ILNews

Tax court affirms classification of beneficiaries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County judge correctly classified beneficiaries as Class B and Class C transferees, subjecting them to higher taxes under Indiana’s inheritance tax, the Indiana Tax Court ruled Friday.

Tax Court Senior Judge Thomas Fisher affirmed the probate court ruling in Geoffrey Odle, Personal Representative of the Estate of Floyd L. Odle, Deceased v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 49T10-1210-TA-61, in which the beneficiaries are nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews. Floyd Odle and his late wife had no children, according to the record.

The estate paid inheritance taxes with beneficiaries classified as Class B or Class C transferees, but then filed a refund claim with the Department of Revenue, arguing the beneficiaries should have been classified as Class A transferees. The claim was denied the same day and later affirmed by a probate court.

Fisher rejected the estate’s argument that Indiana’s inheritance tax, which will be eliminated July 1, was a scheme that violated Article 1, Section 12 and Article 4, Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution.

"The Estate has not demonstrated that the inheritance tax classification scheme violates Section 12 by imposing inequitable administration costs and remedies," Fisher wrote. The estate also failed to establish the tax classification statutes were “special laws” on taxation in violation of Section 22.

"For the above-stated reasons, the Court affirms the probate court’s determination that Floyd’s beneficiaries were properly classified as Class B and C transferees for Indiana inheritance tax purposes."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT