, 

# “’ -‘-’ 250

OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS

AOSTIH s!Zi!Z

. ~onorabla Cccrpp ii,S!lo,?p?rd Cor.ptrollar cf Zublia ;.caounEo Austin, Toxnn .c\

.!PheTexan inheritance tax ia ir:poocd unnnthe value 

## ortb 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 ouchperzissiblo deduotions am mdo the mminir,,? nat estate

is taken as n bsoin for tiio ttix. Thadaductions 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 azwtha dsbtn due by the cstnts, * + *In The anmvcr to your question ttcrefora tleymds on w!:nth;or or not tt.0 chin 1:%iIlSc: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 Edebt due by the cctote cad tka deduction of tko &c,e fxm +2x qrcsa 8atot.e should be pt;rmitted kindorcur 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.cof 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 whoimAcared- 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?ldttZt the r;ouOy 80 exysndcd we n lc,T?tir.utn chcir.qo in ZILV~P @?ftlla 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 ~tftrecrmunlty 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:Cein 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 TEXI58; 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;OUldba CCP?Uiilty pXYJ?erty, &~dher childron w-~uldbo entitled ta be reizbwsed for onehalf! of the cost of suah irzprovcnants, wThojuoetlon ~8 to the tnxcs hns &en one of mom dlfflculty tLcn the i?:prooomnts, end we hnva~beon unnble to obtain r:nynutbnrity 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 hcrvethe 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

. . WQhave 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! CCUrtyoiztcd out, that the proposition of lcw cancoml,?E; kcncy a;erit in the poyIceat of tom3 should bo tba aem NDmncy 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. %ifJCGwt, 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 5sectmmanity 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 Zi2the land Uponwklch they have been erected. !!cnce result0 the rule, thet the oor?unity eatate S;uStb0 reiT.bUvsed fCr the GOGt or buildings oreated, byjoint lcbcrs or fuhds, uponThe Supreme Court of Texas reaffirm& tC$s rule ei 

### ,c. ltia in the 0~~00r :‘:~excr V. zd~h, 445. .#,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.” ” 600also t50 Oaf308of Jocksou v. Jacksan, ‘2283 S. S. $23, by’ tCe KBCOCOWStOf Civil ATj?t35iln nildGPLOV. i:ylC, SS 5. Yi:i. (22d) BBS, by the Austin Cou?L of Civil iQjtei&ls.

Youare therefore edvlnod tSr;t in the cnae you prccent the s;lrvivin.y v;ldcrr my hem u le&timte er.dvalid of&n CQolnst the oer,matc estate or thn deoe:;ned for am-half or 611tha ccomnity funGo expended in 9ap:ent of-sXsa on suoh ao9arata 9ro9erty.

The rule of lawwould 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:Ichhe eF.nt in the ycgmnt of taxes on h5.astipcrtlte property. It ia 8?wll scttlod rule of 1~: in this stzte thrt such a Gift my be madeDya rriCs to hnr hus3snd of

.“.er 8hre of t5e oo.-runity rrorerty. Ths rule ia ~11 ateted In 23Ttcc. Jur. 76, a8 follmor

*Our ccmunlty eyctetri In suoh tk:nt ezch s9ouse mm a mioty tkersin m-idholdn el.t!:er fho lagal or equitcble title to t:m entire am-

## x,-.254 , ,:

Honorable George H. Ehepperd, page 5

munlty, andthe 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 CDoeparuto 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.0whcti: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 OS8 i;iEt by.the wife at”thie tir:e such funds were spent.Wethat tht the above discussion will be nuffioient to advise ycu es to the princiglos of lnwwhich should be applied in detominin:: the vblfdity of the deduction clelr,- ed in the case you subs&t.

,,



# .”