# THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERAL Aun~l~ 1%33~~~s .:

October 21, 1948

Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard Opinion No. V-704 Comptroller of Public Accounts **Austin,** Texas Re: Imposition of inhcriCancetax where community estate completcly disposed of byjoint will’and trust tnstrument at death of husband

Dear Sir:

You have requested an opinion ofthis office as towhether an inheritance tax is due by reason of the receipt of certain funds from the community estate **of**T. G. Hendrick, deceased, and his surviving wife by the Baptist Founda.tion ofTexas as trustee. The facts of the case as disclosed by **your** file and the brief submitted by the attorney for the executor, The Fort Worth National Bank of Fort Worth, Texas, are as follows:

On January 22, 1929, T. G. Hendrick and Ida Hendrick, husband and wife, executed ajoint and mutual will in the opening paragraph of which they declared that

“We, T. G. Hendrick and Ida Hendrick, husband and wife,

. . .having mutually agreed and contracted with each other as to the disposition to be made of all of the property owned by us, as hereinafter .set out do Make, Declare and Publish this as our Joint add’Mutua1 Last Will and Testament, and the last will and testament of each ofus

. . ,

“We first state that all ofthe property of every kind and character now owned as well as any that may hereafter be owned by us, or in which tither of us may have an interest, is community property owned by us since our marriage and owned one-half by each of us, whether the apparent title to such property is in the
one or the other or in both of us, having earned the property together we desire to dispose of it byjoint will in accordance with the terms hereof, and each of
us hereby solemnly pledges his and her faith to the other that he or she will not alter or change or attempt toalter or change such disposition of the property, unless by proper instrument likewise jointly’

.



### Ho& Geo. ?I. Sheppard, Page 2 (v-704)

signed by us, and particularly that the survivor of u6will not make or attempt to make any change in such disposition.” ’

In the twelve succeeding 

### pages of the will various spe

### aific btque$ts are’made and numerous trusts set up. These provisions ara not material toyour inquiry since from time to time various codicils were executed, eleven in all, which resulted in
an almost complete departure from the provisions of the original 

### imaumsnt.

The will provided that ifthe death ofIda Hendrick occurred before the death of T. G. Hendrick, T. G. Hendrick as trustee, without necessity of giving bond, was to remain in possession of all the interests of Ida Hendrick and the property owned by herself and her husband, except the devises to Ida Hendrick’s nieces, with full power and authority to dispose of all or any part 

### ofsuch property; and at his death 

### kheproperty then on hand, representing the 

### corpus of the trust funds, 

### wa$qftcr the payment of individual legacies, inheritance, estate 

### andothe.rtaxes, and 6xpenses of administration to pass to and under control of named trustees for the different uses and 

### pu$po$es provided in 

### theWM. However, ifT. G. Hendrick died before Ida Hendrick, the 

### rights, powers and duties of the trustees were, to vest immediately in them subject alone tothe right of Ida Hendrick to receive $l,OOO.OO
or more per month during the remainder ofher life from a trust of $500,000.00 to be established as specifically provided in the fifth codicil of the will.

Inthe sixth codicil tothe will, Item First reads as follows:

“Reference is here made to the fifth codicil to
our will 

### executed by us on April 

### 19, 1934. InItem Firrf thereof we instructed our executor to sell from
our property a,ndset apart bonds, securities and/or other items of property then of the reasonable value of $500,000.00 before any ofthe trusts provided for by us art set up and before any of the devises by individuals are paid. Itis our purpose and intention, and we here now so will and direct, that said $500,- 000,00 of property and securities shall 

### be appropriated from
, . .Ida Hendrick’s one-half interest in our properties, if such one-half interest shall
, , .be sufficient for the purpose, but ifnot then all of her onehalf interest shall be appropriated and a sufficient amount

. , .from T. G. Hendrick% one-half interest shall be added thereto to make up the total of $500,- 000.00

. *

.”Hon. Gee. H. Sheppard, Page 3 (V-704)

Inthis same codicil Ida Hendrick covenanted and agreed with T. G. Hendrick and with all of said other deviates, both the individuals and the bank trustee, that in the event ofthe death of T. G. Hendrick before herself she would Immediately after his death execute all instruments and conveyances thought **by** the trustee tobe necessary or advisable to effectuate the payment ofthe devises to other individuals and the delivery and vesting of such property in the trustee ofall property in such trust created by the will.

