*1 sustaining pecuniary expand group. loss reason court should This Therefore, of his death. the award must construe an Act think it not as we be vacated in written, order that distribution should have been we must may proper manner, interpret actually be made in the it as- it written. Legislature might inconsistent with the views herein have different expressed. views from the court to who should dependents. legisla- be classed as Award vacated. importance tion is that we be- Legislature lieve the should start over ARNOLD, C.J., CORN, JOHN- and write an Act that is constitutional. SON, BINGAMAN, JJ., concur. GIBSON, J., HAL- concurs in result. We dissent. LEY, J., O’NEAL, J., V. C. dissent. C.J., V. O’NEAL, J., joint file their dissent as follows: We would like to opin- concur in an DAVIS’ ESTATE v. OKLAHOMA TAX ion to sustain House Bill 312 of the COMMISSION. Legislature conscientiously if we July 8, No. 34785. 1, par. could. Sec. 1 of the Act is as follows: P. 2d 318. ‘Dependent’ “The term ‘Depend- ents’, as used in Act, shall mean and include the heirs at law of the deceased, as defined the Descent and Distribution Statutes of Okla- homa.”
Sec. 4 is as follows: “Section Title Oklahoma Stat- hereby
utes by adding amended thereto new paragraph numbered read as follows: “ injury 7. If the causes death within (2) years two from the date of the accident, injury or if the causes con- disability tinuous causes death years
within (5) five from the date of accident, notice, given of which was provided Act, in this compensation in the amount of Thir- teen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars dependents and to the employee the deceased as defined here- ” in. provisions Under these benefit dependents the deceased employee, “depend- ents” are defined the Act as his heirs at is conceded that
Act, gives wherein the benefits persons who are not dependents, is un- Legislature constitutional. When the positively designated who shall be de-
pendents, we have no to limit
6.45
the value of the
estate used
*2
determining
for
as a basis
the value
the net estate shall
include:
* * *
* * *
(A)
(6) To
“Sec 989e
Twenty
the extent of the excess over
Thousand Dollars
directly,
trust, or
amount
as
or under a
receivable
by
annuities,
beneficiaries,
other
all
by
survivior,
joint policy
Bailey
Hammerly, Chickasha,
for
&
proceeds
insurance, by
of life
vir-
plaintiff
in error.
policies
by
tue of
the de-
which,
cedent
his own life and in
Speakman,
Barry,
F.
E. J.
R. F.
W.
death,
at the
the decedent had
time of
Thompson,
Armstrong,
E.
Okla-
and R.
directly
indirectly,
City, for defendant
in error.
homa
beneficiary
or to convert
to his own use.”
Seymour
GIBSON,
died
J.
C. Davis
The administratrix
that
contends
1948,
August 30,
on
a resident
intestate
order
the Commission was erro-
Grady county, Oklahoma,
neous,
in that
husband insures
upon with his
estate was administered
life, naming
his wife as
surviving wife,
Davis,
Maurine
ad-
premiums
from
question in this
ministratrix.
The sole
proceeds
funds of the
whether or not
case is
policies
regarded
will
as a
policies
issued
and that
Seymour
Davis,
May 13,
C.
on
one
holding
pro-
Commission erred in
May
$50,000,
for
and one on
ceeds
taxation to the
extent
same
$100,000,
were
to estate tax
as if
had been some
under
Oklahoma.
Two
laws
person
surviving spouse.
other than the
on the first mentioned
The Commission
contends
premium
and one
on the second
prop-
become
were all
from
erty
they passed
of the wife because
The
of the deceased and his wife.
wife
policies
under
the terms of the
policy.
was named
in each
had been dissolved
The wife survived her
husband and
husband,
the death of the
policies
paid to
of both
Community Property
nothing
Act has
policy pro-
the insurer. Each
do
these
vided the insured
they
governed
because
pol-
The
time.
policies.
terms
icies
issued and Mr. Davis died
Community
Property
while
Law
Both
were issued after S.
of this
state was
force and effect.
p.
Tit.
became effective
stipulations
The
submitted
prior
repeal
its
and exhibits. The Commission entered
governs
questions
the 1945 Act
as to
taxing
its order
the entire
community property.
