; Re James, 144 N. Y. 11, 38 N. E. 961; Randolph v. Craig, 267 Fed. 995; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Re Curtis, 142 N. Y. 219, 36 N. E. 887; Lederer v. Pearce, A.L.R. C. C. A. -, 266 Fed. 497; Northern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 77, 44 L. ed. 969, 984, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486, 19 L. ed. 278, 280; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401, 60 L. ed. 1061, 1064, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 220, 64 L. ed. 229, 235, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139; Baender v. Barnett, 255 U. S. 224, ante, 597, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271.

If the right to deduct the New York transfer tax is to be determined by the special character of that tax, it will be found to be a necessary deduction; but it is not possible to believe that Congress intended that § 203 should be so narrow as to require minute inquiry concerning the theoretical character of the death duties of more than forty states, thus varying the practical results of the tax in different regions, and permitting the deduction to certain estates and forbidding it to others.

Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152, 27 L. ed. 431, 432, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 477, 6 L. ed. 693, 698; Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 How. 251, 261, 14 L. ed. 925, 930; United States v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 505, 506, 21 L. ed. 728, 731; Eyster v. Centennial Bd. of Finance, 94 U. S. 500, 24 L. ed. 188; Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 25 L. ed. 782; United States v. Landram, 118 U. S. 81, 30 L. ed. 58, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 954; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 35 L. ed. 821, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, Sayre v. Brewster, 268 Fed. 553; 670, 671, 32 L. ed. 1060, 1063, 1064, 9 United States v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625, Sup. Ct. Rep. 651; Bernier v. Bernier, 41 L. ed. 287, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Re 147 U. S. 242, 245, 37 L. ed. 152, 154, Merriam, 141 N. Y. 479, 36 N. E. 505; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244; Stephens v. Cher- Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; okee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 479, 43 L. Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. ed. 1041, 1053, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Re Swift, Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, 110, 46 137 N. Y. 83, 18 L.R.A. 709, 32 N. E. L. ed. 1070, 1078, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 776; 1096; Re Meyer, 209 N. Y. 391, L.R.A. United States ex. rel. Parish v. Mac- 1915C, 615, 103 N. E. 713, Ann. Cas. Veagh, 214 U. S. 124, 53 L. ed. 936, 1915A, 263; Re Zborowski, 213 N. Y. 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; Flint v. Stone 111, 107 N. E. 44; Re White, 208 N. Y. Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 145, 55 L. ed. 67, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 714, 101 N. E. 793, 389, 411, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Ann. Cas. 1914D, 75; Re Delano, 176 N. Cas. 1912B, 1312; United States v. Ben-Y. 495, 64 L.R.A. 279, 68 N. E. 871; Re nett, 232 U. S. 299, 302, 303, 58 L. ed. 612, 614, 615, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 217, 64 L. ed. 229, 234, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139.

Congress intended to impose the tax in respect of only so much of a decedent's estate as should pass to those beneficially entitled. Any other interpretation would result in profound in

Dows, 167 N. Y. 230, 52 L.R.A. 433, 88 Am. St. Rep. 508, 60 N. E. 439; Re Sherman, 153 N. Y. 3, 46 N. E. 1032; Re Hamilton, 148 N. Y. 313, 42 N. E. 717; Re Cullum, 145 N. Y. 593, 40 N. E. 163; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 290, 291, 42 L. ed. 1037, 1041, 1042, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 54, 44 L. ed. 969, 975, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Plummer

v. Coler, 178 U. S. 115, 129, 130, 44 L. | H. 13, 139 Am. St. Rep. 664, 70 Atl. ed. 998, 1006, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 543, 550, 551, 51 L. ed. 310, 313, 314, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Keeney v. New York, 222 U. S. 525, 533, 56 L. ed. 299, 304, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Peterson v. Iowa, 245 U. S. 170, 175, 62 L. ed. 225, 228, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109; Prentiss v. Eisner, C. C. A., 267 Fed. 16, affirming 260 Fed. 589; First Trust & Sav. Bank v. Smietanka, C. C. A. 268 Fed. 233.