Item Second of the sixth codicil provided that

“In the event the death of T. G. Hendrick occurs before that of Ida Hendrick, the latter shall continue during the remainder of her life to have the free possession and use of the lot and the improvements known
as 802 Orange Street inthe city of Abilene, Texas,

. . . which property is sometimes occupied and used by us for residential purposes, and she shall also have such free use and possession of all furniture and fixtures and other personal property used by us in connection with such premises, including the family automobile
so used at the time; and in such event, we direct that
our executor and thereafter our bank trustee, from funds belonging tothe trust created for the establishment and maintenance of the ‘T. G. and Ida Hendrick Home’ shall pay all taxes that may **accrue** against said real and personal property, pay all insurance premiums on policies relating thereto and keep the premises and estate in good care all without charge
or expense to Ida Handrick.”
These provisions covered everything to be retained by Ida Hendrick in the event T. G. Hendrick predeceased her.

In the seventh codicil Item Second again refers to the $500,000.00 trust fund to be established in the event Ida Hendrick survived T. G. Hendrick out of her one-half of the community property (or out of thejoint property ifher community one-half was insufficient). Said item confirmed the creation of the trust and devised and bequeathed same to the Fort Worth National Bank as trustee. Itwas provided that at the death of Ida Hendrick title to the property and assets belonging to such trust at the time of her death were to remain in the Fort Worth National Bank as trustee to be used by it in setting up other trusts provided for in the will.

Inthe eleventh and last codicil to the will the various trusts here involved were established. By its terms $l,OOO,OOO..OOHon. Gee. H. Sheppard, Page 4 (V-704)

was devised tothe Baptist Foundation of Texas as trustee to be held, managed and the income therefrom disposed offor twenty-one years as specifically provided: 10% thereof tobe used for “the aid and assistance ofyoung men being educated for the ministry at the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, of Fort Worth, Texas”; 10% thereof to be used by the Relief and Annuity Board of the Southern Bapti$t Convantion in the “aid of old worn out Baptist preachers’*; 10% thereof tobe used by the Baptist General Convention ofTexas “in its ordinary Foreign MisGions Work”; 40% thereof to be used by the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention “for relief work
, . .and caring for the medical needs and religious welfrre of needy people anywhere in the world; or, at the discretion of the Executive Board of the Baptist General Convention ofTexas, part of these funds may be so used by other agencies under itsjurisdiction”; 30% thereof to be used by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention

“for relief work

. . .and ruligiaus welfare of needy people in the Homeland; or, at the discretion d the Executive Board of t&oBa@i$t General Convention ofTexas, part ofthese funds may be so used by **other** agonciea **tw,der** its jurisdiction.” Twenty-one year0 dter this trust became effective its corpus .ig to be paid to the BaptMt General Convention of Texas tobrt, devoted by it to the five eharitie$ abuve mentioned, on the game pro rata basis above cot out, 80that the assets of the trust will be exhausted ten years after such distribution begins.

Following t&edeath of T. (P.Hendrick on July 8, 1946, the will and all of the codicils thereto, forming a 60-page instrument, was admit@8 to probate on July 29, 1946, as the last will and testament of T. 6. Hendrick, deceased. OnAugust 10, 1946, Ida Hendrick filed in the coupty court an instrument which recited the execution by herself and her husband of the will theretofore admitted to probate and declared: “I am satisfied with the d&positions of our estate made thereby and do ratify and confirm such will and each of the eleven codicils.”

