Court Opinion

ID: 9716162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:29:15.859222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:42.420386
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
Under the Act of June 20, 1919, P. L. 521, as amended, 72 P.S. §2302, it is provided that “[a] 11 taxes imposed by this act shall be imposed upon the clear value of the property subject to the tax . . . passing to . . . [collaterals]. In ascertaining the clear value of such estates ... no deduction whatsoever shall he allowed for or on account of any taxes paid on such estates to the Government of the United States or to any other *652State or Territory. . . .” (Emphasis supplied). This provision is such a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative intent of preventing the payment of federal estate taxes from reducing the amount of inheritance taxes running to the Commonwealth .that reference to prior administrative practice is unnecessary, and indeed, highly improper. Here, as in Loeb Estate, 400 Pa. 368, 162 A. 2d 207 (1960), the majority has taken an ill-considered “prior administrative practice” as a substitute for an explicit legislative mandate.
Administrative interpretation should not be resorted to when the provisions of the statute are clear, as they are in this Act. By our decision in this matter we have opened the door to tax avoidance primarily for the benefit of the beneficiaries of large estates. If this preference is to be permitted in instances such as this, the legislature should undoubtedly extend the deduction of federal estate tax to all estates.
I dissent.