W. E. Davis v. Raymond W. Smith
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CA-02811-SCT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY
WALKER SMITH, DECEASED:
W. E. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR,
FIRST SECURITY BANK AND
BANK OF HOLLY SPRINGS
v.
RAYMOND SMITH AND RUTH SMITH
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/24/2003
HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD, JR.
DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
JOHN T. LAMAR, JR.
BRYAN E. DYE
WILLIAM F. SCHNELLER
JOHN B. TURNER
M. DARIN VANCE
WILLIAM A. BASKIN
CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES
REVERSED AND REMANDED - 01/20/2005
BEFORE WALLER, P.J., GRAVES AND DICKINSON, JJ.
WALLER, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
When Anthony W. Smith died without a will, he had three life insurance policies in full
force and effect. The aggregate value of the proceeds of these policies was $2,155,000. The
beneficiaries were Raymond Smith, Anthony’s father, who received $2,000,000; Ruth Smith,
Anthony’s ex-wife, who received $125,000; and Vickie Smith, Anthony’s wife at the time of
his death, who received $30,000. Raymond filed a petition in the Chancery Court of DeSoto
County seeking a declaratory judgment from the chancery court that: (a) the administrator of
Anthony’s estate must first pay any estate taxes out of the estate; and (b) if the estate did not
have enough funds to pay the taxes in full, only then could the administrator seek contributions
from the three life insurance proceeds beneficiaries.
W. E. Davis, as administrator of
Anthony’s estate, responded that the tax liability of the estate increased substantially because
of the pay-out of $2,000,000 of the life insurance proceeds. He averred that the beneficiaries’
proportionate tax liability amounted to $561,354 for Raymond; and $35,085 for Ruth, 1 and that
Raymond and Ruth should be ordered to interplead these amounts into the registry of the court.
Davis also argued that, without the amount of the insurance proceeds added in, the estate would
not have had any estate tax liability, so the entire tax liability should be paid by the insurance
beneficiaries.
¶2.
After a hearing, the chancellor found that (1) the gross value of the estate was
$9,395,811, including the insurance proceeds; (2) at that time the estate had a tax liability of
$596,439, but all of the estate’s assets had not been secured and valued; (3) the estate could
recover from the insurance beneficiaries a portion of the tax liability, but it could not recover
the full tax liability; (4) to impose all of the tax liability on the insurance beneficiaries would
be inequitable inasmuch as other valuable, unencumbered assets of the estate would not be
taken into consideration; (5) each insurance beneficiary should contribute toward the estate
tax liability a percentage of the insurance proceeds equal to the proportion of the insurance
1
The $30,000 received by Vickie was not taxable because she was the surviving
spouse.
2
proceeds to the value of the gross estate, meaning Raymond must pay 21.8% of the tax liability
because the insurance proceeds paid to him constituted 21.8% of the gross estate, and that
Ruth must pay 1.3% of the tax liability because the insurance proceeds paid to her constituted
1.3% of the gross estate; and (6) Raymond owed $130,023 (21.8% of the tax liability) and
Ruth owed $7,753 (1.3% of the tax liability) to the estate.
DISCUSSION
¶3.
Miss. Code Ann. § 27-10-7 (Rev. 2003) provides that estate tax liability shall be
apportioned “in the proportion that the value of the interest of each person interested in the
estate bears to the total value of the interests of all persons interested in the estate,” meaning
that apportionment would be based on the gross estate. However, Miss. Code Ann. § 27-10-21
(Rev. 2003) provides as follows:
If the liabilities of persons interested in the estate as
prescribed by this chapter differ from those which result under
the Federal Estate Tax Law, the liabilities imposed by the federal
law will control and the balance of this chapter shall apply as if
the resulting liabilities had been prescribed herein.
3
26 U.S.C. § 22062 provides that if an estate consists of assets which include, inter alia, the
proceeds of life insurance policies, the beneficiaries of the proceeds are liable for “such
portion of the total tax paid as the proceeds of such policies bear to the taxable estate,”
meaning that apportionment would be based on the taxable estate.
¶4.
Therefore, because federal law controls, the apportionment of the estate’s tax liability
should be based on the amount of the taxable estate, not the gross estate as the chancellor held.
See, e.g., Estate of Cohen v. Crown, 954 S.W.2d 409, 411-12 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (federal
tax law controls on issue of apportionment of tax liability when life insurance proceeds are
part of an estate’s assets).
¶5.
Smith argues that equity demands that the apportionment be based on the gross estate,
not the taxable state. However, courts have consistently held that under the equitable doctrine
that "equity follows the law," courts of equity cannot modify or ignore an unambiguous
2
26 U.S.C. § 2206 provides as follows:
Liability of life insurance beneficiaries. Unless the decedent
directs otherwise in his will, if any part of the gross estate on
which tax has been paid consists of proceeds of policies of
insurance on the life of the decedent receivable by a beneficiary
other than the executor, the executor shall be entitled to recover
from such beneficiary such portion of the total tax paid as the
proceeds of such policies bear to the taxable estate. If there is
more than one such beneficiary, the executor shall be entitled to
recover from such beneficiaries in the same ratio. In the case of
such proceeds receivable by the surviving spouse of the decedent
for which a deduction is allowed under section 2056 (relating to
marital deduction), this section shall not apply to such proceeds
except as to the amount thereof in excess of the aggregate
amount of the marital deductions allowed under such section.
4
statutory principle in an effort to shape relief.
In re Estate of Miller, 840 So. 2d 703, 708
(Miss. 2003).
CONCLUSION
¶6.
We reverse the chancellor’s decision to apportion tax liability to the life insurance
beneficiaries based on the gross estate, rather than the taxable estate.
We remand this matter
to the chancellor to determine the amount of the taxable estate and then to apportion the tax
liability according to this opinion.
¶7.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH,
JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
