Court Opinion

ID: 9545045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:05:08.780004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:57.889992
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Whether the case presents an income or inheritance tax problem, fact is the latter tax was imposed, acquiesced in and exacted by the Commission, and it was paid. Without any offer' of refund, the Commission has changed its position ;,and chooses another 'theory to collect another tax. Under such circumstances, there would seem to be no justification statutorily, constitutionally,' or otherwise to take such a position, where-by mutual agreement one tax base was employed, resulting apparently, in a situation where the taxpayer cannot protest the first tax, which he could have done had the Tax Commission taken its present position simultaneously with that taken in the first place. Taxpayers already are overburdened not only with taxes themselves, but by confusing tax legislation that in this case apparently was confusing to the Tax Commission itself. It seems to me that if tax officials apply the wrong tax in the first instance, but change their theory, no matter how innocently the confusion came about, either they should tender a refund of the first tax paid, with interest, or hide their light under the proverbial bushel. Fairness is fairness, and no departure therefrom should be indulged because the subject matter is “taxation.”
A good argument could be advanced that the situation here constitutes an annuity and thus not taxable at all. However, plaintiff was content to pay an inheritance tax, and this writer thinks that the imposition of such tax or an income tax should suffice under the circumstances of this case, — but not both. ■ •