Back | WP 6.1 Version |
 ASCII  Version | PDF
Version
     
 

The Committee which acted for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in preparing the Uniform Act on Interstate Compromise of Death Taxes and the Uniform Act on Arbitration of Death Taxes was as follows:

HENRY S. FRASER, City Bank Bldg., Syracuse, N. Y., Chairman,

C. WALTER COLE, Towson, Md.,

R. A. HENDERSON, JR., Collier Bldg., Fort Myers, Fla.,

SHERMAN R. MOULTON, Burlington, Vt.,

HENRY PARKMAN, JR., 82 Devonshire St., Boston, Mass.,

GEORGE RICHARDSON, JR., Bluefield, W. Va.

WM. ALFRED ROSE, 2100 Comer Bldg., Birmingham, Ala.,

ROBERT K. BELL, 801 Asbury Ave., Ocean City, N. J., Chairman, Uniform Public Law

Acts Section.

Copies of all Uniform Acts and other printed matter issued by the Conference may be obtained from

At the present time most of the difficulties and inequities arising from the multiple taxation of intangibles have been removed by means of state enactments which either forego all taxation of intangibles owned by a non-resident decedent, or provide for a reciprocal exemption in some reasonably satisfactory form. Only a small minority of states do tax such intangibles and provide for no exemptions. This minority, of course, are protected, so far as constitutional considerations are involved by Utah v. Aldrich, ____ U.S. ____, 62 S. Ct. 1008, 86 L. Ed. 911, (1942). Nevertheless, it is to be anticipated that, with the passage of time, economic pressure will compel all states to adopt reciprocal statutes or their equivalent. (See Robert C. Brown, "The Present Status of Multiple Taxation of Intangible Property," 40 Michigan Law Review, 806-830, at pp. 829-830; same author, "Multiple Death Taxation of Intangibles - What Now?" 75 Trusts and Estates, 269-274, at p. 273.)

There is, however, one serious problem of double taxation not remedied by such legislation. Not infrequently more than one state claims to be the decedent's domicile. The federal courts have ordinarily declined jurisdiction to solve the issue or to interfere with inconsistent decisions of the courts of different states. Thus, it has been impossible for an executor to find relief from the judgments of the highest courts of different states, which judgments vary in their finding as to domicile. Double taxation is the unfortunate result.

The appended Uniform Acts are designed to make it possible to solve this difficulty. The first Act empowers the tax authorities of the claimant states, with the consent of the executor or administrator, to compromise the amount of the tax. Under such an agreement each claimant state would receive something, although less than the full amount of its claim.

The second Act provides for a system of voluntary arbitration in the event of failure to compromise. Such an arbitration is had only where the claimant States and the executor are willing, and the arbitrators themselves must be unanimously selected by the said States and the executor. The board's finding as to domicile is binding only for purposes of imposing and collecting death taxes, so that no executor need hesitate to arbitrate from fear that the finding will have any effect on other phases of administration.

Section 8 has been inserted to make it clear that if, after agreeing to arbitrate, the parties desire to settle the case and compromise, it will be possible to do so either under the separate Act relating to compromise, if in effect, or under any other lawful procedure.

Section 10 requires for an arbitration that the second of the appended Acts, or a substantial equivalent, must be in force in the contesting states. This is in order to guarantee to the executor and all other parties that the fundamental bases of what may be a lengthy proceeding have been crystallized in a statutory pattern. No such requirement has been incorporated in the first Act relating to compromise since this Act does not contemplate formal and continued hearings, and also since there appears no reason why any state should not compromise with another state, if the parties are satisfied, even in the absence of enabling legislation. It should, however, be pointed out that an executor would be more likely to agree to a compromise if a statute, such as the first of the accompanying Acts, were in force, giving binding effect to the compromise.

Be it enacted . . . .

SECTION 1. When the [tax commission] claims that a decedent was domiciled in his state at the time of his death and the taxing authorities of another state or states make a like claim on behalf of their state or states, the [tax commission] may [with the approval of the attorney general] make a written agreement of compromise with the other taxing authorities and the executor or administrator that a certain sum shall be accepted in full satisfaction of any and all death taxes imposed by this state, including any interest or penalties to the date of filing the agreement. The agreement shall also fix the amount to be accepted by the other states in full satisfaction of death taxes. The executor or administrator is hereby authorized to make such agreement. Either the [tax commission] or the executor or administrator shall file the agreement, or a duplicate, with the authority that would be empowered to assess [determine] death taxes for this state if there had been no agreement; and thereupon the tax shall be deemed conclusively fixed as therein provided. Unless the tax is paid within [     ] days after filing the agreement, interest [or penalties] shall thereafter accrue upon the amount fixed in the agreement but the time between the decedent's death and the filing shall not be included in computing the interest [or penalties].

SECTION 2. As used in this act the word "state" means any state, territory, or possession of the United States, and the District of Columbia.

SECTION 3. This act shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.

SECTION 4. This act may be cited as the "Uniform Act on Interstate Compromise of Death Taxes."

SECTION 5. This act shall take effect [                          ], and shall apply to estates of decedents dying before or after its enactment.