“’
-‘-’250
,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AOSTIH
s!Zi!Z
.
~onorabla Cccrpp ii, S!lo,?p?rd
Cor.ptrollar cf Zublia ;.caounEo
Austin, Toxnn
.c\
.!Phe Texan inheritance tax ia ir:poocd unnn the value
or tb prc?erty tht p8~se.8 ~~03 th dfhti d 0 drfcded. CRT-
tain syeoiri-d dcdsctfons arr? allcmd w’rr t’:c otntLte from
the value c,f t!;o pcno or;tcte of ths dcoodent, and &ftnr ouch
perzissiblo deduotions am mdo the mminir,,? nat estate
is taken as n bsoin for tiio ttix. Tha daductions allo~:;iblo
are sat out in ;;rtiole 7125 of the Dwioed Civil Ztrltutes;
5uah etatutti roods, ia port, as follavs:
@@Theonly deduations ~cmiasiblc under this
$m azw tha dsbtn due by the cstnts, * + *In
The anmvcr to your question ttcrefora tleymds on w!:nth;or or
not tt.0 chin 1:%iIlS c:ade bj- tk2h.oscrvfvizq ~idcvr afpinst t!::a
separate !Iroperty of her husband ie a valid cno. If said ClGim
is a ~alld me t&en the RWA ia in t>o ckisification of E debt
due by the cctote cad tka deduction of tko &c,e fxm +2x qrcsa
8atot.e should be pt;rmitted kindor cur Tonfis in:Leritnncs tax law.
The only tim that the cucstl.ofi of wkethcr or not ,
the mount ~~14 alth o@r?-,unity futida c.a &es on the separate
progorty cf cz3.c of tfie spouses ia a chcirr,o in favor of the
ao??mlnity eatE;to a:ay
tho texes on‘ auc:7 rro,-cr”,y. The COlil't !lC?ld ttZt the r;ouOy
80 exysndcd we n lc,T?tir.utn chcir.qo in ZILV~P@?f tlla coxwaity .
estate n$:ainst the separate property of t?.o huabo~d, and
statod as followsL
“&a fun&n uoe& by f!rn, Cervantes to nuke
%qrovwoots on the ceparsto proycrty of her km-
bana ~tftre crmunlty fu&s, szc: it ?s tho s6ttlecl
lnw in 3?XE.S tfrat the sc?pczctn octzte of cm cem-
ber of t!m coxunlty rust roi&urse the ooL-zuntty
for any proper ia~rovemnts r*z:Ce in ccod faith 2~05
the seporato :;roTertp with comr;nlty funds. Rfca
9. Rice, 21 Tax. 3G; Ecr.3 .vr !Iill, 57 “cx. 6%;
Furrh v. %nstcn, 66 ‘?cx. 521, 1 S. C. 527; Cm-era11
V. Fay, 53 TEXI 58; Clift v, Clift, 72 Tax, 144,
10 8 K. 338. 13. the mm Of Sic0 v. Elco, abase
citd. t:!e lots below?6 to t&-n >Ui:bZ;id. but CkO
, ...-
252
irqJrovc,7.0nts I?eae by lirrs. Cexvnntos on the proF?srty
Of her husband v;OUld ba CCP?Uiilty pXYJ?erty, &~d her
childron w-~uld bo entitled ta be reizbwsed for one-
half! of the cost of suah irzprovcnants,
wTho juoetlon ~8 to the tnxcs hns &en one
of mom dlfflculty tLcn the i?:prooomnts, end we
hnva~beon unnble to obtain r:ny nutbnrity on the rub-
ject, bnt hcve conolucied tket t&e rulas of juntlce
and equity would be 5uboerved end a correct ~:pimlplo
enunciated in hr:ldl;l$ tb:nt, the tcxon being raid by
oo&urrity funde, the children should hcrve the bonefit
of one-half of the SW co oxpnded. The taxes ~iere
swandeb to ~resorvn the sepsrzte cstato, end should
be a #har;:6 upon it."' L
..
