*1 Fawcett Estate. 1972. Before September 25,
Arguеd Jones, C. J., Pomeroy, Eagen, Roberts, Nix and Mander- O’Brien, INO, JJ. *2 him
Harold V. Scott H. Fergus, Fergus, Martin and for Fergus, Fergus, appellants. for
Vincent J. Deputy Attorney General, Dopko, Commonwealth, appellee.
Opinion Jones, Mr. Chief Justice November 1972: 30,
On F. K. a July 26, 1969, Fawcett, wealthy, eighty- seven-year-old Washington County industrialist, murdered home. his his Mr. Despite age, Fawcett, a for who had been widower some ac- years, was still in business and tively serv- engaged community affairs, of Penn as at president Manufacturing Company the time his death.
Late in on the while board of the 1965, serving local Mr. met Ann Fawcett Y.M.C.A., widow Associa- thirty-eight-year-old employed tion. Their remained casual until relationship March developed 1967 when Fawcett romantic inter- became a est in Mrs. Shuman and at frequent guest her visited home. Mr. Fawcett Mrs. Shuman least twice until the time and offered to week marry times her many period. Although Mrs. marriage proposals, refused consistently her, to visit continued undaunted and Mr. Fawcett was gifts. monetary her substantial and propose affec- Fawcett’s оf Mr. latter manifestation It is the appeal. tion that is the this subject Mr. Fawcett death, In the two years preceding the executors over When Mrs. Shuman $177,000. gave Tax Inheritance of his estate filed Pennsylvania did as transfers and they returns listed The Common amоunt in the taxable estate. include the included the value wealth revised the appraisement under the in the taxable estate Estate the Inheritance and II, Article Section Tax contending Act 1961,1 of death. The executors appealed Court Division
Commonwealth’s ruling Orphans’ of Common Pleas, County Washington *3 to after hearing, which determined, made in contem daughter and her of defined in the statute and were death as plation in the taxable This included decedent’s estate. proрerly followed and we reverse. appeal been court there have numerous lower 222 of Section applying opinions interpreting 1 §222, 15, 1961, 373, II, §2485- of P. L. P.S. Act June Art. 72 222: [made consideration] “A transfer without valuable and made contemplation transferor, subject the death of is to tax of contrary, act. A . . . under this transfer unless1 shown shall contemplation been of death if of a mate- be deemed have it is part (2) of the transferor’s estate and is within two rial years prior of the death transferor. contemplation of “A transfer is death when motive, impelling necessarily or but not motive the sole dominant by thought death, transferor, prompted without would not have been the transfer made. The term which motive expectancy of imminent which restricted to person making of a eausa the mind mortis.” actuates
500 Inheritance and Estate Tax Act 1961,2 this is first time the of section been before this Court.3 we are not Nevertheless, totally without guidance what transfers should determining be considered as made “in of death” contemplation under the 1961 Act. the Act itself defines a First, death as one contemplation “the dominant but not impelling motive, necessarily the sole motive transferor, by prompted of death.” official thought comments to Sеcondly, 222 Section of the 1961 Act state definition of “transfer made in of death” is sug gested by United States v. Wells, 283 U.S. (1931). 102
In Wells the United States
inter-
Supreme Court
preted
“contemplation
death”
provision
Federal
Tax
Estate
Act similar
Section
.to
Act of 1961. The Cоurt began by
that “the
noting
2 See, e.g.,
Estate,
; Cooper
(1970)
Hiller
50 Pa. D. &
C. 2d
Estate,
(1970) ;
Estate,
48 Pa. D. & C. 2d 404
Eckert
words is knowledge death ultimate have that all mеn is re- expectancy of death as nor an inevitable, ” quired gift at 103. U.S. mortis 288 causa statutory presumption is recognized that the donor the death and neither rebuttable age of shortly making gift old the nor after gift to sustain sufficient donor at the time is finding was Ultimately, be factor must the determinative is If the transfer motive.