Of the million-dollar **trust** fund described **above,** the First Item is clearly exempt from payment ofany inheritance lu under the provisions of Chapter 5, Title 122, V.C.S., since it **comet3**within the exemption provided by Article 7122 for

“property passing **,to**or for the use of

. . .any religious, eduCation& or charitable organiaatiopl when such bequest, devise
or gift is to be used within this sbte.” Pse risn Church in U. S. v. Sheppard, Civ, App., 198 **S.W.** (
me executor tar the estate admit,s that this **exsmpbhm**aMnot **be** claimed for the other four items previously listed, inasmuch **a$** these items are not to be expended within the state, but contends **that** only on%-half of said **amout%?@**went to the trustue outHon. Geo. H. Sheppard, Page 5 (V-704)

of the estate of T. G. Hendrick, deceased, and that the remaining one-half paid over tothe Baptist Foundation of Texas, trustee, was paid over out of the share ofMrs. Ida Hendrick in the community property of herself and her deceased husband and was not subject totax by virtue ofArticle 7117, V.C.S. In effect their contention is that the trustee acquired one-half of said funds by gift from Mrs. Hendrick rather-than by the will of **Mr.** Hendrick. Iftheir contention is correct, the taxes due by **reason** of the receipt of said funds on the death ofT. G. Hendrick should be computed on the basis ofthe amount received from his community interest regardless of whether or not the transfer ofMrs. Hendrick’s interest is taxable at her death under the provisions ofArticle 7117, V.C.S.

ing: The relevant provisions ofArticle 7117 are the follow-

“All property within thejurisdiction ofthis state

. . .which shall pass absolutely or in trust by will

. . . or by deed, grant, sale, or gift made
or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment after the death of the grantor or donor, shall, upon passing to or for the use of any person, corporation, or association, be subject to a tax for the benefit of the State’s General Revenue Fund,

. . .. Any transfer made by a grantor, vendor, or donor, whether by deed, grant, sale, or gift, shall, unless shown tothe contrary, be deemed to have been made in contemplation of death and subject to the same tax as herein provided, if such transfer is made within two (2) years prior to the death of the grantor, vendor, or donor, of a material part of his estate, or if the transfer made within such period is in the nature of a final distribution of property and without adequate valuable consideration.”

Three opinions ofthis office have dealt with similar problems. Opinion O-4109 dealt with the following facts. The husband by will disposed ofthe entire community estate, setting up a **trust** for the surviving wife who was to have the use of the homestead and household furnishings and an annuity 

### of $24Og,Og per **year for**  life. At the termination ofthe trust the corpus was tobe distributed to aeven named parties, The #tarviving wife elected to take under the will, and the opinion holds that although the wife’s interest was not subject to tax by reason of being less than her community interest, Jones v. State, 5S.W. (2d) 973, the remainder interests in the properties passed to the devisees by the will ofthe husband; that all property passing under awin absolutely or in trust is subject totax by

### Hoa. Geo. H.Sheppard, Page 6(V-70$)



## rmcH0& me&g under a condition tUrned in Article 

### 7117, SUI pr@; d tbt *the inheritance tax

. . ., weei to be base& uplo t&6tehl 

### wlue eo 

### pcr6ta~ tothsm owl iit E4fied up.onml vlmu 

### aUaaly the one-half commutity intetedt of*a tret8tW * * waste, I3The writer ofOpinion O-4109 reached the conclusian Wr %reentire-osrrutieo interest pwsed unrkr the will by re4e * 

### *onofauthorities ‘tifcb &ol4WC toJlur tLadetrfae ofelection %e whoaccepts IIban&t under aw@Lmuddadoptthewhole cmtents of the instrument, so far aa it concerns him.
, ,’ Phfll e Y, Hollida
, 24 Tax. 30; aad that title i9 &rived from t g=Fg$&Wg t;y;;,z1 livdk

-“4;&w&y&
wl@o toek the view 6&$

### when elsct6 teww uader thehtisband’d)wokwhi a&* cm muf&ty eetate, the4inbadi6nce tuceg 4uu by hemwn of

### the ree*L* 

### al property bythird p~rtias must be computed onthe b&811; U# fxlr WI vbtluw

oftheproperty 

### received. Opinion O-5557involved the 

### fallow&# i*at$, 

### Ibe &z#- hand’s will created atestamentary trust disposing ofthe entire community estate. The surviving wife allowed her share of the community to pass according to her husband’s will which prorided that she receive 316 ofthe trust income 