[ocr errors]

Death duties paid in states other than the state of domicil are paid in respect of the universal succession of personal representatives, and must, therefore, be charges against the estate, within the meaning of § 203.

Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Carr v. Edwards, 84 N. J. L. 667, 87 Atl. 132; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Bullard v. Redwood Library, 37 R. I. 113, 91 Atl. 30; Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 506, 103 Atl. 647; Callahan v. Woodbridge, 171 Mass. 597, 51 N. E. 176; Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 209, 53 N. É. 372; Kingsbury v. Bazeley, 75 N. H. 18, 139 Am. St. Rep. 664, 70 Atl. 916, 20 Ann. Cas. 1355; Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. 179; Coleman's Estate, 159 Pa. 233, 28 Atl. 137; Lewis's Estate, 203 Pa. 215, 52 Atl. 205; Van Beil's Estate, 257 Pa. 156, 101 Atl. 316.

The enactment, as part of the Revenue Act of 1918, of an express prohibition of deductions of the sort here claimed, indicates that Congress considered that the previous statute, which is now before the court, permitted the deduction. Cole v. Ralph, 252 U. S. 286, 294, 64 L. ed. 567, 576, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; Pearce v. Lederer, 262 Fed. 995; Dixon v. Russell, 79 N. J. L. 490, 76 Atl. 982; Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. 233 Mass. 474, 7 A.L.R. 696, 124 N. E. 265; Re Miller, 110 N. Y. 216, 18 N. E. 139, Re Enston, 113 N. Y. 183, 3 L.R.A. 464, 21 N. E. 87; Re Romaine, 127 N. Y. 84, 12 L.R.A. 401, 27 N. E. 759; Re Hoffman, 143 N. Ý. 331, 38 N. E. 311; Re Harbeck, 161 N. Y. 218, 55 N. E. 850.

The diversion to a state of part of the property of estates by means of death duties is pro tanto a denial of the right or privilege to transmit from the dead to the living, and Congress is without power to impose a tax in respect of the denial of any privilege.

Senff v. Edwards, 85 N. J. L. 69, 88 Atl. 1026; Kingsbury v. Bazeley, 75 N.

916, 20 Ann. Cas. 1355; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 47 L. ed. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Howell v. Edwards, 88 N. J. L. 134, 96 Atl. 186; Mann v. Carter, 74 N. H. 345, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 150, 68 Atl. 130; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299, 39 L.R.A. 170, 51 Pac. 267; State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294, 3 L.R.A. 372, 17 Atl. 82; Re Stanford, 126 Cal. 112, 45 L.R.A. 788, 58 Pac. 462; Warner v. Corbin, 91 Conn. 532, 100 Atl. 354; Hopkins's Appeal, 77 Conn. 644, 60 Atl. 657; Corbin v. Baldwin, 92 Conn. 99, 101 Atl. 834, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 932; Re Martin, 153 Cal. 225, 94 Pac. 1053; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 521, 43 L. ed. 786, 793, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 305, 57 L. ed. 842, 846, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 280, 58 L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Knights Templars' & M. Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 187 U. S. 197, 205, 47 L. ed. 139, 145, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108; Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U. S. 407, 422, 53 L. ed. 253, 264, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 497, 53 L. ed. 836, 848, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 175, 56 L. ed. 390, 393, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 310; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 414, 58 L. ed. 285, 291, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; United States v. Bennett, 232 U. S. 299, 303, 304, 58 L. ed. 612, 614, 615, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; United States v. Standard Brewery, 251 U. S. 210, 220, 64 L. ed. 229, 235, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139; Baender v. Barnett, 255 U. S. 224, ante, 597, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271.

