Sec. 49. Void as in Addition to Annual Property Tax.

In two states succession taxes cannot be sustained as property taxes, as they would be void as an additional tax beside the regular annual property tax and as such prohibited by the constitution.1 Louisiana is the only state limiting the legislature by forbidding the imposition of an inheritance tax on property which has already borne its just proportion of taxes.2

1State v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 330, 45 S. W. 245, 40 L. R. A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653. State v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469, 478, 45 N. W. 526, 46 N. W. 51.

2 Succession of Stauffer, 119 La. Ann 66, 43 S. 928, holding that this provision does not apply to taxes due and unpaid before the enactment of the constitution. To the same effect see Succession of Westfeldt, 122 La. Ann. 836, 48 S. 281. Other cases construing this clause are Succession of Pritchard, 118 La. Ann. 883, 43 S. 537; Succession of Fell, 119 La. Ann. 1037, 44 S. 879.

Sec. 50. Must Cover both Realty and Personalty.

Under the Minnesota constitution an inheritance tax is void unless it applies to real as well as personal property,' but no such limitation is imposed by the federal constitution.2

1 Drew v. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175, 81 N. W. 839, 47 L. R. A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446. State v. Bazille, 87 Minn. 500, 92 N. W. 415, 94 Am. St. Rep. 718.

2 Beers v. Glynn, 211 U. S. 477, 483, 29 S. Ct. 186, 53 L. Ed. 290.

Sec. 51. Local or Special Laws.

Inheritance taxes are subject to constitutional restrictions against local or special laws.

In re Stanford's Estate, 126 Cal. 112, 58 P. 462, 45 L. R. A. 788. Magnes, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853.

In re

Wis. St. 1889, c. 176, is unconstitutional, as it provides for the imposition of a tax on certain estates only in counties having more than a certain population and the tax in question really applies only to one county and is further limited to a certain class of estates in that county. State v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469, 45 N. W. 526, 46 N. W. 51.

The Maryland statute of 1880, chapter 444, was not void on the ground that it was a release of taxes and that the constitution provides that the general assembly shall not pass any local or special laws of that character, as the release of debts or obligations to the state is a public general law not forbidden by the constitution. Montague v. State, 54 Md. 481.

Sec. 52. Title to be Expressed.

Inheritance taxes are commonly subject to constitutional provisions requiring the title to express the subject clearly,' although

the rule is otherwise in New York.2 These clauses in constitutions require the title to cover the form of transfer, and the property, and the persons taxed, and to point out new provisions in an amending act. A requirement that the title shall distinctly state the object of the tax to which only it shall be applied has been held to clearly refer to the ordinary property tax which, at the time it is levied, can be levied with knowledge as to the probable amount of revenue that will be derived therefrom and can thus be well rendered to meet the uses to which the same shall be applied.7

1 Colo. St. 1902, c. 3, called "an act in relation to public revenue," is not void as being too general in title, in view of the financial history of the state. In re Magnes, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853.

The title of La. St. 1904, c. 45, is as follows: "To carry into effect articles 235 and 236 of the constitution of 1898 relative to inheritance taxes." The court holds that the title sufficiently suggests the object of the act and is therefore not void under La. Const. a. 31. Succession of Levy, 115 La. 378, 39 S. 37, affirmed in Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U. S. 552, 27 S. Ct. 174.

Objections to the title of Mo. St. 1895, were not considered by the court, which found the act void on other grounds. State v. Switzler, 143 Mo. 287, 331,

45 S. W. 245, 40 L. R. A. 280, 65 Am. St. Rep. 653.

2The provision of the constitution as to title did not apply to the inheritance tax, as it has no reference to special taxes which may be collected in a variety of ways under general laws. In re McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306, 319, 10 N. E. 685, 58 Am. Rep. 502.

"Inheritances" covers succession by will. In re White, 42 Wash. 360, 84

P. 831.

"The New Jersey acts of 1892 and 1893 are void as to realty, as the title does not mention real estate, which defect was avoided in the act of 1894. Grossman v. Hancock, 58 N. J. L. 139, 32 Atl. 689; Von Riper v. Heffenheimer, 17 N. J. L. J. 49; In re Dobermiller, 17 N. J. L. J. 378.

"Where the title only mentions collateral inheritances the act is void so far as direct inheritances are concerned. Illegitimate children are clearly not collateral heirs, and therefore the act is void as to them. Wirringer v. Morgan, 12 Cal. App. 26, 106 P. 425.

Reference to other Statutes and to Mortality Tables. Mich. Const. a. 14, s. 14, provides that every tax law shall distinctly state the tax and the object to which it is to be applied; that it shall not be sufficient to refer to any other law to fix such a tax or object. Mich. St. 1899, c. 188, provides that the tax shall be imposed upon persons or corporations not exempt by law and the court holds that this is not in violation of the constitution. The court says that the tax is clearly defined and no other law referred to either to fix the tax or its object. It is imposed upon everybody who is not exempt. So the reference in s. 11 to mortality tables to ascertain the value of future interests does not change the rule of taxation or modify it, but only prescribes a rule of estimating the values and is valid within the constitution. Union Trust Co. v. Durfee, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N. W. 1101, 7 Detroit Leg. N. 597.

"N. J. St. 1906 is entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to tax intestates and estates, gifts, legacies, devises and collateral inheritance in certain cases.' The act of 1906 intended to substitute a tax on the transfer of property which is the subject of a legacy for a tax on the legacy itself. This purpose was not expressed in the title and the statute is therefore void as applied to New Jersey stocks belonging to a non-resident. Dixon v. Russell, 79 N. J. L. 490, 76 A. 982, reversing 78 N. J. L. 296, 73 A. 51.

