Court Opinion

ID: 9533065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:27:58.866729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:54.372445
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring in the result) — Were this a question of first impression, I could follow the reasoning of the dissent, which, sub silentio, overrules In re Sherwood's Estate, 122 Wash. 648, 211 Pac. 734 (1922); but that is not the problem as I view it.
The majority opinion points out with clarity
“ . . . that neither the state nor the federal government, in imposing its own tax, was under any constitutional obligation to make any deduction on account of the other-’s tax.”
We are not confronted with a constitutional question, but with the determination of what our legislature intended.
To my mind, the intention of the legislature is clear. Knowing that this court said, in 1922, that the federal estate tax was not deductible, the legislature on two occasions said that it was deductible. In 1961 it reversed its field. The action of the legislature is binding upon us.
For these reasons I concur in the result of the majority opinion.