Transfer Taxes (Inheritance, Estate, Gift Taxes).—Being competent to regulate exercise of the power of testamentary disposition and the privilege of inheritance, a State may base its succession taxes upon either the transmission, or an exercise of the legal power of transmission, of property by will or by descent, or the enjoyment of the legal privilege of taking property by devise or descent.[514] But whatever may be the justification of their power to levy such taxes, States have consistently found themselves restricted by the rule, established as to property taxes in 1905 in Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky,[515] and subsequently reiterated in Frick v. Pennsylvania[516] in 1925, which precludes imposition of transfer taxes upon tangible personal property by any State other than the one in which such tangibles are permanently located or have an actual situs. In the case of intangibles, however, the States have been harassed by the indecision of the Supreme Court; for to an even greater extent than is discernible in its treatment of property taxes on intangibles, it has oscillated in upholding, then rejecting, and again currently sustaining the levy by more than one State of death taxes upon intangibles comprising the estate of a decedent.
Until 1930, transfer taxes upon intangibles levied by both the domiciliary as well as nondomiciliary, or situs State, were with rare exceptions approved. Thus, in Bullen v. Wisconsin,[517] the domiciliary State of the creator of a trust was held competent to levy an inheritance tax, upon the death of the settlor, on his trust fund consisting of stocks, bonds, and notes kept and administered in another State and as to which the settlor reserved the right to control disposition and to direct payment of income for life, such reserved powers being equivalent to a fee. Cognizance was taken of the fact that the State in which these intangibles had their situs had also taxed the trust. Levy of an inheritance tax by a nondomiciliary State was sustained on similar grounds in Wheeler v. Sohmer, wherein it was held that the presence of a negotiable instrument was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the State seeking to tax its transfer.[518] On the other hand, the mere ownership by a foreign corporation of property in a nondomiciliary State was held insufficient to support a tax by that State on the succession to shares of stock in that corporation owned by a nonresident decedent.[519] Also against the trend was Blodgett v. Silberman[520] wherein the Court defeated collection of a transfer tax by the domiciliary State by treating coins and bank notes deposited by a decedent in a safe deposit box in another State as tangible property, albeit it conceded that the domiciliary State could tax the transfer of books and certificates of indebtedness found in that safe deposit box as well as the decedent's interest in a foreign partnership.
In the course of about two years following the recent Depression, the Court handed down a group of four decisions which, for the time being at any rate, placed the stamp of disapproval upon multiple transfer and—by inference—other multiple taxation of intangibles. Asserting, as it did in one of these cases, that "practical considerations of wisdom, convenience and justice alike dictate the desirability of a uniform general rule confining the jurisdiction to impose death transfer taxes as to intangibles to the State of the [owner's] domicile; * * *"[521] the Court, through consistent application of the maxim, mobilia sequuntur personam, proceeded to deny the right of nondomiciliary States to tax and to reject as inadequate jurisdictional claims of the latter founded upon such bases as control, benefit, and protection or situs. During this interval, 1930-1932, multiple transfer taxation of intangibles came to be viewed, not merely as undesirable, but as so arbitrary and unreasonable as to be prohibited by the due process clause.
Beginning, in 1930, with Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Minnesota,[522] the Court reversed its former ruling in Blackstone v. Miller,[523] in which it had held that the State in which a debtor was domiciled or a bank located could levy an inheritance tax on the transfer of the debt or the deposit, notwithstanding that the creditor had his domicile in a different State. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Minnesota, strictly appraised, was authority simply for the proposition that jurisdiction over a debtor, in this instance a State which had issued bonds held by a nonresident creditor, was inadequate to sustain a tax by that debtor State on the transfer of such securities. The securities in question, which had never been used by the creditor in any business in the issuing State, were located in the State in which the creditor had his domicile, and were deemed to be taxable only in the latter. In Baldwin v. Missouri,[524] a nondomiciliary State was prevented from applying its inheritance tax to bonds, bank deposits, and promissory notes, all physically present within its limits and some of them secured by lands therein, when the owner thereof was domiciled in another State. A like result, although on this occasion on grounds of lack of evidence of any "business situs," was reached in Beidler v. South Carolina Tax Commission,[525] in which the Court ruled that a State, upon the death of a nonresident creditor, may not apply its inheritance tax to a debt [open account] owned by one of its domestic corporations. Finally, in First National Bank v. Maine,[526] which has since been overruled in State Tax Commission v. Aldrich,[527] the Court declared that only the State in which the owner of corporate stock died domiciled was empowered to tax the succession to the shares by will or inheritance and that the State in which the issuing corporation was domiciled could not do so.
