So-called inheritance taxes, that is to say, taxes collected from persons receiving property by inheritance, are levied in many of the civilized States of the world. In the United States they have several times been imposed by federal law, and at present (1910) they are to be found in about thirty-five States. In many cases these taxes have been progressive, the rate being higher for larger than for smaller bequests, and collateral heirs often taxed more heavily than direct descendants. In most cases small inheritances have been wholly exempted from the operation of the tax, as have been also bequests and inheritances of real estate. In some cases state inheritance tax laws have been held questioned because containing some special obnoxious provisions, but the ground upon which they have usually been attacked has been that they have violated the requirements of equality and uniformity, because of their progressive features and because of the exemptions referred to above. In general, however, the laws have been upheld.34

34 The constitutionality of laws exempting small estates is asserted in State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439; State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674; In re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281; Estate of Stanford, 126 Cal. 112; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Muss. 113; Crocker v.» Shaw, 174 Mass. 266; Gels-thorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299; High v. Coyne, 9.3 Fed. Rep. 450; Morris' Estate, 50 S. E. Rep. 682; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne, 125 Mich. 487; Ferry v. Campbell, 110 Iowa, 290; Hickok's Estate (Vt.), 62 Atl. Rep. 724; Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59; Appeal of Nettleton, 56 Atl. Rep. 565; Estate of Magnes, 32 Colo. 527; Pullen v. Commissioners of Wake Co., 66 N. C. 361; Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205.

The constitutionality of a law discriminating between lineal and collateral descendants and between relatives and strangers in blood has been sustained in the following cases: State v. Alston, 94 Tenn. 674; State v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190; State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439; Hagerty v. State, 55 Ohio, 613; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190; In re McPherson, 104 N. Y. 306; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113; Billings v. State, 189 111. 472; State v. Dalrymple, 70 Md. 294; Tyson v. State, 28 Md. 577; Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Gratt. 422; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299; Wallace v. Myers, 38 Fed. Rep. 184; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 487; Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59; Appeal of Nettleton, 56 Atl. Rep. 565; Estate of Magnes, 32 Colo. 527; Pullen v. Commissioners of Wake Co., 66 N. C. 361; Estate of Campbell, 143 Cal. 623; Thompson v. Kidder (N.H.), 65 Atl. Rep. 392.

In many cases the classifications of the state laws have been upheld as reasonable in themselves, but fundamentally the principle upon which the validity of the laws has been sustained is that an inheritance tax is not a tax upon the property inherited but upon the right to inherit; and that, inasmuch as this is a right which exists only by statute, it is one that may be regulated at the will of the legislature which creates it.35

A leading case in the federal courts as to the constitutionality of a state inheritance tax law as tested by the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, is that of Alagoun v. Illinois Trust and Savings Bank.36

In this case the doctrine was reaffirmed that an inheritance tax is not one on property but on the right to take property by devise or descent, and that this, being a right of legislative creation, the States may attach conditions thereunto. Hence, it was held, that the States may, in taxing this privilege, discriminate between relatives and between relatives and strangers without violating state constitutional provisions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation, or the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting the denial of the equal protection of the laws. The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court say, does not require "exact equality of taxation. It only requires that the law imposing it shall operate on all alike under the same circumstances."

In Billings v. Illinois37 the court say: "It is insisted that the classification sustained in the Magoun Case 'related solely to the graduated feature of the tax.' In the case at bar, it is said, the question is whether or not the Illinois legislature can discriminate against constituents of a certain class, and apply different rules for the taxation of its members. Life tenants constitute but a single class, and the incidents of such an estate, the source thereof, the extent, the dominion over and the quality of interest in the tenant, is the same irrespective of the ultimate vesting of the remainder. The tax is not upon the property, but is upon the person succeeding to the property. Undoubtedly, life tenants, regarded simply as persons, may be in legal contemplation the same; estates for life, regarded simply as estates with their attributes also in legal contemplation, may be said to be the same, but that is not all to be considered, nor is it determinative. We must regard the power of the state over testate and intestate dispositions of property, its power to create and limit estates, and, as resulting, its power to impose conditions upon their transfer or devolution. It is upon this power that inheritance tax laws are based, and we said, in the Magoun Case, that the power could be exercised by distinguishing between the lineal and collateral relatives of a testator. There the amount of tax depended upon him who immediately received; here the existence of the tax depends upon him who ultimately receives. That can make no difference with the power of the State. No discrimination being exercised in the creation of the class, equality is observed. 'Crossing the lines of the classes created by the statute, discriminations may be exhibited, but within the classes there is equality." 38

The constitutionality of a law laying the tax according to a progressively increasing rate has been upheld in the following cases: KocharspeEgei v. Drake, 167 111. 122; Nunnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 100; State ex rel. Foot v. Bazille, 97 Minn. 11; State v. Clark. 30 Wash. 439; Estate of Magnes, 32 Colo. 527; Morris' Estate, 13s X. C. 259; State v. Vinsonhaler (Nebr.), 105 N. W. Rep. 472.

The foregoing references are from a pamphlet on inheritance tax laws issued by the United States Government (U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1908).

35or a full discussion of the constitutionality of inheritance tax laws, see Nnnemacher v. State, 129 Wis. 190, decided in 1906.

36 70 U. S. 283; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594: 42 L. ed. 1037.

37 188 U. S. 97: 23 Sun. Ct. Ren. 272; 47 L. ed. 400.

38 See also Campbell v. California, 200 U. S. 87; 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 182; 50 L. ed. 382.

Mr. Judson in his valuable treatise, summing up the question of classification for taxing purposes, says: "Classification for taxation is not necessarily based upon any essential difference in the nature or condition of the various subjects. It may be based as well upon the want of adaptability to the same methods of taxation, or upon the impracticability of applying to the various subjects the same methods so as to produce uniform results, or it may be based upon just and well grounded considerations of public policy." Mr. Judson adds, however, that "while classification may thus be based on differences in the nature or condition of the subjects of taxation, or their want of adaptability to the same methods of taxation, it must rest on some other reason than that of mere ownership." On Taxation, §§ 454, 455.