found the transferor’s than purposes life rather motivated associated thought rebutted of death, as one not be taxed transfer should it is not hand, other death. On the impending necessary wаs fear of to find that the only or that transferor cause for escape near is no at hand. “There that death was felt scrutinizing carefully necessity circum- from the dominant motive stances of each case detect the light bodily and mentаl condition donor purpose of the and thus effect to the manifest at 119. Wells, statute.” United v. U.S. States In testified be- case, the instant two witnesses personal Dr. half the estate. Fawcett’s Graham, physician, gave testimony health about the decеdent’s history of his death. Mrs. and medical until the time primary question, Ann donee of the surrounding concerning the circumstances giving expressed Mr. Fawcett’s intent made. the time the
Dr. had not been Mr. who Fawcett’s Graham, physician years, than for more fifteen but аlso a neighbor of the he testified that considered decedent, good to be for decedent’s health a man of his ad age. He further the decedent had vanced pressure fairly pulse blood stable and that his *5 regular good According and of Dr. slow, volume. to physical alarming prob Mr. Fawcett no Graham, him, although recurring complaints brought lems two during doctor’s office several occasions last feeling complaint two of his life. The first was a pressure in the head and dizziness. The doctor testi problem psychosomatic fied that he believed the generally and tension-oriented since it occurred at the working day end of the while the decedent was his complaint, office.4 Mr. Fawcett’s second sexual mat is of а more ter, delicate nature and would not be men except rebutting tioned for its extreme relevance presumption contempla were beginning tion doctor testified repeatedly inquired 1967 Mr. Fawcett or whether something prescribe there was the doctor could might potency. stimulate his sexual The doctor also testified that the best he could do try him “psychologically” some vitamins to treat go in order to him from the let office satisfied.” Despite futility the medical of Mr. Fawсett’s re- quest, regain prowess, desire sexual coupled repeated proposals marriage with his to Mrs. strong evidence that Shuman, the substantial period made to her the same were not made in contemplation it Indeed, is difficult to dis- еighty:seven-year-old more an cern what millionaire type could do to establish the of “life-oriented” motive required to rebut the contained statute. object
Mrs. the decedent’s affection principal question, donee of the also dizzy On one occasion the decedent suffered a more severe days hospitalized spell for four and was for some tests. Not negative, decedent, but the tests who could not wait hospital, “practically get discharged out himself” at dаy. of the first end con- at the hearing. of marriage, decedent’s proposals refused the sistently Concerning fond of him. very she stated that she was she gifts, surrounding circumstances would give the decedent in 1967 when they began because occasions simply on various $100 $50 *6 that there he her to it. She also wanted have car new given and a birthday $3,500 was $1,500 gave that the decedent She stated period. stat- 1, 1968, her a certificate on July $100,000 savings off the live that he wanted her to work and quit knew the decedent intеrest. She further made working sometimes she had back trouble, she he her to so money and wanted painful, also testi- could Mrs. Shuman work quit immediately. so she in gave $37,500 fied that decedent and her daughter could build a new home and gave fond of them becаuse he was $31,500 son-in-law them to have a home. wanted that Mrs. Shuman’s testi-
The Commonwealth argues the decedent discussed mony her on with several occasions establishes will of death. The Com- were made gifts if contention would be more persuasive monwealth’s on the discussions decedent’s will centered Mrs. involving Shuman, especially proposed bequests to show that the gifts being if there was evidence in lieu of no testamentary disposition. However, here because the will showing possible provi- did not even involve sions discussed Fawcett left the bulk of his estate Mrs. Shuman. income to be distributed trust, specific to a number named and chari- churches proportions testified that several times ties. Mrs. thinking altering the decedent proportionate trust income among distribution charities, down percentages write be each given she would charity change as he would recite them and then percentages nothing if he so desired. There is testimony remotely suggests Shuman’s which even disposition the decedent’s concern with the charitable any timing of his estate had influence on the size of his inter vivos to Mrs. Shuman. Nor can it be suggests, as the inferred, Commonwealth that the Mrs. Shuman were made of death merely promised because on one оccasion she the de- grave put cedent that maintain she would flow- gone. ers on it after he was presumption The statute creates a that all given within two of death were made con- templation of death. The burden on the estate rebut that and each case consid- must be ered its own facts. As we stated Eshelman Es- (1952), ques- 371 Pa. A. tate, 400, 402, 89 2d 775 «the contempla- tion of whether been has made in auditing judge tion death is one of fact for the *7 findings jury’s the effect of whose verdict and, they supported by competent are or rea- evidence they therefrom, sonable will not be disturbed inferences appeal.” (Emphasis added.) Implicit in that state- power by is the ment, however, retained this Court auditing judge’s the review decision to if dеtermine it by supported the evidence. In United States v. Wells, United States Su- preme adopted following standard evi- dentiary by «The review: created the stat- question ute that transfers were made in con- templation against of death cannot stаnd ascertained showing proven contrary facts to be true. The of the best evidence decedent’s health at the time the were made is the transfers statement of his doctor. The best evidence decedent’s state of mind at that actuating making and the reasons him time expressions are the statements and transfers by supported are statements as himself, concerning all the transfers.” the circumstances at U.S. 113. eighty-seven old, the decedent was at time he was murdered
his doctor age. is also health for a man his It he was excellent testimony hearing the de- from clear at socially time in business at the cedent was active testimony importantly, the hear- his death. Most clearly motive behind that the dominant shows daughter and her decedent’s to Mrs. Shuman life-oriented than rather holding not court that the estate
lower erred statutory pre- produced sufficient to rebut the evidence sumption a con- all the tended show where evidence purpose attributable to life-oriented sistent, gifts. party pay
Decree Each own costs. reversed. Dissenting Opinion : Mr. Justice Roberts believing supports I dissent the record adjudication orphans’ failed to estate court statutory proving its burden of substan- meet (in $117,000) 87-year- excess tial years two death were old donor-decedent within I affirm the would orphans’ court’s decree. Eagen joins dissenting opinion. in this Justice
Davis Estate.