Without expressly overruling more than one of these four cases condemning multiple succession taxation of intangibles, the Court, beginning with Curry v. McCanless[528] in 1939, announced a departure from the "doctrine, of recent origin, that the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the taxation of any interest in the same intangible in more than one State * * *." Taking cognizance of the fact that this doctrine had never been extended to the field of income taxation or consistently applied in the field of property taxation, where the concepts of business situs as well as of domiciliary situs had been utilized to sustain double taxation, especially in connection with shares of corporate stock, the Court declared that a correct interpretation of constitutional requirements would dictate the following conclusions: "From the beginning of our constitutional system control over the person at the place of his domicile and his duty there, common to all citizens, to contribute to the support of government have been deemed to afford an adequate constitutional basis for imposing on him a tax on the use and enjoyment of rights in intangibles measured by their value. * * * But when the taxpayer extends his activities with respect to his intangibles, so as to avail himself of the protection and benefit of the laws of another State, in such a way as to bring his person or * * * [his intangibles] within the reach of the tax gatherer there, the reason for a single place of taxation no longer obtains, * * * [However], the State of domicile is not deprived, by the taxpayer's activities elsewhere, of its constitutional jurisdiction to tax." In accordance with this line of reasoning, Tennessee, where a decedent died domiciled, and Alabama, where a trustee, by conveyance from said decedent, held securities on specific trusts, were both deemed competent to impose a tax on the transfer of these securities passing under the will of the decedent. "In effecting her purposes," the testatrix was viewed as having "brought some of the legal interests which she created within the control of one State by selecting a trustee there, and others within the control of the other State, by making her domicile there." She had found it necessary to invoke "the aid of the law of both States, and her legatees" were subject to the same necessity.
These statements represented a belated adoption of the views advanced by Chief Justice Stone in dissenting or concurring opinions which he filed in three of the four decisions rendered during 1930-1932. By the line of reasoning taken in these opinions, if protection or control was extended to, or exercised over, intangibles or the person of their owner, then as many States as afforded such protection or were capable of exerting such dominion should be privileged to tax the transfer of such property. On this basis, the domiciliary State would invariably qualify as a State competent to tax and a nondomiciliary State, so far as it could legitimately exercise control or could be shown to have afforded a measure of protection that was not trivial or insubstantial.
On the authority of Curry v. McCanless, the Court, in Pearson v. McGraw,[529] also sustained the application of an Oregon transfer tax to intangibles handled by an Illinois trust company and never physically present in Oregon, jurisdiction to tax being viewed as dependent, not on the location of the property in the State, but on control over the owner who was a resident of Oregon. In Graves v. Elliott,[530] decided in the same year, the Court upheld the power of New York, in computing its estate tax, to include in the gross estate of a domiciled decedent the value of a trust of bonds managed in Colorado by a Colorado trust company and already taxed on its transfer by Colorado, which trust the decedent had established while in Colorado and concerning which he had never exercised any of his reserved powers of revocation or change of beneficiaries. It was observed that "the power of disposition of property is the equivalent of ownership, * * * and its exercise in the case of intangibles is * * * [an] appropriate subject of taxation at the place of the domicile of the owner of the power. Relinquishment at death, in consequence of the non-exercise in life, of a power to revoke a trust created by a decedent is likewise an appropriate subject of taxation."[531] Consistent application of the principle enunciated in Curry v. McCanless is also discernible in two later cases in which the Court sustained the right of a domiciliary State to tax the transfer of intangibles kept outside its boundaries, notwithstanding that "in some instances they may be subject to taxation in other jurisdictions, to whose control they are subject and whose legal protection they enjoyed." In Graves v. Schmidlapp[532] an estate tax was levied upon the value of the subject of a general testamentary power of appointment effectively exercised by a resident donee over intangibles held by trustees under the will of a nonresident donor of the power. Viewing the transfer of interest in said intangibles by exercise of the power of appointment as the equivalent of ownership, the Court quoted from McCulloch v. Maryland[533] to the effect that the power to tax "'is an incident of sovereignty, and is coextensive with that to which it is an incident.'" Again, in Central Hanover Bank & T. Co. v. Kelly,[534] the Court approved a New Jersey transfer tax imposed on the occasion of the death of a New Jersey grantor of an irrevocable trust executed, and consisting of securities located, in New York, and providing for the disposition of the corpus to two nonresident sons.
The costliness of multiple taxation of estates comprising intangibles is appreciably aggravated when each of several States founds its tax not upon different events or property rights but upon an identical basis; namely that, the decedent died domiciled within its borders. Not only is an estate then threatened with excessive contraction but the contesting States may discover that the assets of the estate are insufficient to satisfy their claims. Thus, in Texas v. Florida,[535] the State of Texas filed an original petition in the Supreme Court, in which it asserted that its claim, together with those of three other States, exceeded the value of the estate, that the portion of the estate within Texas alone would not suffice to discharge its own tax, and that its efforts to collect its tax might be defeated by adjudications of domicile by the other States. The Supreme Court disposed of this controversy by sustaining a finding that the decedent had been domiciled in Massachusetts, but intimated that thereafter it would take jurisdiction in like situations only in the event that an estate did not exceed in value the total of the conflicting demands of several States and that the latter were confronted with a prospective inability to collect.
Corporation Taxes