### for life andWt 8 gotrcnl daughter er their 

### ehildrelli, on stated contingencies, xeeeive the balance of the income in fixed amounts and the corpus ofthe trust 

### tenyears after their mother’s 

### death. The q&nion 

### holds that the wife’s relinquishment of her share ofthe cdmmunity was 4 “deed, grant, sake or gift made or intenakd to i&s# effect in possession or enjoyment after the death Ozi&e grentoe 

### ar donor “; end that therefore at her Ieatb an inheritice tax **WWF** 

### due, “such tax

. . .to be based um the full amount ef suCh inn 

### WWste ariefng from b&cl. Handley’s one-half interest in tbe 

### cbmsnusity proper@ which forms the corpus 

### ofthetrust.” 

### Thus unly one-half of the other 

### deyisees ’ ‘interests was 

### regwded as having passed by the wilt. ofthe husband, the other one*hrtf p4$$- ing on the death 

### ofthewife-a result which is clearly contra to the result reached in Opinions O-4109 and O-191, which held that
as a result of the wife’s eleCtion the whole community estate pass

### ei under 

### thewill, Tbnrmiter 

### further strted 

### tkatit~48 not nM%esaary te decide whether the wil:l 

### reguiked an election in the technical sense ofthe term since it was certain “that by such relinquishment Mrs. Handley divested herself ofher share 

### inthe corn-- munity and placed such share under 

### thetestamentary trust createUby her husband’s will to be distributed in accordance with the terms thereof, Certain also is the fact that the relinquishment operated to bestow upon the ultimate beneficiaries of the trust one-half ofwhatever they acquire under such trust, Practically 

### and legally the result is the same as if Mrs. Handley had at the time of her relinquishment created a separate and independentHon. Geo. H. Sheppard, Page 7 (v,-704)

trust with her share ofthe community, employing the same provisions that were contained ia the trust sstablished by her husband and designating the same beneficiaries,”

The writer ofthis opinion reached the conclusion just stated by analogy tothe decision in Bethea v. Sheppard, 143S.W. (2d) 993, error refused. The facts in the Bethea case clo~oly parallel the facts presented by your instant request. Inthe Bethea
case Mr. and Mrs. Hcnke executed ajoint and mutual will (lacking the express contractual provision ofthe T. G. Hendrick will) which provided, as did the Hendrick will, for the disposition of their entire community estate. As in the material parts of the Hendrick will, the will constituted the **trust** instrument and provided for certain bequests to become effective on the death of the husband, who
was made trustee ofthe wife’s interest in tbo evemt she predeceased him; but ifthehusband predeceased the wife, the entire community estate passed into the trust established by the will. Under the terms ofthe **trust** agreement, after her husband’s death Mrs. Henkc was to receive $40,000 per year (subject to increase on stated contingencies) for the remainder of her life. The daughter, Mrs. Bethea, likewise received an income from the trust during the life ofher mother and for eight **years** following her death, at which time, again subject to stated contingencies. she was to receive the corpus of the trust. Mr. Henke did predecease his wife. and the will and trust instrument was probated as his will, and **inheritance** taxes were paid the State **on**his one-half ofthe community estate. When **Mrs.** Henke died, Mrs. Bethea contested the payment of inheritance taxes on her mother’s one-half ofthe community estite which had gone into the trust. The **Court** held that “the **net value**  of the corpus of the trust estate in suit was taxable upon the death ofthe grantor.

. .” on the grounds that by its very terms the trust instrument “brings the iastant case squarely within tbo statute, which

. . .imposes the tax upon the passing of the property or interest therein when ‘made or intended totake effect in possession
or enjoyment after the death ofths grantor.“’ Now ifthe property had passed “by the will” ofMr. Herke which’also established the trust, afortiori, it could not have passed, as the Court held that it did, by “deed, act, sale or gift” from Mrs. Henke “made or intended to take effect ia posseasioa or enjoyment after” her death.

