New-York tribune., 1921-04-21
c,onstitutionality
Of Inheritance
Tax Is Attacked
.rcument To Be Heard by
Il. S. Supreme Court Mon
day: New York and East
crn States Pay Heavily

v..x large estates recently under
.nSsss;stration in this state are greatly
sssa'.ssted in a suit attacking the CON
;s:.e.....:nnai;tv of the Federal estate
WHICH is to be argued in the
A's..5 States Supreme Court Monday.
ss''t ~ total collected. last year under this
sss n,as sos. .6S5. .56S. of which SS2.712,-
~ ~ vss mad by residents of New York.
W ss.,ss adjacent TO the Atlantic sea
ss .rS from Maryland north. and in
~s'rr New England paid $6S S.S99,T53,
oSssssrly twe-thirds of the total.
| Tss law providing for such taxes was
.sssa in 1916 and provided originally
' sliding scale of taxes running
per cent on the first $4,000.
ssr rent on the next 100000 and so
m TO 10 per cent on $4,000, 900.
~ Ease is said to involve the largest
'sosnt OF money of any case ever
ssonrht before the United States Su-
rene Court
The law was amended in March. 1917,
ID the tax raised. and again in
n.saber. 1917, with 8 further raise. The
~. amendment was in February, 1919.
~ the range Of taxes was from / per
.sS. on the $4,000 to 25 per cent on
;Is,eo0,ooQ-
The suit was brought by the New
yars Trust Company apd il now on ap-
-ssl from decision of district court
= The United States for the Southern
Ss,rct OF New York. and the case it
ssY involved only S23.911, which was
,aliseted by the United States Collec-
ar ri Internal Revenue from the estate
III Harsen Purdy. Two questions are
-,ssd-one as to the constitutionalitv
= the act Of September s, 1916, and the
cthsr as 20 the method of interpre tation
a. the act by which the value Of the
M estate is computed before the pay
~e-t of state taxes.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General
4 Minnesota; j. Weston Allen. Attor-
usy General for Massachusetts, and
Ios. B. Gleason. counsel for the State
COMPTROLLER of New York. have filed
5rjefs attacking the onstitutionality
af the law. George Switzerland, of
Washington, and n. T. Newcomb, Of
,tis city. are counsel for the plaintiffs.
The law says that tax is hereby
sposed upon che transfer of the net
state of every decedent dying after
he passage Of this act" 1t is claimed
h the plaintiffs that this is taking
si property, either as price, or as
Ak and is unjustifable.
The argument against the constitu-
.onality is % that the tax is direct
tax and not apportioned in the corsti-
,ational manner and CD that it inter
.srss directly with the exclusive pow
srs Of the states to control the descent
md distribution. Plaintiffs contend
that the tax attaches in every case of
ownership Of property followed by
death, and that as the demand for pay
nent is thus imperative and unavoid-
sbie it lacks the essential quality of an
excise tax Many urge that DO tax is
Indirect unless it is levied upon the
exercise of some right or privilege,
ether than the general right to own
property, and that this principle of
law has been repeatedly declared by
ae highest authority.
They also contend that the least pos
sble scope to be admitted as to the
rzts power to control the distribution
4 decedents' estates is that it involves
he night to say how much of each es-
ate may be disposed of by will or
.rier intestates laws They claim that
lie tax in question interferes with this
rat OF the state by taking from the
ast Of the executors, before distri-
,sasn, part of the property that the
state has said may be passed under its
ava