1939 Com-
policies, computing
total
both
munity Property Act,
by the
discussed
$7,729.69.
on the estate in the sum of
administratrix,
only of
historical
The administratrix
significance,
compliance
therewith
protest,
placed
and it has
sus-
been
evidenced
an intent
pense pending
determination
property.
wife to communize their
appealed
test. The administratrix
from
specifically
provides
The 1945 Act
the Commission’s order.
acquired
all
either
marriage
tax the
is asserted under Tit.
shall
68 O.S.
be deemed
(A)
spouse
(6),
amended S.L.
and each
shall be
§989e
vested with
3, p. 456,
provides
Tit.
sec.
therein.
undivided
impression
127, construing
is a case of first
be-
several
laws
that,
states,
fore this court and when we look
hold
'
having community-
jurisdictions,
other
states,
in the
has a
named
property laws,
conflicting
we find
in-
in the
expect-
distinguished
cisions.
come as
from an
ancy,
permitted
wife was
prop-
With reference
file- a
tinder
return
the Rev-
erty
enue Act of
the United
As
States.
Hardin,
Volunteer
Life Ins. Co. v.
State
stated,
provides
above
the 1945 Act
145 Tex.
A.L.R.
spouse
in Oklahoma each
said that where
there is no
vested with an undivided one-half
tention on the
of' the-husband
community property.
terest
*3
defraud his wife the
Coffey’s
(1938)
In re
Estate
195 Wash.
policy on the life of the husband vested
379,
283,
held that wife’s in-
upon the
of the insured in the
terest
in
is not a
policy,
in
named
even
contingent
expectant
interest
a
but
though
out
was taken
present,
interest,
one-half
undivided
the husband
and the
coverture
sep-
of
character
paid
premiums
out
of
spouse
arate interest of a
in
funds.
It was further held that where
continues
as
as it can
the insured reserved the
clearly
be
traced
and identified.
policy,
change
further held:
no
obtained
policy prior
in
of
premiums
“Where
on insured’s
the death of the insured who
paid
were
with
divest
of all interest
in
funds,
insured’s wife had undivided
proceeds by making
a
of
policies,
one-half
interest
insured’s
beneficiary.
McAllister,
Martin
v.
94
one-half
interest
could
be
alone
gross
purpose
Tex.
and other Texas
cluded- in his
estate
computing
tax,
applicable
of
inheritance
and stat-
decisions
are cited. The Hardin
case
utory
exemption
was
did
involve taxation of the
portion.”
policies.
of life insurance
Coffey
case dealt with the
contrary
To the
the State of Wash-
heritance
Wash-
tax laws of the State of
ington
following
holds to the
rule:
Executor,
ington.
Lang,
In the case of
Revenue,
v.
of Internal
Commissioner
Washington,
thereof
“In
expect-
304
58
82 L. Ed
ceeds
are not mere
U.S.
S. Ct.
actions,
ancies or
Supreme
choses
1331, the United
Court
States
‘property’,
and,
premiums
one-half of the
of
from assets
of
a
of a decedent
”
‘community property.’
constitutes
Oc-
Washington,
domiciled in the
State
Powers,
cidental Life
Co.
Ins.
v.
192
premiums
in favor of his
Wash.
tended to overrule the case, dent, Newman as fixed *7 might argued with some force which were for this life insur- ance be deducted from the thereby ceeds of the and be- community, an asset of the come inas- they much as with com- munity funds; but no case has ever Meacham, Meacham, & Meacham any part plaintiff Meacham, Clinton, in er- for away should be taken from the wife. ror. then City, Renegar, Oklahoma F. Owen half of these in error. for defendant should be to the debts be; there Bauman Albert V. C.J. my way but to of thinking, the com- Megert district court sued Oscar had an interest damages county for for of Washita until the time the died, recover of contract and to breach that moment harvesting wheat rendered services policies passed to the belonging defendant. became to the transfer tax. jury, tried to a which found for do not think lay we intend to down a plaintiff $1,700, the sum rule get widow should parties appealed. defendant exemption benefit of from the tax on they appeared in will be referred to as half of the death benefits because half the trial court. belonged of it the community, any part let February, plaintiff benefits be liable for agreement the debts of the fendant entered into an oral commun- ity. Massey-Harris purchase engaging purpose bine for I respectfully dissent. begin harvesting operations, custom each season at end of the south through wheat belt and work
MEGERT v. BAUMAN. harvesting end of season north agreed the belt. Plaintiff to furnish a July 8, No. 35058. 1952. car and defendant a truck to be used P. operations. They in their equal shares, the combine and to equally expenses profits share cutting hauling from with the truck belonging to defendant. Plaintiff was to securing use car contracts cutting purposes. and other 3, 1948, they About June their took Burkburnett, machine profit cutting one field. $465 there, Other fields were available defendant decided to take the machine county, back his farm in Washita they crop, cut his and he plaintiff profits half of the $300 operation. They from this cut for- cer- neighbors tain and netted on one $180 job, another, an- $123 $140 being other. There no further work in