Harvard Law Review (Volume 34)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 Excerpt: ... well fixed to be dislodged. It has been well held, however, that it be strictly confined to cases where the new promissor receives a consideration that moves directly and tangibly to himself. Richardson Press v. Albright, 224 N. Y. 497, 121 N. E. 362; Curtis v. Brown, 5 Cush. 488. Taxation--Inheritance Tax--Deduction Of Federal Tax Before Computing State Tax.--An estate was appraised according to the Pennsylvania Transfer Tax Act which provides that no deduction whatsoever shall be allowed for or on account of any taxes paid on such estate to the Government of the United States... (1919 Pa. P. L. 521.) Held, that this provision is void as imposing a tax on that which is not subject to the jurisdiction. Smith's Estate, 77 Leg. Intell. 776 (Pa.). Under state statutes with no specific provision as to the deduction of other inheritance taxes New York-and Wisconsin do not deduct the federal estate tax before computing the state tax. Matter of Sherman, 179 App. Div. 497, 166 N. Y. Supp. 19, aff'd, 222 N. Y. 540, 118 N. E. 1078; Week's Estate, 169 Wis. 316, 172 N. W. 732. Under similar statutes the other states allow the deduction. People v. Pasfield, 284 111. 450, 120 N. E. 286; State v. Probate Court, 139 Minn. 210, 166 N. W. 125. The difference is one of statutory construction. By the majority view the state statute is said to tax only the right of the beneficiaries to receive, and so to exclude the amount of the federal tax which cannot pass to them. Corbin v. Toumsend. 92 Conn. 501, 103 Atl. 647; Roebling's Estate, 89 N. J. Eq. 163,104 Atl. 295. This reasoning is too plausible. It equally requires the deduction of the state tax, an obviously absurd result. The real reason is to avoid the injustice and inequalities of duplicate taxation, but these...