Title: In Re Estate of Adair

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

237 Kan. 773 (1985)
703 P.2d 793
In the Matter of the Estate of Burneta Adair, Deceased.
No. 57,378

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 26, 1985.
Willard B. Thompson, of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Edward J. Healy, and David G. Seely, of the same firm, John Dekker, city attorney, and Joe Allen Lang, assistant city attorney, were with him on the briefs for appellant Wichita Art Museum.
James J. McGannon, of Regan & McGannon, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Patrick J. Regan, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee Wilda Conner.
Milo M. Unruh, Sr., of Arn, Mullins, Unruh, Kuhn & Wilson, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Kris J. Kuhn, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellants-coexecutors.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRAGER, J.:
This case involves a dispute between a charitable residuary beneficiary and a noncharitable residuary beneficiary, in a testate estate, over the method of apportionment of federal estate taxes. The coexecutors petitioned the district court for construction of the will and directions as to the payment of federal estate taxes. In their petition, the coexecutors presented the following questions for the court's determination:
The issues presented are strictly questions of law, the facts in *774 the case being undisputed. In determining the case, the Honorable Willis W. Wall, of the Sedgwick County District Court, filed a comprehensive journal entry of judgment which sets forth at length the undisputed facts, outlines the legal issues and the positions of the interested parties, and states the applicable rules of law and the reasons for the court's decision.
Because all of the issues are thoroughly analyzed and discussed therein, we set forth in full the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After a careful analysis of the legal principles and supporting cases set forth in the trial court's conclusions of law and the reasons given by the district court for its judgment, as set out above, we have concluded that the trial court's journal entry of judgment assigns sound and controlling reasons for its order and judgment, and effectively answers the questions raised and argued on this appeal. We know of no good reason why this opinion should be burdened with extended discussion and consideration of contentions which have already been correctly disposed of in the trial court's conclusions of law.
We approve of the district court's disposition of the case as set forth above. The federal estate tax is imposed as an excise tax upon the transfer of an estate upon the death of the owner. It is not a tax upon the succession and receipt of benefits under the law or the will. The federal estate tax does not tax the interest to which the legatees and devisees succeeded on death, but the interest which ceased by reason of the death. It was wholly within the power of the testatrix to exempt her charitable gift to *781 the Wichita Art Museum from payment of the federal estate tax by specific directions to her executors, if she chose.
In conclusion, we note a recent case which is not cited by the trial court. In Dittmer v. Schmidt, 235 Kan. 697, 683 P.2d 1252 (1984), this court held that, in the absence of any expressed intent to the contrary, the burden of the federal estate taxes falls upon the residuary estate rather than upon a specific bequest. Dittmer stands for the legal principle that, after the residuary estate left in a decedent's will is exhausted, the balance of the federal estate tax burden is payable out of the remaining property left by the decedent to the beneficiaries, equitably apportioned among the beneficiaries according to the value of the property each beneficiary receives. The decision in Dittmer does not change the basic principles of law established in the prior decisions of this court which are discussed in depth in the conclusions of law adopted from the district court.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.