Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Buxbaum v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-04-16 No. 870
Disposition: (No. 870-Claimant awarded $832.25 with interest.) Award: $832.25
Cite as: Buxbaum v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 (1925)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Buxbaum v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 1925-04-16 (No. 870-Claimant awarded $832.25 with interest.) /opinions/v05-p0130-1/

EMANUEL BUXBAUM, HENRY KUH and MYRA C. ELLENBOGEN, TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM KUH, Deceased, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimants sought refund of inheritance taxes paid under Section 25 of the Illinois inheritance tax laws. The court awarded $832.25 with interest, as the net tax was overpaid and the Attorney General consented.

Claim type: Tax Refund

Statutes cited: Section 25 of the inheritance tax laws of Illinois

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. INHERITANCE TAX-when claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25. Where an order of court has been made, in a proper proceeding, re-assessing the tax under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, upon the happening of certain contingencies provided for in the will, claimant is entitled to a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax originally assessed and the amount found due under the order of the court re-assessing the tax.

Emanuel Buxbaum, Henry Kuh and Myra C. Ellenbogen, trustees under the last will and testament of Abraham Kuh, deceased, bring this action for refund of inheritance taxes paid on account of the operation of Section 25 of the inheritance tax laws of Illinois.

It appears from the declaration and the statement and consent of the Attorney General that in this estate there was paid to the State of Illinois, on account of the property, subject to the operation of said Section 25 of the inheritance tax laws of Illinois, a net tax of $9886.67, whereas, under an order re-assessing said property after the happening of the contingencies provided for by said will, it was found that the net tax should be $9054.42, thereby leaving, as found by order of the court, the sum of $832.25 to which claimants are entitled to have refunded, with 3% interest per annum from the 16th day of April, 1917. The Attorney General consents to an allowance of the amount claimed, which is proven by the evidence in the case.

The court accordingly awards the claimant the said sum of $832.25 with interest.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.