Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Clemency v. Department of Revenue

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 2012No. Nos. 84114-4; 85075-5Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMadsen, C.J.

¶51 (concurring/dissenting) — The majority’s analysis in this case is incorrect and inadequate to decide when federal qualified terminable interest property (QTIP property9) is subject to state estate tax under the Washington Estate and Transfer Tax Act (Act), Laws of 2005, chapter 516. The majority invokes inapplicable principles expressed in cases from the 1930s and 1940s that are outdated in the present context. These cases were decided long before the passage of the more recent federal statutes that govern taxability of QTIP property and are expressly incorporated into the Act.

¶52 The…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Coolidge v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. Washington Public Ports Ass'n v. Department of RevenueWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Diversified Investment Partnership v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1989

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API