STOVALL v DEPT OF REVENUE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12751 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1974 MARGARET STOVALL , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, DEPARTMENT O REVENUE O T E STATE F F H O M N A A formerly t h e STATE BOARD F O T N , O EQUALIZATION of t h e STATE OF M N A A F O T N , Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Terence B. Cosgrove argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: J a c k B u r n e t t argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : September 1 6 , 1974 OCT 10 194 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from an o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County r e q u i r i n g t h e Department of Revenue of t h e S t a t e of Montana t o r e f u n d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f c e r t a i n i n h e r i t a n c e t a x e s p a i d upon t h e e s t a t e of h e r husband. The s o l e i s s u e i s a l e g a l q u e s t i o n : Must a widow who r e n o u n c e s t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s w i l l and e x e r c i s e s h e r s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f dower pay any Montana i n h e r i t a n c e t a x on t h e property she receives? The f a c t s l e a d i n g up t o t h i s a p p e a l w e r e a g r e e d upon by t h e p a r t i e s and i n e s s e n c e a r e a s f o l l o w s : R e s p o n d e n t ' s husband, O r v i l l e R . S t o v a l l , a Montana r e s i d e n t , d i e d t e s t a t e on November 1 4 , 1963, and h i s w i l l was p r o b a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County. Respondent t i m e l y e l e c t e d t o renounce t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e w i l l and t o t a k e t h e b e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d by s e c t i o n 22-107, R.C.M. 1947. t a x of $3,463.45. Respondent p a i d a n e t Montana i n h e r i t a n c e T h i s t a x was based on a r e p o r t e d d i s t r i b u t i v e s h a r e i n t h e amount of $91,595.74, of which $46,356.69 r e p r e s e n t e d t h e dower p r o p e r t y r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 22-107, X.C.M. 1947. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a r e f u n d of $3,050.39 ( t h e p o r t i o n of t h e t a x p a i d a l l o c a b l e t o t h e dower p r o p e r t y ) i f i t i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t dower p r o p e r t y i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e Montana i n h e r i t a n c e t a x . The i n h e r i t a n c e t a x s t a t u t e i s s e c t i o n 91-4401, R.C.M. 1947, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t p r o v i d e s : "Taxes on transfer--when and how imposed. A t a x s h a l l be and i s hereby imposed upon any t r a n s f e r of p r o p e r t y * * * "(1)By a r e s i d e n t of s t a t e . When t h e t r a n s f e r i s by w i l l o r by i n t e s t a t e l a w s of t h i s s t a t e from any p e r s o n d y i n g p o s s e s s e d o f t h e p r o p e r t y while a r e s i d e n t of t h i s s t a t e . " (Emphasis added) The c o n s t r u c t i o n t o be p l a c e d upon " i n t e s t a t e laws" i s t h e h e a r t of t h e c o n t r o v e r s y between t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s c a s e . A p p e l l a n t t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t s i n c e a widow's r i g h t of dower i s e x e r c i s a b l e o n l y a t t h e t i m e of h e r h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h , it i s a t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h i n t h e meaning o f " i n t e s t a t e laws". Respond- e n t , on t h e o t h e r hand, c o n t e n d s t h a t s i n c e dower i n t e r e s t s a r i s e a t m a r r i a g e , a widow d o e s n o t t a k e dower p r o p e r t y a s t h e h e i r of h e r husband b u t a s one i n d e p e n d e n t l y e n t i t l e d t o i t on a c c o u n t of a n i n c h o a t e r i g h t becoming a b s o l u t e by o p e r a t i o n o f law. Other j u r i s d i c t i o n s d i s a g r e e on t h i s p o i n t . 4 2 Am.Jur.2d 366, I n h e r i t a n c e , E t c . , Taxes, S 158. See, e.g., Representa- t i v e of t h e c a s e s h o l d i n g dower s u b j e c t t o a n i n h e r i t a n c e t a x i s B i l l i n g s v . P e o p l e , 189 I l l . 472, 59 N.E. 97, 47 L.Ed. 400, 23 S.Ct. 272. 798, 800, a f f ' d 188 U.S. That c o u r t , a t 59 N.E. 800, t o o k t h e view t h a t t h e t a x i n g s t a t u t e ( c o v e r i n g p r o p e r t y p a s s i n g by w i l l o r " t h e i n t e s t a t e laws of t h i s s t a t e " ) was v e r y comprehensive and w a s d e s i g n e d t o embrace a l l p r o p e r t y p a s s i n g from p e r s o n s upon t h e i r d e a t h , e x c e p t p r o p e r t y o t h e r w i s e exempt: "There a r e no laws o f t h i s s t a t e which a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y designated a s ' i n t e s t a t e laws,' * * * we have no d o u b t t h e laws r e f e r r e d t o a r e t h o s e l a w s of t h e s t a t e which govern t h e d e v o l u t i o n o f e s t a t e s of p e r s o n s d y i n g i n t e s t a t e , and i n c l u d e a l l a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s o f common law i n f o r c e i n t h i s s t a t e . * * * A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e p r o p e r t y of p e r s o n s d y i n g p a s s e s i n two ways, - - t h a t i s , by w i l l , o r by d e s c e n t i n t h e modes p r o v i d e d by law; and when i t d o e s n o t p a s s by w i l l it g e n e r a l l y p a s s e s by law, - - t h a t i s , by t h e l a w g o v e r n i n g t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y of p e r s o n s d y i n g intestate." T y p i c a l of t h e l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y h o l d i n g dower n o t s u b j e c t t o a n i n h e r i t a n c e t a x i s E s t a t e of B u l l e n , 47 Utah 96, 1 5 1 P . 