Court Opinion

ID: 9736025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:40:39.191078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.443283
License: Public Domain

SHINN, P. J.
I dissent.
I am not convinced there is a constitutional basis for taxing the interest of Mrs. Rogers in the joint tenancy property.
Section 13671.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides *111that property held by husband and wife in joint tenancy which had its source in community property, upon the death of either shall be treated for inheritance tax purposes as community property. As such the interest of the deceased spouse is not subject to a tax. (§ 13551.)
Section 13672 imposes a tax upon the joint tenancy interest of a deceased spouse if the funds with which the joint tenancy property was acquired were quasi-community property as defined by section 15300. This discrimination is accomplished by the introduction of a fiction that for the purpose of inheritance taxation it will be conclusively presumed that each spouse contributed one-half of the quasi-community funds. This special and unique interest is created for the sole purpose of rendering a share of the joint tenancy property subject to an inheritance tax upon the death of either spouse.
That this was the sole purpose seems clear when the Legislature has in other respects abolished the distinction between community property and quasi-community property. At least I can discover no other reason for it and in my opinion the discrimination is arbitrary, unreasonable and without a basis in constitutional principles.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 16, 1966.