The Pennsylvania statute of 1887, P. L. 79, is entitled "An act to provide for the better collection of collateral inheritance taxes." The court does not pass on whether this is a sufficient title as to cover new taxes imposed by the statute, but intimates that it is not. In re Bittinger, 129 Pa. St. 338, 18 A. 132. See also Appeal of Commonwealth, 127 Pa. St. 435, 440, 17 A. 1004.

In re McKennan, 25 S. D. 369, 126 N. W. 611, 130 N. W. 33, citing with approval Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y. 315, 10 N. E. 685.

Sec. 53. Revenue Legislation to Originate in House of Representatives.

The Louisiana act of 1894 was attacked as being in conflict with Art. 35 of the constitution, which requires that all bills for raising a revenue and appropriating money shall originate in the house of representatives. The statute did originate in the senate and it was denied that the act was one raising revenues or appropriating money. It was claimed that the statute is a legal limitation upon the right of inheritance; that it simply fixes as a necessary condition for the existence of a capacity to receive by succession the payment of a certain sum. The court holds that the statute does not make the payment of the tax a condition precedent to a right of inheritance, but that the law permits a foreigner to inherit and, having so inherited, charges him with the payment of the tax, and that as such the legislation is revenue legislation and unconstitutional.

Succession of Sala, 50 La. Ann. 1009, 24 S. 674.

CHAPTER XI.

UNIFORMITY AND EQUALITY.

§ 54. Requirement of Uniformity not Applicable to Inheritance Taxes.

§ 55. Meaning of "Equality" Molded to New Conditions.

§ 56. Authority to Levy Inheritance Taxes Makes Uniformity

Unnecessary.

§ 57. Uniformity within Specified Classes.

§ 58. Proportional Tax Required.

§ 59. Geographical Uni ormity.

Sec. 54. Requirement of Uniformity not Applicable to Inheritance Taxes.

It is often said that constitutional requirements of uniformity and equality apply only to property taxes and not to an inheritance tax,1 and do not prohibit an inheritance tax which by its nature cannot be uniform in the same sense as a property tax,2 but there is some authority to the contrary in Minnesota.3

1 Booth v. Commonwealth, 130 Ky. 88, 113 S. W. 61. Tyson v. State, 1868, 28 Md. 577. Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, 204-220, 108 N. W. 627, 9 L. R. A. N. S. 121. Beals v. State, 139 Wis. 544, 552, 121 N. W. 347.

In an earlier decision the court does not decide whether an inheritance tax is subject to the constitutional provision that the rule of taxation shall be uniform. "Considering the clause without undue refinement of reasoning, it is difficult to see why it does not apply to an inheritance or succession tax. It is true such a tax is called an excise in the decisions. An excise is a duty levied on articles of sale or manufacture, upon licenses to pursue certain trades or deal in certain commodities, upon official privileges, etc. Cooley, Taxation (2d ed.), 4. But when such duty is levied upon a trade, occupation or privilege as a means of producing revenue alone, and not in exercise of the police power, it is, to all intents and purposes, an exercise of the taxing power, and no good reason is perceived why such taxation is not included within the taxation referred to in the constitution in the clause quoted. The argument against this position is that the words immediately following this clause, namely, 'and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall prescribe,' indicate that it is a taxation of property alone which the section covers." Per Winslow, J., in Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 218, 89 N. W. 522, 90 Am. St. Rep. 853.

Inheritance taxes were upheld as not violating the requirement of uniformity in Dixon v. Ricketts, 26 Utah 215, 72 P. 947. State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674, 30 S. W. 750.

2 Thompson v. Kidder, 74 N. H. 89, 96, 65 A. 392.

3 State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232, 41 N. W. 948.

The amendment of 1894 to the Minnesota constitution, a. 9, s. 1, was incorporated into the existing constitution and the section in question must be construed precisely as if the proviso had been a part of the original section; hence the mandate of equality qualifies the provisions of the amendment and applies to the whole section. The court therefore holds that the requirements of equality in taxation applies to inheritance taxes exactly as it does to taxes on property except as expressly provided in the last clause of the section. Drew v. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175, 81 N. W. 839, 47 L. R. A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446. See, however, State v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11, 106 N. W. 93, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 732.

Sec. 55. Meaning of "Equality" Molded to New Conditions.

The requirement of equality has been molded from time to time in view of the prevalent economic theories and changing conditions of government.

State v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11, 16, 106 N. W. 93, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 732.

Sec. 56. Authority to Levy Inheritance Tax Makes Uniformity Unnecessary.

Direct constitutional authority to levy an inheritance tax includes authority to levy one which is not uniform.

The intention and effect of the amendment of 1903 to the constitution of New Hampshire was to provide in addition to taxation as theretofore defined a different method of meeting public charges by an inheritance tax. As an inheritance tax is necessarily disproportional and is unequal in its lack of proportion, and it is impossible to lay a proportional tax upon property upon the occasion of death, it cannot have been understood that such impossibility would defeat the express power to lay such a tax, but it must follow that the express authority to impose such a tax is an authority to disregard the general rule of proportion so far as is necessary to exercise the power. For instance, poll taxes are recognized by the constitution, but they are not proportional, they are constitutional acts recognized by the constitution and have never been understood to have been rendered unconstitutional by lack of proportion or inability to pay. Thompson v. Kidder, 74 N. H. 89, 96, 65 A. 392.

Sec. 57. Uniformity within Specified Classes.

Uniformity means only uniformity within the class and does not prohibit proper classification with different rates for each.1 "If a burden in the nature of taxation is laid upon the right [of descent], the constitutional principle that taxes must be uniform