Tix~ A~TORNEY'GENERAI.
OF TEXAS
Hon. Robart 8. Calvert Opinion Ho. WW-195
Comptrollerof Public Accounts
Capltb~ Station Re: proper clas~lflcatlon
Aust+,-Texas - for lnherltancetax
purposes of adoptive
par&t of decedent
Dem.Mr..Calvert: adopted In 1925
We qtiotethe.followl& excirpt fr& your letter
requgs't&an opinion ~of.thlsdff&Xon the above-captioned
mattk@:.-:_
.::
_. 'Willlan'IsiacS$lveus died testate
mrcb~~25,'1956~
*.: .a,resldentof Bexar County,
and undo the terms of 'his last.will and
t6&&,i3nt~..hed6vvis,e&..al.l,,i$.
tilsestate
to~his.motherwho had legally adopted him
-InBexti County on February 2, 1925.
"We klndly'ask that you advise this
~Department the pr~per.classlflcatlonas to
ttmexemptlo~'and rates of $ax when calcu-
~~ latlng the:tazCdue-asalnstthe bequest to
the adtiptlngmother.
If the.adoptlveparent oannot be given Class A
classlflcatlonunder Article 7118, Vmon% Civil Statutes,
she must necessarily be classifiedunder Class E - Article
7122, V.O.S. I
Article 7118 - Class A, provides, in part; as follows:
"If passing to or for theuse of
husband.orwife, or any direct lineal
desdndant of husb+nd or wife, or any
direct line+1 desoendant or ascendant
of the decedent, or to legally adopted
ohlld or children, or any direct lineal
descendant of adopted child or children
of the decedent, or to the husband of a
daughter, or t\e WV'!?of a +on, the tax
shall be . . .
:.qc!.~?
I
Hon. Robert 5. Calvert,~page2 @'W-l%)
It is evident that the survivingadoptive parent
does not come within any of the Class A classIflcatlons.~
Legally adoptet,chIldrenand their direct lineal descendants
have been given a favorableclasslfIcatlonas to rmqeyzy
which they receive from their adbptlve parents.
Article 7118 makes no provision for adoptive parents re&Iv-
lng property from legally adopted children.
:i..
Under the,adoptlonstatute‘lneffect at the time
the d~eced&t.,
lzithis da<& wa'sadopted, the decedent became
entitled to all'the rights and privileges of a legal heir "
of the party adoptIng him with a possible llmltatlonnot
materIal',here:~Art. 2, R.C.S. (1911); codlfled as Art. 43,
R.C.S.(192 In State v. Yturrla, 109 Tex. 220, 204 SiW.
315,.,(1918 the court held th tThe decedent's legally
adopted chI&%n '(adopt'ed unrig the same statutory procedure.
folltiw& In ttieInstantscas&).'6ame within:the exemptIoii'i%en.
provided for "dIrect%neal descendants'ofthe tbstator?" "
Art. 7487, R.C.S.,'(1911):The court .reasone&that Since the
adopted children had alltb6,rlght~ a* privileges of legal
helra, they were entItled'to,'thg sam~'pr+vlleg.es,,ss.,na~~l
born children for Inheritance.,tax purposes1 “‘That q3as+IIg
cannot be applied In thIs,case be&use the r.Iget.s,.and prlvi-
leges were confined by the a+opt$on statute'tO,the,,adoptea
PePSOn.
Sectlqn i~.ofAr&ie..46a; V.C'.s'.;
accords the atime
rights of Inheritanceto & p&on adoptied.under Its pro~lslona
as to a natural legitimateChIl& It qali'have,na application
here since the de&dent ias not adopted.tinderIts.p~o~,Isions.
Cf. Hoch v. Ho&, 140 Tex. 475, 168 S'.W:2d~$58.-
suMMARy~" : ,.~,
'The'adoptlveparent of.& decedent ..'
adopted ln 1925 .mustbe classified
'nader Article 7122, Class E, V.C.S..,
for inheritancetax:purposes.
IdMP:gs yours very +iy,
APPROVED ka?li,
WIISOH
., ,~~t~eg~ Qen,-a1
OPINION COMMITTER
:H. Grady Chandlers,ChaIr+i ,'
C. K. Richards ,!;'j-'~'
,I,,
John Lennan
MarvInThomas