STATE BANK OF CHICAGO, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SHERMAN T. COOPER, Deceased, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought a refund of inheritance tax overpaid after the renunciation of will provisions. The court awarded $582.70 with interest based on mutual agreement.

Claim type: Tax Refund

Statutes cited: Section 25 of the inheritance laws of Illinois

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

Headnotes

INHERITANCE TAX-refund or renunciation of will by widow. Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, of Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards the widow files her renunciation of the provisions of the will made for her, and by subsequent proceedings in the county court there was an overpayment of the tax by reason of such renunciation, claimant is entitled to a refund of the amount overpaid.

INHERITANCE TAX-refund or renunciation of will by widow. Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, of Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards the widow files her renunciation of the provisions of the will made for her, and by subsequent proceedings in the county court there was an overpayment of the tax by reason of such renunciation, claimant is entitled to a refund of the amount overpaid. GARDNER & CARTON, for claimant. EDWARD J. BRUNDAGE, Attorney General; GEORGE C. DIXON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court:

The State Bank of Chicago, as executor of the estate of Sherman C. Cooper, deceased, brings this suit to recover on refund an amount alleged to be due deceased under the provisions of Section 25 of the inheritance laws of Illinois.

After the appraisement, fixing the amount inheritance tax to be paid under order of the county judge and the payment of the same, and after the renunciation of the provisions of the will, making certain provisions for the widow, and by subsequent findings and order of the county court, there became due to claimant the sum of $582.70, to which it is entitled to refund.

It seems that this is what Assistant Attorney General Eagleton designates Claim No. 2, and the matter has been taken up by him for the State and gone into very carefully with claimant, and the parties have mutually agreed that the sum of $582.70 should be refunded to claimant. This the Attorney General, by his said assistant, Eagleton, reports in his answer, and by making oral explanation in open court. The evidence supports the claim, and by mutual agreement as aforesaid, the court hereby awards claimant the sum of $582.70, with 3% interest from October 14, 1923.