Court Opinion

ID: 9753656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:21:54.590645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.873122
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Manderino:
I dissent. The Constitution of the Commonwealth, Article 8, Section 1, requires that taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects. The inheritance tax is a tax on the transfer of a decedent’s property. It is the act of transferring that is the subject of taxation. Act of June 15, 1961, P. L. 373, art. II, §201, 72 P.S. 2485-201. The state has a right to full taxes on the total property being transferred. The state does not have a right to determine that a specific devisee or legatee will pay no taxes and the devisee or legatee of the residuary estate will pay double taxes. This result is what the majority approves. A law which taxed only residuary transfers and not specific transfers would involve classifications as to subjects of taxation which would be completely unreasonable. The same result cannot be allowed indirectly.
As the majority states, prior to the amendment of Section 718(a) each person paid a proportionate share of the inheritance transfer tax according to one’s proportionate share in the property transferred—whether *309by specific devise or bequest or by residuary devise or bequest. The amendment to Section 718(a) is an unconstitutional provision violating the uniformity clause unless it is interpreted so that the residuary legatee or devisee does not suffer double taxation.
The majority speaks of anomalous tax consequences and mathematically attempts to show unfairness to the state. Nothing is said of the unfairness to the residuary legatee or devisee. Using the logic and mathematics of the majority we can illustrate another unfair result. If the transfer of a $500,000 estate, referred to by the majority, is by a specific bequest to “A” of $250,000 and a residuary bequest to “B” of $250,000, “A” would pay no taxes and “B” would pay (at 15%) $75,000. If the transfer of the same estate was to be in equal shares to “A” and “B”, each would pay $37,500. The majority is saying that in two identical estates, each involving $500,000, the state is entitled (at 15%) to a tax of $75,000. I agree. I cannot agree, however, that in one estate the $75,000 is to be paid by “B” with no tax to “A” and in the other estate “A” and “B” share the tax. Such a result in tax matters must always be pursuant to reasonable classifications which do not exist in this case. The uniformity article of the Constitution is clearly violated under the majority’s interpretation.
The Commonwealth has every right to collect the full tax due. It has no right to arbitrarily decide by statute or otherwise who will pay the tax. The testator may do this, or the state, by establishing nonarbitrary constitutionally valid classifications—-this has not been done.
The case should be remanded for modification of the decree in accordance with this opinion.