Court Opinion

ID: 9585175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:57:12.778165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:45.042490
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed April 5, 1955 :
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). It is apparent from the brief filed in behalf of the state in support of its motion for rehearing that it has misconceived the effect of our original opinion herein. Examples are cited of where stock certificates or bank deposits of a deceased have first come to light years after the estate has been closed, and it is inferred that our original opinion would bar the imposition of inheritance tax on such assets.
In such a situation good title would not pass to such after-discovered assets without the same being subjected to probate in the estate of the deceased and an inheritance tax imposed thereon. The state would have the same right as would any other creditor to apply for the reopening of the estate to accomplish such purpose. In the instant case title to the gifts to the sons had passed out of the deceased in his lifetime and were not subject to probate except that the value thereof may have been subject to be included in the inheritance-tax determination.
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.