533. The q u e s t i o n posed i n B u l l e n was whether dower i n t e r e s t s p a s s e d by t h e " s t a t u t e s of i n h e r i t a n c e " . The c o u r t answered a t p. 535: "What t h e w i f e r e c e i v e s (under t h e s t a t u t e ) s h e r e c e i v e s , n o t a s a n h e i r o f h e r husband, b u t i n h e r own r i g h t , something which b e l o n g s t o h e r a b s o l u t e l y , and o f which s h e c o u l d n o t have been d e p r i v e d by w i l l o r by any o t h e r v o l u n t a r y a c t of h e r husband w i t h o u t h e r c o n s e n t . Under t h a t s e c t i o n , s h e i s n o t an h e i r w i t h i n t h e meaning of o u r i n t e s t a t e o r s u c c e s s i o n s t a t u t e s . " * * * While both of these arguments have their merits, we shall follow Billings as being the better reasoned approach to the problem before us. Notwithstanding Bullen's view of what are "intestate laws" insofar as the substantive rules of property law are concerned, we think our Legislature had more than that in mind when it inserted that term in the inheritance tax statute. That is, the Legislature thought of dower as a "law governing the disposition of property of persons dying intestate". Billings v. People, supra. Moreover, Bullen and the cases in agreement with it in our opinion fail to sufficiently take into account the state's ability to tax. We have no quarrel with the proposition that a husband cannot deprive his wife of either her inchoate or vested dower without her consent. But it does not necessarily follow that the state is similarly strapped. Inchoate dower can be eliminated simply by a repeal of the dower statute. The result reached in Billings is readily supportable by our present law. In re Wilson's Estate, 102 Mont. 178, 56 P.2d 733, is significant. In Wilson, the widow-executrix was paid a total of $3,600 as a statutory living allowance. In preparing the final report on the estate, she claimed the $3,600 as an administration expense. The State Board of Equalization (predeces- sor of the Department of Revenue) objected on the ground the statutory living allowance was includable in the widow's exemption. Section 10400.4, R.C.M. 1921, now section 91-4414, R.C.M. 1947, gave the widow an inheritance tax exemption of $17,500, with the proviso that "Such exemption to the widow shall include all her statutory dower and other allowances". The widow maintained the living allowance was not property passing either by will or the intestate laws of the state and therefore it was not subject to the inheritance tax. In holding the widow's allowance subject t o t h e i n h e r i t a n c e t a x , t h e C o u r t , a t 1 0 2 Mont. 1 9 2 , 1 9 3 , s t a t e d : " I t must b e k e p t i n mind t h a t t h e o n l y s t a t u t o r y a l l o w a n c e s g r a n t e d t o t h e widow under any o f o u r laws a r e h e r dower r i g h t , h e r homes t e a d r i g h t , and h e r f a m i l y a l l o w a n c e . The 1921 law s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e widow's dower and homestead r i g h t s s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n h e r exemption s e t o u t i n t h e I n h e r i t a n c e Tax Law * * * I t i s a x i o m a t i c t h a t any b e q u e s t , d e v i s e o r a l l o w a n c e going t o t h e widow o r any o t h e r p e r s o n t a k i n g any p a r t of t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e , p a s s e s o n l y by s t a t u t e , and it t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w s t h a t t h e f a m i l y a l l o w a n c e , o r any o t h e r a l l o w a n c e , p a s s i n q t o one who t a k e s p a r t of t h e d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e , t a k e s by s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y P and r e c e i v e s P r o.. e r t v bv v i r t u e o f t h e s t a t u t e . " fFmphasis added) - - - I n o t h e r words, a p e r s o n who t a k e s p r o p e r t y under a s t a t u t o r y allowance--or dower--takes by what t h e L e g i s l a t u r e c o n s i d e r s " i n t e s t a t e laws". S i n c e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s i n s i s t e d upon i n c l u s i o n o f a l l s t a t u t o r y dower and o t h e r a l l o w a n c e s i n t h e exemption, i t i s m a n i f e s t t h a t s u c h amounts e x c e e d i n g t h e exemption a r e s u b j e c t t o the inheritance tax. O t h i s p o i n t , t h e Court i n Wilson, page n 192, s a i d : " I n Montana t h e widow i s g r a n t e d t h e v e r y l i b e r a l a l l o w a n c e o f $17,500, a g a i n s t which no i n h e r i t a n c e t a x i s l e v i e d , and we b e l i e v e t h a t was a l l t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended she should t a k e t a x f r e e . " I n view of t h e f o r e g o i q ; a e judgment of t h e / d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s reversed. .- .................................... -i -, - . ; ,* chief Justice W e concur: . - Justices -. b '

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.