Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re the Collateral Inheritance Tax on Estate of Platt 8 Misc. 144

← Cases

In re the Collateral Inheritance Tax on Estate of Platt

8 Misc. 144 Court N.Y. Sur. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 144
Matter of the Collateral Inheritance Tax on Estate of Louisa S. Platt, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court—Westchester County,
April, 1894.)

Headnote

Relief from payment of the penalty for nonpayment of 0 the collateral inheritance tax will not he granted where the only reasons assigned therefor are that the executors were ignorant of the law, and that such payment will he a hardship to the legatee.
Henry W. Bibby, one of the executors, etc., of the deceased, presents a petition, in which it appears that the testatrix died on the 20th day of February, 1889 ; that by her will' she bequeathed the use of the residuum of her estate to her niece, Augusta Bibby, during her life, and upon her death, leaving her daughter, Mary Bibby, surviving, then the like use for life to said Mary, and at her death the fund was bequeathed to others; that the executors rendered their account and a decree was entered on the 6th day of February, 1891, fixing such residuum at $31,261.91; that the executors were ignorant of the law relating to the tax; that in 1894 a decree was made fixing the tax upon the estate of Augusta Bibby at $691.25, and on that of Mary Bibby at $511.50; that thereupon the amount of the taxes, so fixed,, was tendered to the county treasurer, which was refused unless a penalty of ten per cent, amounting to more than $600, was paid thereon; that the executors have no funds, other than said residuum, out of which to pay said taxes and penalties, and that Augusta Bibby is. sixty years of age, without other property, and is wholly dependent for her support upon the slender income from said trust fund, which is barely sufficient for the purpose, and prays for an order relieving the estate from the payment of any penalty.
Strong & Cadwalader, for the motion.
John Hoag, County Treasurer, in person, opposed.

By section 15 of the act of 1881 it is provided that the Surrogate’s Court of the proper county shall

p. 145
have jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions in relation to the tax arising under the provisions of that act. Here, such a question having arisen, it is proper for this court to determine it, the county treasurer having no judicial power on the subject. His duty is doubtless to demand the penalty of ten per cent in this case, and it is a fair question as to whether or not the liability exists. It might be that facts could be shown which, under the provisions of section 5, would relieve the estate from liability for the penalty. These facts should be adjudicated where the question arises by the court.

However much hardship to persons may spring from the exaction of the penalty in this or any other case, yet the provisions of the statute must be enforced. Ho reason is furnished here other than such hardship resulting from ignorance of the law. It is an old legal maxim that ignorcmtia legis nemi/nem excusat.

The application, therefore, is denied.