, 

“’ -‘-’ 250 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AOSTIH 

s!Zi!Z 

. 

~onorabla Cccrpp ii, S!lo,?p?rd 

Cor.ptrollar cf Zublia ;.caounEo 

Austin, Toxnn .c\ 

.!Phe Texan inheritance tax ia ir:poocd unnn the value 

or tb prc?erty tht p8~se.8 ~~03 th dfhti d 0 drfcded. CRTtain syeoiri-d dcdsctfons arr? allcmd w’rr t’:c otntLte from 

the value c,f t!;o pcno or;tcte of ths dcoodent, and &ftnr ouch 
perzissiblo deduotions am mdo the mminir,,? nat estate 

is taken as n bsoin for tiio ttix. Tha daductions allo~:;iblo 

are sat out in ;;rtiole 7125 of the Dwioed Civil Ztrltutes; 

5uah etatutti roods, ia port, as follavs: 

@@The only deduations ~cmiasiblc under this 

$m azw tha dsbtn due by the cstnts, * + *In 

The anmvcr to your question ttcrefora tleymds on w!:nth;or or 

not tt.0 chin 1: %iIlS c:ade bj- tk2h.o scrvfvizq ~idcvr afpinst t!::a 

separate !Iroperty of her husband ie a valid cno. If said ClGim 

is a ~alld me t&en the RWA ia in t>o ckisification of E debt 

due by the cctote cad tka deduction of tko &c,e fxm +2x qrcsa 

8atot.e should be pt;rmitted kindor cur Tonfis in:Leritnncs tax law. 

The only tim that the cucstl.ofi of wkethcr or not 

the mount ~~14 alth o@r?-,unity futida c.a &es on the separate , 

progorty cf cz3.c of tfie spouses ia a chcirr,o in favor of the 

ao??mlnity eatE;to a:<o:?lst such sqjcr:;t,s yrzq+rty ti’cs rnased 

on WGS hl thn onae of Cersmtcs vn. Cers<xltes, 79 s. !r'. 780. 

The facts in t!ztrt caw wxw tkzt tte )iu.shandkd ahandonnd the 

wife who imA cared- fnr t:e aeparats r;rc~mty cf tko husba,nd 

end had usod cwmnitp f?mZs to ercrt i-~xorc:.e:;ts on ouah 

sepam’ce prmcrtv and had also used comunity Fu.nc”.s ~to >ay 

tho texes on‘ auc:7 rro,-cr”,y. The COlil't !lC?ld ttZt the r;ouOy 

80 exysndcd we n lc,T?tir.utn chcir.qo in ZILV~P @?f tlla coxwaity . 

estate n$:ainst the separate property of t?.o huabo~d, and 

statod as followsL 

“&a fun&n uoe& by f!rn, Cervantes to nuke 

%qrovwoots on the ceparsto proycrty of her kmbana ~tftre crmunlty fu&s, szc: it ?s tho s6ttlecl 

lnw in 3?XE.S tfrat the sc?pczctn octzte of cm cember of t!m coxunlty rust roi&urse the ooL-zuntty 

for any proper ia~rovemnts r*z:Ce in ccod faith 2~05 

the seporato :;roTertp with comr;nlty funds. Rfca 

9. Rice, 21 Tax. 3G; Ecr.3 .vr !Iill, 57 “cx. 6%; 

Furrh v. %nstcn, 66 ‘?cx. 521, 1 S. C. 527; Cm-era11 

V. Fay, 53 TEXI 58; Clift v, Clift, 72 Tax, 144, 

10 8 K. 338. 13. the mm Of Sic0 v. Elco, abase 

citd. t:!e lots below?6 to t&-n >Ui:bZ;id. but CkO 
, . ..- 

252 

irqJrovc,7.0nts I?eae by lirrs. Cexvnntos on the proF?srty 

Of her husband v;OUld ba CCP?Uiilty pXYJ?erty, &~d her 

childron w-~uld bo entitled ta be reizbwsed for onehalf! of the cost of suah irzprovcnants, 

wTho juoetlon ~8 to the tnxcs hns &en one 

of mom dlfflculty tLcn the i?:prooomnts, end we 

hnva~beon unnble to obtain r:ny nutbnrity on the rubject, bnt hcve conolucied tket t&e rulas of juntlce 

and equity would be 5uboerved end a correct ~:pimlplo 

enunciated in hr:ldl;l$ tb:nt, the tcxon being raid by 

oo&urrity funde, the children should hcrve the bonefit 

of one-half of the SW co oxpnded. The taxes ~iere 

swandeb to ~resorvn the sepsrzte cstato, end should 

be a #har;:6 upon it."' L 

. . 

