{
  "id": 8626493,
  "name": "A. LESLIE HARWOOD, JR., Administrator, v. A. J. MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harwood v. Maxwell",
  "decision_date": "1938-02-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 55"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 A. L. R., 1096",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S. E., 841",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0811-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 S. E., 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0211-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 U. S., 571",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 342,
    "char_count": 6106,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.912794380632971e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3695049402494122
    },
    "sha256": "19bb946c4ba7646609e6957ca5194503750d425d0da101286b330c9c92e914d9",
    "simhash": "1:b6fac027cb29363b",
    "word_count": 992
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. LESLIE HARWOOD, JR., Administrator, v. A. J. MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe case presents a question of statutory construction.\nIt is provided by the Revenue Act of 1933, ch. 445, see. 7, Public Laws 1933, that in determining the clear market value of property taxed under the inheritance tax article, \u201cthe following deductions, and no \u2022others, shall be allowed: . . . Federal estate taxes, except additional estate taxes levied by Act of Congress, effective 6 June, 1932.\u201d\nIt is agreed that the Federal taxes here in question, which plaintiff claims the right to deduct from decedent\u2019s gross estate, were \u201cadditional \u2022estate taxes\u201d levied by \u201cActs of Congress applicable thereto.\u201d\nThe schedule of additional estate taxes levied by Act of Congress, effective 6 June, 1932, was changed by amendment effective 11 May, 1934, and a new schedule substituted therefor. The tax-levying provision of the 1932 act, however, was not reenacted, but remained unchanged, and the effectiveness of the 1934 schedule is dependent upon the tax-levying provision of the 1932 act. The taxes in question were computed under the 1934 schedule, as plaintiff\u2019s intestate died after its adoption.\nThe controversy arises over whether these additional estate taxes were levied by Act of Congress effective 6 June, 1932, within the meaning of the Revenue Act of 1933.\nIt is the contention of the plaintiff that the additional estate taxes here in question were levied by Act of Congress effective 11 May, 1934. The defendant contends that they were levied by Act of Congress effective 6 June, 1932, the rate being determined by the 1934 amendment. The question, then, becomes quite a practical one in computing the amount of inheritance tax due under the State law. If plaintiff\u2019s contention be correct, decedent\u2019s gross estate is to be reduced by the amount thus paid to the Federal Government as additional estate taxes. If defendant\u2019s contention be correct, such reduction is not to be made. This much is conceded.\nIt will be observed that the 1934 amendment is not complete within itself. It simply changes the schedule of rates in the 1932 act, and is entirely dependent upon the original act for its revenue-producing force and effect. Hence, it seems proper to say that the additional estate taxes here in question were levied by Act of Congress effective 6 June, 1932. U. S. v. La France, 282 U. S., 571. It was by this act that the taxes were levied, the rate alone being affected by the amendment. Robinson v. Goldsboro, 122 N. C., 211, 30 S. E., 324. In other words, where the schedule of rates in a revenue act is changed by amendment, with the force and effect of the law left dependent upon the tax-levying clauses in the original act, it is proper to say that the taxes levied thereunder, while computed according to the revised schedule, are levied by the original act. 25 R. C. L., 907; 59 C. J., 1096.\nThe appropriateness of this kind of legislation, within constitutional bounds, was considered in the case of Hagood v. Doughton, 195 N. C., 811, 143 S. E., 841, and what is there said may be regarded as answer to plaintiff\u2019s challenge here. Indeed, plaintiff\u2019s right to any deduction depends upon the validity of the legislation in question. His objection is not to the principle of cross reference used in the statute, but to what he calls an extension of the exception contained therein. Note, 63 A. L. R., 1096. We think the action must fail.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harwood & Spalding and Mull & Tait\u00f3n for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. LESLIE HARWOOD, JR., Administrator, v. A. J. MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.\n(Filed 2 February, 1938.)\nTaxation \u00a7 28 \u2014 Federal taxes not deductible under provisions of State statute may be computed according to later Federal amendment changing rates.\nIt is proper for a State statute levying inheritance and transfer taxes to refer to a Federal statute in allowing deductions for amounts paid the Federal Government in estate taxes and in excepting from deductible amounts additional taxes levied by the Federal Government under a Federal Act effective on a certain date, and a taxpayer relying on the State statute for the right to make deductions may not complain that additional Federal taxes not deductible, ch. 445, sec. 7, Revenue Act of 1933, were computed according to an amendment of the Federal Act changing the schedule of rates but depending upon the original act for the tax-levying provisions, although the amendment was enacted subsequent to the enactment of the State Revenue Act, since in such case the additional Federal estate taxes are levied by the original Federal Act, although the amount thereof is computed under the amendment changing the schedule of rates.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Johnston, J., at May-June Term, 1937, of Buree.\nCivil action to recover back alleged overpayment of inheritance tax.\nThe facts are not in dispute. On 21 October, 1934, J. Frederick Kistler, a resident of North Carolina, died domiciled in Burke County, and a few days thereafter, the plaintiff duly qualified as administrator of his estate.\nThe plaintiff filed with the defendant Commissioner of Revenue an inheritance and estate tax inventory, showing a deduction of $3,244.12 tentative estate taxes levied by the Federal Government under the 1926 Federal estate tax law, which is not in dispute.\nThereafter, the plaintiff paid to the Federal Government \u201cadditional estate taxes,\u201d amounting to $57,017.65, under \u201cActs of Congress applicable thereto,\u201d and proceeded to claim as a deduction from decedent\u2019s gross estate the amount thus paid to the Federal Government as additional estate taxes.\nThis deduction was disallowed, whereupon on 1 June, 1936, the plaintiff paid under protest $7,927, the amount of taxes represented by the difference between allowing and disallowing the deduction in question, and proceeded agreeably to the terms of the statute, to preserve his rights, and this action is to recover back the alleged overpayment with interest and costs.\nFrom judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action, he appeals, assigning error.\nHarwood & Spalding and Mull & Tait\u00f3n for plaintiff, appellant.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 119,
  "last_page_order": 122
}