WQhave been umble to find whore the oourts hcve
again psssed on this que3tion cf mnay s-ant fcr paymnt of
taxes. It GQQESmtlrolg lo~~lcal, 17.3tht! CCUrt yoiztcd out,
that the proposition of lcw cancoml,?E; kcncy a;erit in the poy-
Iceat of tom3 should bo tba aem ND mncy 5pent for lzqrove-
cents on the 2ro2erty. To rake tirifi emparimn because the
court5 of t>is atate hove on nuzerous oaczsions emomced this
rule of law concorafnr: mnoy qent out of the oomun5.ty estate
fr?r InprGvo~Qrlts mida on the aopwite JYCQpQrtyof one of the
8pOU8ee. I~
The rule of law wae steted by the Eqreme Court of
Texas in th,n cam or Rice v. mY?, 21 8. :i;. $8. %ifJ CGwt,
in an opinion written by Chief Jmtice Sscphill, stat&d a5
~0110w5 1
*But tha vardiot, 60 fsr es it finds the
lrcprcverento on +s late to 5se ctmmanity yrcy~erty,
ie ccrmct only in a moSifie~0 sense. They we fix-
tures, ottac%d to the scil, end oamot In tke nature
of thl,figs be dovisiblo In speaie, wilere one of the
joint cwmrs hiis no intorest Zi2 the land Upon wklch
they have been erected. !!cnce result0 the rule, thet
the oor?unity eatate S;uSt b0 reiT.bUvsed fCr the GOGt
or buildings oreated, by joint lcbcrs or fuhds, upon
The Supreme Court of Texas reaffirm& tC$s rule ei
ltia in the 0~~0 0r :‘:~excr V. zd~h, 44 5. ,c.
.#, 2m. 2210
oourt ln an opinion by Chief Justice Ceinne Btatad a5 follm::ot
*If follama, ns wo t&i,*;, that,upon perti-
tion of’ tha Tro::wty in ccnsrovcrsy, t>e lend ~a8
Ohargeabls in rcvcr Of t?.o cor~ur!zt y, with Plcl’ctcver
the ccmuriity ray have contributed in labor and fund5
to Its ooipinition.”
”
600 also t50 Oaf308 of Jocksou v. Jacksan, ‘2283 S. S. $23, by’
tCe KBCOCOWStOf Civil ATj?t35ilnnild GPLO V. i:ylC, SS 5. Yi:i.
(22d) BBS, by the Austin Cou?L of Civil iQjtei&ls.
You are therefore edvlnod tSr;t in the cnae you prc-
cent the s;lrvivin.y v;ldcrr my hem u le&timte er.d valid of&n
CQolnst the oer,matc estate or thn deoe:;ned for am-half or
611 tha ccomnity funGo expended in 9ap:ent of -sXsa on suoh
ao9arata 9ro9erty.
The rule of law would of court hhve to be different
If under th;s facts it~appeero that th;s 6urvivinr: spouse mde Q
gift to her hucbend daring hla life of her ~ortlon of the con-
tvuity f\;nts wk:Ich he eF.nt in the ycgmnt of taxes on h5.a stip-
crtlte property. It ia 8 ?wll scttlod rule of 1~: in this stzte
thrt such a Gift my be made Dy a rriCs to hnr hus3snd of .“.er
8hre of t5e oo.-runity rrorerty. Ths rule ia ~11 ateted In
23 Ttcc. Jur. 76, a8 follmor
*Our ccmunlty eyctetri In suoh tk:nt ezch
s9ouse mm a mioty tkersin m-id holdn el.t!:er
fho lagal or equitcble title to t:m entire am-
, ,:
x,-. 254
Honorable George H. Ehepperd, page 5
munlty, and the wifevs title is usually purely’
equitable. Xhero t!:o pJft is of the comunity,
‘it operctca to vest in the dome the e,?:ire prop-
erty CD oeparuto property; for it 0ger:tes us a
transfer of the title to the port,ion owed md a
., correspondinq relinp2isbr:nnt of any poesible corn-
munfty interest in the rcoioty belohgiiq to the
dome. Ecre ar;oin It in rcetter ler.goly of lnten-
tion to EiVO, end the gift cey be by express dona-
tion or by irngliontion of fact or ILW.*~
You me advised thcrciore thrit it will depend upon
‘the pztrtlculor Poets in this cese es t.0 whcti:rr cr not the
wiPe’8 there of ti:e cormunity funds ex>enCcd in the poyzent
of tams upon the seperete property of the husband were given
to the husband OS 8 i;iEt by .the wife at”thie tir:e such funds
were spent.
We that tht the above discussion will be nuf-
fioient to advise ycu es to the princiglos of lnw which should
be applied in detominin:: the vblfdity of the deduction clelr,-
ed in the case you subs&t. ,,
.”