Succession of Stauffer

Citations

• 119 La. 66
• 43 So. 928
• 1907 La. LEXIS 437

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxation — Inheritance Tax — Statutory Provisions — Constitutionality.</p> <p>Act No. 109, p. 173, of 1906, in imposing an inheritance tax on “all successions not finally closed or in which the final account has not been filed,” does not violate either the state or the federal Constitution. Succession of Levy, 115 La. 378, 39 South. 37; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 552, 27 Sup. Ct. 174, 51 L. Ed. 310.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 45, Taxation, § 1674.]</p> <p>2. Same — Property Liable.</p> <p>Such inheritance tax is on the transmission of property, or, in other words, on the succession, and affects all property under administration at the date of the passage of Act No. 109, p. 173, of 1906, but cannot be enforced against property already delivered to the heirs and legatees, without divesting vested rights.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 45, Taxation, § 1676.]-</p> <p>3. Same — Partnership Property.</p> <p>Article 236 of the Constitution ordains that the inheritance shall not be enforced against property which has borne its just proportion of taxes. Where it is admitted that all the property belonging to a commercial partnership has been regularly assessed and all taxes thereon duly paid, the interest of a partner in the same property is not a distinct and separate taxable entity as in case of a stockholder in a corporation.</p> <p>Provosty, J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>