WQ have been umble to find whore the oourts hcve 

again psssed on this que3tion cf mnay s-ant fcr paymnt of 

taxes. It GQQES mtlrolg lo~~lcal, 17.3 tht! CCUrt yoiztcd out, 

that the proposition of lcw cancoml,?E; kcncy a;erit in the poyIceat of tom3 should bo tba aem ND mncy 5pent for lzqrovecents on the 2ro2erty. To rake tirifi emparimn because the 

court5 of t>is atate hove on nuzerous oaczsions emomced this 

rule of law concorafnr: mnoy qent out of the oomun5.ty estate 

fr?r InprGvo~Qrlts mida on the aopwite JYCQpQrty of one of the 

8pOU8ee. I~ 

The rule of law wae steted by the Eqreme Court of 

Texas in th,n cam or Rice v. mY?, 21 8. :i;. $8. %ifJ CGwt, 

in an opinion written by Chief Jmtice Sscphill, stat&d a5 

~0110w5 1 

*But tha vardiot, 60 fsr es it finds the 

lrcprcverento on +s late to 5se ctmmanity yrcy~erty, 

ie ccrmct only in a moSifie~0 sense. They we fixtures, ottac%d to the scil, end oamot In tke nature 

of thl,figs be dovisiblo In speaie, wilere one of the 

joint cwmrs hiis no intorest Zi2 the land Upon wklch 

they have been erected. !!cnce result0 the rule, thet 

the oor?unity eatate S;uSt b0 reiT.bUvsed fCr the GOGt 

or buildings oreated, by joint lcbcrs or fuhds, upon 
The Supreme Court of Texas reaffirm& tC$s rule ei 

,c. ltia in the 0~~0 0r :‘:~excr V. zd~h, 44 5. .#, 2m. 2210 

oourt ln an opinion by Chief Justice Ceinne Btatad a5 follm::ot 

*If follama, ns wo t&i,*;, that, upon pertition of’ tha Tro::wty in ccnsrovcrsy, t>e lend ~a8 

Ohargeabls in rcvcr Of t?.o cor~ur!zt y, with Plcl’ctcver 

the ccmuriity ray have contributed in labor and fund5 

to Its ooipinition.” 

” 

600 also t50 Oaf308 of Jocksou v. Jacksan, ‘2283 S. S. $23, by’ 

tCe KBCO COWSt Of Civil ATj?t35iln nild GPLO V. i:ylC, SS 5. Yi:i. 

(22d) BBS, by the Austin Cou?L of Civil iQjtei&ls. 

You are therefore edvlnod tSr;t in the cnae you prccent the s;lrvivin.y v;ldcrr my hem u le&timte er.d valid of&n 

CQolnst the oer,matc estate or thn deoe:;ned for am-half or 

611 tha ccomnity funGo expended in 9ap:ent of -sXsa on suoh 

ao9arata 9ro9erty. 

The rule of law would of court hhve to be different 

If under th;s facts it~appeero that th;s 6urvivinr: spouse mde Q 

gift to her hucbend daring hla life of her ~ortlon of the contvuity f\;nts wk:Ich he eF.nt in the ycgmnt of taxes on h5.a stipcrtlte property. It ia 8 ?wll scttlod rule of 1~: in this stzte 

thrt such a Gift my be made Dy a rriCs to hnr hus3snd of .“.er 

8hre of t5e oo.-runity rrorerty. Ths rule ia ~11 ateted In 

23 Ttcc. Jur. 76, a8 follmor 

*Our ccmunlty eyctetri In suoh tk:nt ezch 

s9ouse mm a mioty tkersin m-id holdn el.t!:er 

fho lagal or equitcble title to t:m entire am- 
x,-. 254 , ,: 

Honorable George H. Ehepperd, page 5 

munlty, and the wifevs title is usually purely’ 

equitable. Xhero t!:o pJft is of the comunity, 

‘it operctca to vest in the dome the e,?:ire property CD oeparuto property; for it 0ger:tes us a 

transfer of the title to the port,ion owed md a 

., correspondinq relinp2isbr:nnt of any poesible cornmunfty interest in the rcoioty belohgiiq to the 

dome. Ecre ar;oin It in rcetter ler.goly of lntention to EiVO, end the gift cey be by express donation or by irngliontion of fact or ILW.*~ 

You 

‘the pztrtlculor 

me advised thcrciore thrit it will depend upon 

Poets in this cese es t.0 whcti:rr cr not the 

wiPe’8 there of ti:e cormunity funds ex>enCcd in the poyzent 

of tams upon the seperete property of the husband were given 

to the husband OS 8 i;iEt by .the wife at”thie tir:e such funds 

were spent. 

We that tht the above discussion will be nuffioient to advise ycu es to the princiglos of lnw which should 

be applied in detominin:: the vblfdity of the deduction clelr,- 

ed in the case you subs&t. 

,, 

. ”