State ex rel. Smith v. Probate Court
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stevens v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1961)
- Matter of Estate of Shapiro (Minn. 1986)
- Sevcik v. Commissioner of Taxation (Minn. 1959)
- Estate of Atwell (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
- Central Trust Co. v. James (W. Va. 1938)
- In re Estate of Rosing v. State of Mo. (Mo. 1935)
- In re Estate of Bowlin (Minn. 1933)
- In re Estate of Taylor (Minn. 1928)
- Tax Commission ex rel. Price v. Lamprecht (Ohio 1923)
- State v. Spokane (Wash. 1922)
- In re Fish's Estate (Mich. 1922)
- Hazard v. Board of Tax Commissioners (R.I. 1921)
- State v. First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank (Ind. Ct. App. 1919)
- Huff v. Industrial Accident Board (Superior Court of Delaware 1981)
- Jones v. Bowman (Kan. 1925)
- Bingham's Administrator v. Commonwealth (Ky. Ct. App. 1922)
- In re Estate of Miller (Cal. 1921)
- Bugbee v. Roebling (N.J. 1920)
- Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co. (Mass. 1919)
- In re the Estate of Dillingham (Haw. 1919)
- People v. Pasfield (Ill. 1918)
- Estate of Roebling (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1918)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the probate court of Hennepin county determining the amount of the inheritance tax due to the state from the estate of Victoria E. Linton, deceased. The estate descended in equal shares to the two children of the deceased. The probate court found the value of the estate, deducted therefrom the claims paid and the expenses of administration, and took the balance as the basis'for computing the state inheritance tax. The court included the Federal inheritance tax imposed by the act,of Congress of September 8, 1916, as an expense of administration, and the sole question presented is whether the court erred in deducting the amount of the Federal tax from the value of the estate before computing the amount of the state tax. Doing so in this case lessened the state tax $25.41.
The statute imposes a tax upon the transfer of property “by will or by the intestate laws” from the person who died possessed thereof, and provides that the tax shall be a specified per centum of the clear value of the beneficial interest in the property which passes to the beneficiaries designated by the will or the statute. G. S. 1913, §§ 2271, 2272. According to the statute the tax is to be computed only upon the clear value of the property, or the interest therein, which actually passes to the beneficiaries; and is not to be computed upon the amounts expended in 'administrating the estate or in paying proper charges against it. State v. Probate Court of St. Louis County, 138 Minn. 107, 164 N. W. 365.
The Federal tax operated to lessen, by the amount of such tax, the clear value of the beneficial interest which passed to the two children, and the ruling of the probate court was correct.
We think that the claim that the Federal act imposes a tax upon the estate and not upon the transfer to beneficiaries and for that reason is inhibited by the Federal Constitution, is not well founded. True the Federal act differs radically from the Minnesota act, and imposes the tax “upon the transfer of the net estate;”
Judgment affirmed.
[39 St. 777, § 201.]
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.