29 So. 2d 53 | La. | 1946
Mrs. Julia Raborn Briley having ruled the Inheritance Tax Collector of Louisiana to show cause why $22,724.71 in United States Savings Bonds, Series "E" and "G", registered in the name of her late brother, William Simpson Raborn, and payable to her upon his death, should not be declared free of inheritance taxes, prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing the rule and fixing the amount of inheritance taxes due on these bonds at $1,510.23.
Although the amount of the tax involved in the judgment is less than $2,000, the legality vel non of the tax is at issue and this court has appellate jurisdiction. *1036 Section 10 of Article VII of the Constitution of 1921.
Relying on Succession of Tanner, La.App.,
Appellant's argument that these bonds, having been issued under the authority of the Second Liberty Bond Act,
Likewise the argument of appellant's counsel that these bonds (not being a gift, donation, legacy, or an inheritance) *1037
do not come within the intent and contemplation of Act
It is our opinion, therefore, that the bonds in controversy were gifts made in contemplation of death within the meaning and contemplation of the above statute in that they were personal property physically within the State of Louisiana and only became the property of the claimant as the designated beneficiary upon the death of the registered owner under the laws of the United States. Besides, in the very regulations authorizing the issuance of the bonds there is contained the specific recognition of the right of this state to levy and impose an inheritance tax on such bonds.
While Succession of Tanner, relied on by the appellant, holds to the contrary, this decision was handed down by a divided court of the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit and, although persuasive, is *1038 not binding on us. Moreover, a reading of the Tanner case will show that no consideration was given by the court to the clause found in Circular No. 654 under which the bonds in controversy were issued, which clause specifically subjected such bonds to state inheritance taxes.
The two other cases (Conrad and Beltram) relied on by the appellant are not apposite to our holding in this case for inheritance taxes were neither at issue nor involved.
For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at the cost of the appellant.