Mr. John B. Gleason, by special leave, argued the cause and filed a brief for the Comptroller of the State of New York:

The estate tax is void if its necessary effect is to make a deduction from the estate or from the transfer prior to the imposition of the state transfer tax, or if the state tax must be adjusted.

Re Bierstadt, 178 App. Div. 836, 166 N. Y. Supp. 168; Re Sherman, 179 App. Div. 497, 166 N. Y. Supp. 19, affirmed without opinion in 222 N. Y. 540, 118 N. E. 1078; Re Penfold, 216 N. Y. 163, 110 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 783; Re Gihon, 169 N. Y. 443, 62 N. E. 561.

The tax is upon the transfer of the net estate to the beneficiaries, and is paid by them or for their account proportionately; for no one else has any money to pay it.

Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Gleason v. Thaw, 236 U. S. 558, 59 L. ed. 717, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287.

If the tax is an estate tax, it is void as a regulation of the transfer, and as a tax on property without apportion

ment.

Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, Campbell's ed. ¶¶ 572, 573, 1056, 1094, 1103; Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 63 L. ed. 1124, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2; Re Watson, 226 N. Y. 384, 123 N. E. 758; Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 250, 47 L. ed. 1035, 1036, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803.

Mr. J. Weston Allen, Attorney General of Massachusetts, by special leave, argued the cause and filed a brief for the commonwealth of Massachusetts as

amicus curiæ:

The Federal estate tax cannot be sustained upon the grounds on which the succession taxes were sustained in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, 23 L. ed. 99.

Corbin v. Townshend, 92 Conn. 501, 103 Atl. 647; Knight's Estate, 261 Pa. 537, 104 Atl. 765; People v. Pasfield, 284 Ill. 450, 120 N. E. 286; State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Ct. 139 Minn. 210, 166 N. W. 125; People v. Bemis, 68 Colo. 48, 189 Pac. 32; State v. First Calumet Trust & Sav. Bank, - Ind. App. —, 125 N. E. 200; Northern Trust Co. v. Lederer, 257 Fed. 812, affirmed in C. C. A. 262 Fed. 52; Re Miller, Cal. -, 16 A.L.R. 694, 195 Pac. 413; Woodward v. United States (March 14, 1921, Ct. Cl.); Hanson, Death Duties, 6th ed. pp. 1, 2.

The several states possess the exclusive power to regulate and control the descent and distribution of property.

Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493, 12 L. ed. 1168, 1170; United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55, 52 L. ed. 95, 109, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 685, 24 L. ed. 558, 559; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 550, 23 L. ed. 588, 590; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 124, 20 L. ed. 122, 125.

The Federal estate tax imposed by the Act of September 8, 1916, is, in its operation and effect, an invasion of the sovereign power of the states to regulate the descent and distribution of property of decedents.

Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 56, 65, 54 L. ed. 378, 385, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 214, 29 L. ed. 158, 165, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 30 L. ed. 1200, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1118; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 6 L. ed. 678; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, 24 L. ed. 1015; Ludwig v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 216 U. S. 146, 162, 54 L. ed. 423, 429, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 27, 54 L. ed. 355, 366, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456, 15 L. ed. 127; Orr v. Gilman, 183 U. S. 278, 285, 46 L. ed. 196, 200, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; Strode v. Com. 52 Pa. 181; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 456, 50 L. ed. 261, 267, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737.

The Federal estate tax is a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional because not apportioned in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Constitution.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 89, 44 L. ed. 969, 988, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Thomas v. United States, 192 C. S. 363, 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522; South Carolina v. United States, 39 Ct. Cl. 257, affirmed in 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; MeCoach v Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U. S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 43 L. ed. 60, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U S. 217, 227, 52 L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; State ex rel. Garth v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 40 L.R.A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653, 45 S. W. 245; Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. 255 U. S. 288, ante, 638, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, No. 21.

Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney Gen

« ForrigeFortsett »