The fact that Mrs. Hendrick received no income from the trusts here involved can in noway operate to **cause** the transfer of her community interest tothe **trusts to**  pass by the will of Mr. Hendrick. Inher case, no beneficial interest was reserved, nor was the transfer in any way deferred until her death. So we are of the opinior that it follows as a necessary corollary to the Bethea case thatby 

### theterms of the foist and mutual and contractual will, Mrs. Hendrick made what was, ineffect, a transfer of her community interests to the trusts named therein and that said transfer took ef-Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard, Page g (V-704)

fact on the happening of the limiting condWon precedent, tow&t* Mr. Hendrick’s death-not hers. So viewed, t&etransfer fails to come within the provision ofArticle 7117 rehting to property passing by will.

We think that the foregoing fultp auhlltantiatea this conclusion; but inview of the adverse affeat en the atate’s **revenue#** which will result from an overruling 3 Opifiicas 04109 Uwtg-1)1,
we think it proper to support our conoIt@ia by further &&isct.u3rlen of relevant authorities,

We think that our holding is consistent with the holding of the Commission ofAppeals in Jones v. State, 5S.W. (2d) 973. In that case “the testator died leaving a community estate of the total value of $335,246.00. The will by its terms devised to the widow certain specific property of value approximately one-half ofthe total community property. * The will specifically requested the wife to accept the bequests “in lieu of her community and.dower interest in all other **property. ”**  The surviving wife accepted the provisions. The Court said:

‘Much strags has been laid by cotmae $0~tha state upon the doctrine of electirm under wills under which rule it is contended the Burviving wife, havi? eleotsd to take under the will, has done $0, wd wil not be heard to dispute her **act&en** er toavoid the effect thereof: that **by** a proper application of the doctrine there has passed by the will the specific devises **made.** 0-1 the other 

### hand, coutlsltl for Plaintiffs in er*
ror insist the doctrine does nut a~&&* this case, be- ’
cause she has taken nethiq un&r ihe will which abs would net otherwise have been entitled te trke, and therefore thoro is ne squity to estop her,

“It cannot be said broadly that the surviving widow ha8 not taken anything **under** ths will which she would not otherwise havs received, since she has received specific property under the will, whereas in the absence of the will she would have owned an un**divided** ene-half interest in all the property. But this is ofno moment in the consideration, for we have
seen that by the terms ofthe statute before the tax is imposable the property must have passed by the will. We are of the opinion no property passed to the widow by the will in any event. It is undisputed that all ofthe **Q&ate** possessed by the testator was community proparty, **As** mat!& of law, the wife was the equal -02 inher own right of one-half ofthat estate..

. .Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard, Page 9 (V-704)

“Now ifthe surviving w~idowowned in her own right an undivided ore-half interest in the community property of herself and husband, then she had title to that extent to such property, and, ifthe will of deceased did not pass any property to her, clearly she is not taxable. The will did not pass any property whatever toher, because it operated only as an effective partition of the community property after death. A partition deed or agreement does not pass title at all. Indeed it is not within the statute offrauds. Itmay as well be oral as inwriting, all because a partition is not a conveyance of land. (Citations omitted)

“Under the undisputed facte, the surviving widow having received no more than her just share ofthe community property fully owned by her prior to the death of her husband, or if slightly in excess ofher one-half, yet not as much as the minimum amount taxable under the act, $25,000, she has received no property through the operation ofthe will. The only effect ofthat instrument was to partition the community property between the surviving widow and the other beneficiaries: in other words, to make definite the particular portion of the community property OWRed by her, and not in anywise to affect, by increasing
or diminishing, her estate. This is not the passing of property contemplated by the Inheritance Tax Act. To impose the tax under such circumstances would be to visit the tax upon the real owner whose real right to the property has not been affected one way or the other by the death of a co-owner, It in undisputed that the taxes have been paid upoa that portion ofthe estate received by the others named as devtsees who took the testator’s one-half of the property.” Opinion O-4109 recognized that under the doctrine of Jones V. State, supra, no inheritance tax was due the State from the surviving wife since the value of the interest received was less than the value ofher community interest; however, the remainder interests (partially composed of the wife’s community)
were regarded as passing under the will. We do not think that the holding **in** Jones v. State can be properly limited in its application to that part ofthe wife’s interest which is received by the wife. In other words, we are of the opinion that if the husband’s will did not “pass” her interest to her “by will” within the meaning of that phrase as used in Article 7117, V.C.S., it likewise does not “pass” her interest to others “by will.” Itis true that there are authorities which, in analogous cases dealing with the relinquishment of dower rights, have regarded prop-I&n. Geo. H. Sheppard, Page 10 **(V-704)**

