In re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Dolbeer
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Appraisal under Transfer Tax Law of Estate of Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1923)
- In re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Cossitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1923)
- In re the Proceedings to Fix the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Weissbach (New York Surrogate's Court 1920)
- In re the Estate of Lydig (New York Surrogate's Court 1920)
- Kissam v. McElligott (District Court, S.D. New York 1920)
- In re Cowan's Estate (Utah 1940)
- Cowan v. State Tax Commission (Utah 1940)
- In re the Estate of Dwyer (New York Surrogate's Court 1933)
- In re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Kane (N.Y. 1927)
- Dyer v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1926)
- In re the Appraisal, Under the Transfer Tax Law, of the Estate of Lyon (N.Y. 1922)
- People ex rel. DeLaney v. Mount St. Joseph's Academy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1921)
- In re the Appraisal for the Purpose of the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Koch (New York Surrogate's Court 1921)
- In re the Estate of Carnegie (New York Surrogate's Court 1921)
- In re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Van Vranken (New York Surrogate's Court 1920)
- In re Estate of Chase (New York Surrogate's Court 1920)
- In re the Estate of Bigelow (New York Surrogate's Court 1919)
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
This appeal presents the question: Is the entire amount of a joint bank account in the name of husband and wife, payable to the survivor, created subsequent to the taking effect of chapter 664 of the Laws of 1915, taxable on the death of the husband? An appeal from a final order is not an appeal where questions should be certified as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 190, subd. 3), and it is unnecessary to answer the question certified.
In Matter of McKelway (221 N. Y. 15) it was held that even when the joint account was created prior to the adoption of the statute, the transfer by survivorship was taxable to the extent of one-half the joint property. When the joint account is created subsequent to the adoption of the statute, the privilege of acquiring the entire property by the right of succession may be subjected to the tax on the method of acquisition. (Matter of Vanderbilt, 172 N. Y. 69, 73; Matter of Keeney, 194 N. Y. 281; 222 U. S. 525.) The right to take property by survivor-ship is the creation of law upon which the state may impose conditions (Matter of Dows, 167 N. Y. 227; Matter of White, 208 N. Y. 64, 67), if no vested or contract rights are thereby violated.
*625 The record does not disclose who furnished the money which was deposited to the joint credit. Nothing indicates that the succession in this case Avas not donative in character (Matter of Orvis, 223 N. Y. 1, 7), and we may well reserve consideration of the application of the statute to a case where the survivor had previously acquired his interest for value.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, and the proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the purpose of imposing a tax in accordance Avith this opinion.
His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.