OAG 40-1.

• Case Date: July 01, 1940
• Court: Oregon

Oregon Attorney General Opinions 1940. OAG 40-1. 3OPINION NO. 40-1[20 Or. Op. Atty. Gen. 3]Property of a deceased resident of the state of Washington, consisting of deposits in Oregon banks and stock certificates in foreign corporations, kept in a safe deposit box in Oregon, taxable at the domicile of the deceased owner, and not subject to Oregon inheritance tax.July 1, 1940.Hon. Walter E. Pearson,State Treasurer. Dear Sir: You have requested my opinion whether or not accounts in Oregon banks of a deceased resident of the state of Washington are subject to the payment of inheritance tax in this state, and whether or not certificates of stock of a corporation organized outside of the state of Oregon, which were assets of a resident of the state of Washington, who died in that state leaving a box in a bank in the city of Portland in which they were found at his death, are subject to inheritance tax in this state. In this connection please refer to my opinion to you of March 7, 1940, regarding the taxability of registered bonds of the state of Oregon owned by a citizen of England and resident of Switzerland, who died leaving said registered bonds in Boston, Massachusetts, in safe keeping, in which you were advised that in my opinion the state of Oregon does not have power to collect an inheritance tax in connection with the transfer of the bonds therein referred to, for the reason that the deceased owner was not a resident of the state of Oregon and the bonds have not acquired a situs in this state for taxation purposes. You state that recent decisions of the United States supreme court relating to the taxability of intangibles has opened the field for speculation as to what is now the taxable status of intangible personal property of nonresident decedents, and indicate that the United States supreme court may be retreating from its decision in the case of Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204. In that case a resident of New York died intestate in that state. He had long owned and kept within that state negotiable bonds and certificates of indebtedness issued by the state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, some of which were registered and others were payable to bearer. None had any connection with business carried on by or for the decedent in Minnesota. The court held that it regarded registration of certain of the bonds as an immaterial circumstance, and that the fact that the obligations were debts of Minnesota and her corporations, subject to her control, the laws of which state gave them validity, protected them and provided means for enforcing payment, did not bring them within the taxing power of the state. The court further held that it was the then approved doctrine that no...