erty so passing as subject totax under similar statutes in other states. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in Jones v. State, 290 S.W. 244, which was overruled by the Commission ofAppeals, cited and followed numerous of these authorities all holding, in effect, that when the wife accepts under the husband’s will a bequest in lieu of dower, the proper so accepted is subject to inheritance tax. Inrejecting the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, the Commission ofAppeals affirmatively rejected this line of authorities. Mr. Judson Falknor praised this decision in an article entitled “Liability of the Entire Community Estate for the Payment ofState Inheritance Tax When IIusband Undertakes to Dispose of Entire Community Estate by Will and Wife Elects to Take Under the Will.” 5Wash. Law Rev. 55. Mr. Falknor said:

II

. . .The language used by

. . .the Supreme Court of Texas

. . .is logical and in conformity with our fundame,nwt notions of the community property system /?.e., the wife’s actual ,legal ownership of her?ommunity interest as eontradistinguished from the common law **dower** right which is generally viewed as an equitable interest or as an expsctancy and which was involved inthe cases relied upon by the Cou peals’ opinion which was overrgle 4 fof Civil Ap* and a sirngIe application of the fundamental conceptions demonBtrates not only that the stat& fi%ferring to t&i State of Washington under our$resent Inheritance ;I Tax Statute, is not ntitled to e tan upon the wife’s share in the community property, even where she elects to take under the will, but that an attempt
on the part of the state to levy such a tax raises u serious constitutional question as te its right tocl0 SO..

. .

. . 66.

. “Before the state can plausibly make such an attempt, a further voluntary aridaffirmative action
on the part of the wife is required, In other #clr&, she must agree and consent, either by a for-1 written acceptance of the will and relinquishment of her interest in the community property, or by virtue of
an estoppel, that her half of the community property shall, along with the husband’s half, be turned inta the trust. But ,I$& &mounts to nothing more than **a** conveyance by the wife to the trustee, **after the**  **de@%** ofthe husband, of her interest in the community property. The fact that the entire community propertyHon. Gee. H. Sheppard, Page 11 (V-704)

finds its way into the trust does not mean that the trustee or the beneficiaries under the trust receive the property by will or inherftance; it simply means that one-half of the community property goes tothe trustee for the benefit of the named beneficiarie.8 by virtue of the will ofthe hnsbad, and the other half of the community property goes kto the trust because ofthe voluntary and, what clearly
seems to be, the legally affirmative act of the wife.”
Thus, as we view the matter, Opinion O-5557 reaches the correct result, and even in cases in which the surviving spouse takes affirmative action to relinquish his or her community share after the death of the spouse who has by will disposed of the em community estate, the share of the survivor does not pass by the will ofthe deceased spouse within the meaning ofArticle 7117. Opinions O-4109 and O-191 **are** therefore overruled.

We think that the instant case in which the surviving wife entered into the trust agreement prior tothe death of the husband is an even clearer case for the refutation of the view that her community interest passed “by his will” within the meaning ofArticle 7117. To lump the estate ofthe surviving spouse with the estate ofthe deceased spouse and compute an inheritance tax on the combined value is clearly contra to the **obvious** purpose of the provision of the statute which imposes
a tax upon the receipt 

### ofproperty which has parsed “by will,” since it was obviously designed totax the privilege of receiving property from the dead-not from the living.

Even thought we have concurred with the theory submitted by the attorney for the e:xecutor, i.,e., that only T. G. Hendrick’s one-half interest in the community is subject totax as passing by will, we differ as to the amount which passed from T. G. Hendrick’s interest to the Baptist Foundation as trustee on which the taxes due are to be computed.

