*1 A.2d BRANT, of Elmina R. ESTATE Deceased. Pennsylvania. Appeal the COMMONWEALTH Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Argued 26, 1975. June Decided Oct. *2 Gen., for Atty. Harrisburg, Deputy
Vincent J. Dopko, appellant. appellee Lois H. Craig, Norristown, for
Cassin W. Brownback. Brunner, Norristown, B.
Robert for appellee, Robert Evans, Brant, Dec’d; Executor of R. B. Est. Elmina Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig Garrity, Brunner, & Norristown, Glackin, Conver & of counsel. EAGEN, JONES, J., O’BRIEN,
Before C. ROB- MANDERINO, ERTS, POMEROY, NIX and JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT ROBERTS, Justice. consuming ju appeal,
This is inheritance tax another resources, litigants’ might which have dicial time and the adequate explanation been avoided had there been consequences tenancy alternatives to and of a sav sought merely ings depositor a conven who *3 Gillespie 467, A. Estate, 462 Pa. ience account. 341 See 483, Estate, A.2d 95 (1975); 447 291 2d 471 Pa. 98, Estate, 26 (1972); v. Nolan’s 345 Pa. Commonwealth 108, Estate, (1942); 342 20 A. A.2d 308 Cochrane’s Pa. (1941). 2d 305 (Depositor appellee)
In 1964 Lois Brownback H. naming funds, opened savings her own a with (Decedent), friend, joint tenant. her R. Brant Elmina only appears It that reason for the account-was the Depositor’s savings provide if should access to she unable, to illness them, time she was due need at a when present reasons, or or other to make a withdrawal. No deposited any in interest the funds of future transfer intended. was as in The Commonwealth
Decedent died of her estate account as an asset one the sessed half Tax Act and Estate of the Inheritance section 241 under of the Depositor appealed assessment of 1961.1 II, § 15, 1961, 373, 241, § P.S. 2485-241 P.L. art. 1. Act of June part: (1964) provides in relevant or more any names of two property in the is “When held in the names persons, deposited in a institution or is financial Montgomery County, of Pleas to the Court of Common appeal.2 her Orphans’ Division, which sustained apply where there section 241 does not It reasoned that any property in interest is no actual transfer of “jointly” opinion, In noted that Ol held.3 its the court (1972) (holding 483, son open in in accident or mistake that the absence of ing type here at account, accounts issue ofAct the Inheritance and Estate Tax are taxable under attempted to dis apparently controlling, but 1961), was tinguish present As that from the situation.4 that case successfully done, cannot reverse.5 be we that, of of one persons, so the death of two or more them, right the immediate a or have the survivor survivors property, possession and of the whole of them right, of one the death the accrual of such act, to tax under shall be deemed a transfer determined divid- portion property to be fractional of such joint ten- ing property by the number the value of the whole de- immediately preceding death of ants in existence ceased tenant.” and Tax Act appeal 2. The was taken under the Inheritance § X, 1001, 72 P.S. art. of (1964). Act June allegation decedent never that 3. “It Lois H. Brownback access, control, sort, ownership, any they Of had characterized, use, income, therefore and that benefit however that the applicable. satisfied We are Sec. of the Act is not supports record this contention.” ac- . was that . 4. “The rationale of Olson Est. counts were in point joint, of survivor- of law with the they had ship, but trial court Olson concluded] [the original been made so of accident mistake because *4 ruled, however, that accident money; the Court owner or mistake had claim therefore the the death of upon Here, contrary, the proven. on the been not effect, and that Act, requiring that such an the never had is that account of condition of Sec. 241 the conferring joint legal effect of a the tenant have not they did right surviving or a which the tenant tenants it, have, statute previously apply. read the does not As we persons, by more property mandates that must be held two them, that, the survi- upon of one of ‘. . the death .so ownership or right a to the immediate vor or survivors have page on 5. See note 5
