Opinion ID: 4265722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: [4] Statutes exempting property from inheritance tax should be strictly construed, and the burden is on the taxpayer to show that he or she clearly falls within the language of the statute.5 Section 77-2004 provides that “any person to whom the deceased for not less than ten years prior to death stood in the acknowledged relation of a parent” shall receive an inheritance tax exemption of $40,000 and shall be taxed at the rate of 1-percent of the clear market value of the property thereafter. Therefore, it was Voss’ burden to establish that she was a person “to whom the deceased for not less than ten years prior to death stood in the acknowledged relation of a parent.” [5] The following factors serve as appropriate guideposts to the trial court in making a determination of an acknowledged relationship of a parent under § 77-2004: (1) reception of the 2 See In re Estate of Craven, 281 Neb. 122, 794 N.W.2d 406 (2011). 3 Id. 4 In re Estate of Kite, 260 Neb. 135, 615 N.W.2d 481 (2000). 5 In re Estate of Breslow, 266 Neb. 953, 670 N.W.2d 797 (2003). - 634 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK Cite as 299 Neb. 630 child into the home and treatment of the child as a member of the family, (2) assumption of the responsibility for support beyond occasional gifts and financial aid, (3) exercise of parental authority and discipline, (4) relationship by blood or marriage, (5) advice and guidance to the child, (6) sharing of time and affection, and (7) existence of written documentation evincing the decedent’s intent to act as parent.6 [6] Voss testified that the decedent referred to her as his stepdaughter. The credibility of a witness is a question for the trier of fact, and it is within its province to credit the whole of the witness’ testimony, or any part of it, which seemed to it to be convincing, and reject so much of it as in its judgment is not entitled to credit.7 Even if Voss’ testimony would have been sufficient for the county court to make the necessary finding, the court was not required to do so. The evidence offered at trial was sparse and included a two-page affidavit, the decedent’s previous will, and Voss’ summary answer to a single question. No evidence was offered concerning the third factor—exercise of parental authority and discipline—and, though Voss described her mother’s and the decedent’s relationship as “a close marital type relationship,” no actual blood or marital relationship existed. Neither Wisconsin law8 nor Nebraska law9 allows for the establishment of common-law marriages, and Voss conceded that they had not legally married. Therefore, the fourth factor—relationship by blood or marriage—also weighed against Voss’ entitlement to the § 77-2004 tax rate. No credible evidence was offered concerning the seventh factor—written documentation of intent—as Voss offered only a copy of the decedent’s previous will—not his most recent will. And there is nothing in the 6 In re Estate of Kite, supra note 4. 7 In re Estate of Ross, 19 Neb. App. 355, 810 N.W.2d 435 (2011). 8 See Watts v. Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 506, 405 N.W.2d 303 (1987). 9 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-104 (Reissue 2016). - 635 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports IN RE ESTATE OF HASTERLIK Cite as 299 Neb. 630 record to show that Voss received the same treatment in the controlling will as she did under the previous will. As to the remaining factors, it is apparent from the record that Voss and the decedent cared for one another and would spend time together for holidays and regular visits. However, the county court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the decedent acted in a manner toward Voss that went above and beyond the normal circumstances of his relationship with her mother. We cannot say that the county court was clearly wrong in determining that Voss failed to carry her burden of proof.