**Your** file shows that at the death of T. G. Hendrick the **value** of Ida Hendrick’s community was placed at $2,269,289.44. However, **it** must be borne inmind that $500,000 of this amount was specifically diverted into the trust establi,shed for her benefit, and altimately, on her death, for the benefit of the Hendrick Home for Children atAbilene. To that extent, then, the ratio of her contribution tothe Baptist Foundation must be deemed to have beer reduced accordingly, and the amount passing by the will tothe Baptist Foundation from T. G. Hendrick% community interest necessarily exceeds one-half of the sum bequeathed in the same ratio. Specifically, the value of the amount which pass-. .



### Hen. G#. If,Bheppud, **Page** 

### 12(V-794)

el,fran T. 0. Hm&Ack’e estate shQIILs6 Mm dS?&m~d bymultiplplali *e,waeuat of

### thetaxable beque&# w
Ljketise, Inthis case wethi@ tkalM~!lr. Hendrick’s ,*rmatfve actr, injotni.nginandacc,eptfng theprevisions of T. G. Xisndrkk’s will dis,posin~ ofthecommunity es+.ate,followodbyher de&b wi,thinkas than 

### twoyews, comb aI@& ,fh9f&lloWing

### previdon ofArticle 7117, V.C.S.r

. 

### at did,: whether bydeed, 

### grant, e8k, vr gtiti,&U,

**Any** treader 

### made by l

### grm~tor, vsndr
unless shown tothecontrary, bedeemed $0have been made incontemplation ofdeathandsubject tothe game far as herein provided, il $wB tr&&~ is made withtn two (2)years prior ‘1A VU &a&i&d thr grantor, vendor, or doww, adl

### ~&S&U &a!0 oi h&a @tabs, or ifthe transfer mada Wit?&8gpd period IS x inthenature ofafinal distributfon **of prlppsrty**  

### and without adequate valuable coauhloratiion,” 

### Therefore, onher deathaninheritance taxbeeame due andowing theState, andshould bacompute8I onthe baeis ofthe amount ofthegift ofher community Sntesreat;spe~cifically, that amount should be determined bymultiplying thevalue ofthe~taxable bequeets by 1,769,299.44. 930 5708% Even thoughthe $500,000 transfer from her prope@rty;o thetrust established for her benefit is also clearly withinArticle 7117as atransfer “bydeed, grant, sale, or gift made or intended to.t&e effect inpossession or enjoyment after thewth ofthegrantor or donor,” Bethea v. She -
%“bY rd.143 SW. (2d) 997, **error** 

### rc)fus~II &are is, o dx
reauoa 

### ofthefact thattheult%matebeneficiary, tbbHen- ~dHme for CWdrea. is eammpt by 

### virtue ofArticle 7122,

l . 

### Wehast thet 

### theforegoing hse 

### answered yeur q#Hoa andare returning your file herewith.

**S-Y ‘** **, ’**  

### Where aommunfty eetete was canpletely diapmocl of at 

### death ofhusbandbyJ&&twili andkugt iaemma& only thewlw of%s amelgn~ u&g& HUM fran hi$ community one-half shoutd k#wmd Y)atad for cmnputing the inheritance taxes due etsarr duih. uademkctu e*bcl, ialicritdlace t&m% rWobecune d&eat 

### W w!fob demtb, which occti lea@W two years 

### after the husband’s death; and .

### Hon. Ceo. H.Sheppard, Pago 13(V-704)

the Laei~ for computing the taxes dimet &e-rbnrrth should bethe value ofthe **Am@** 

### *beklrlmdpuo*d from her OM-half of#c co?rlm@* *t @A6 deba of the husband tothe beneficierl*s rluva ta the)sht will Ad truet istetrumoat. brlonr are overruled tothe **extent** 

### % 0493 d ?4M9 aq **o#liut** 

### W&k&i@ 143$.W.@d) ptl, #4fa

ATTORNEY oEaouLobTE%As

bfC/JCP ENC. (1)
APPROVICDI