In surviving in case, as this the joint tenant joint had contributed all of the funds in a orphans’ specifically The court account. found that the presumption survivor had rebutted the that he intended gift to make a co-tenant, indicating to his deceased thus that the account there was also a convenience account. Nevertheless, we held that one-half of the value of the pursuant 241, stating: account was taxable section to specific language “Section 241 in clear and [‘When property deposited in- ... in a financial persons stitution in the names of two or more imposes joint a tax account with .’] survivorship, of of one of the death joint ‘right the immediate tenants. The enhanced to possession supplied.) upon property.’ (Emphasis and The death of decedent had no of the whole legal effect whatever to, of, any rights in ac- the funds this count, possessed all of them as Lois H. Brownback owned and joint continuously, opened. had both before and after the been Therefore, . . . ‘the of one of’ the death any money did of tenants not result in the transfer Supreme Lois H. stated that It Court has Brownback. is true that ownership principles wholly are not determinative taxability, clearly of of terms and the Act is not drafted strict However, ownership. contrary to the contention absolute Commonwealth, (no. 4) the at not think the footnote we do p. accounts 485 in Olson Est. . . means that creator, purely which are and which for the convenience of the clear, proven convincing precise are evidence to be such and case, present as in our Su- are nevertheless taxable. Until eliminating preme the cannot specifically, entirely Court does hold so thus law, we issue convenience inheritance tax accounts from original find that a owner transfer occurs where solely account makes it for his own convenience co-tenant, having then any rights his the co-tenant survives never allowed power in or over the account.” Olson, Today, specifically we do hold did in we Nolan, purely for and Cochrane “that accounts which are creator, proven convenience of the and which are such clear, taxable, precise en- convincing are “thus evidence” tirely eliminating inherit- the issue of convenience from accounts ance tax law” in the absence of accident or mistake. appeal Appellate authority 5. We hear under II, § July Jurisdiction art. Act of Act 202(3), (Supp.1975). 211,202(3) P.S.
235 ownership possession whole and accruing is property’ the survivor deemed thus to statutory tax. to transfer exis- having established “The Commonwealth right of survi- accounts with tence of these only defeated vorship, its claim to tax could be cre- were convincing proof that the accounts clear and fraud, or mistake.” ated as a result accident added);6 (emphasis 486-87, Pa. at A.2d at 291 97 447 Gillespie 467, Estate, 462 Pa. accord Estate, 26 (1975); Nolan’s 345 Pa. Commonwealth v. 20 108, A. Estate, Pa. (1942); 342 308 Cochrane’s A.2d (1941). 2d 305 signed Depositor signature
Here the card appeared, in rele open read the account and used to and part, follows: vant as open this hereby,
“We, intending legally to bound agree mon- fund], that all [saving in the and TO EITHER PAYABLE deposited therein shall be ies agree to the we also OF and THE US OR SURVIVOR card.” provisions on reverse side of this three repeat- has is no claim There “[t]his proof ‘failure of fraud edly that in the absence of held justi- cannot unavailing excuse or defense read an con- fy or nullification avoidance, modification ” Estate, any provision 447 tract thereof.’ (1972). Here, as 488, 291 A.2d no accident Cochrane, there was Olson, Nolan and Depositor intend- opening of the account. mistake in here, incorrectly assumed “the trial court In Olson by the to be resolved Tax was liability the Inheritance for tenancy ownership interests. principles governing legal statutory language makes the express The liability under Sec- inapplicable question principles (emphasis A.2d at 96 n. at n. 447 Pa. tion 241.” added). sign ed to open the card used to A account. careful *6 reading of that potential card would have revealed the transfer. Neither a failure to opening read a card tenancy account, ignorance nor of the tax conse- quences of such death one of the tenants, is an “accident or mistake” sufficient imposition avoid of the therefore, Depositor, has tax. provide failed to convincing proof” “clear and account was “created as a result of accident mistake.”
Decree reversed entry remanded for the a de- opinion. cree party pay consistent with this Each own costs.
MANDERINO, dissenting opinion filed J., in which NIX, J., joins.
MANDERINO, (dissenting). Justice I appel- dissent. The evidence in this case is clear that any ownership lee never intended to transfer interests or rights to the decedent. The account had been set up only. as a convenience account Under Section 241 of the Act of June 72 P.S.
(1964), a transfer to tax is defined as the accrual possession of the to the immediate property upon of the whole death of appellee one of the never tenants. Since intended rights any decedent, money she transfer to the not, upon decedent, have accrued could death possess. already In re which she did not See (1975) Estate dissenting). (Manderino, J., Thus, there was no trans- imposed. fer which the could NIX, dissenting opinion. J., joins in