Kellogg v. State of Illinois — 2 Ill. Ct. Cl. 236

LEROY D. KELLOGG v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

Claimant sought refund of inheritance tax paid under protest after the county court reduced the tax originally fixed by the county judge. The court awarded the difference between the tax as fixed and as reduced, less a statutory deduction.

Claim type: Tax Refund

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

Headnotes

INHERITANCE TAX-when refund will be awarded. In this claim

INHERITANCE TAX-when refund will be awarded. In this claim the inheritance tax was fixed by the county judge of Cook County, and an appeal prayed to the county court, pending which appeal, the tax so fixed was paid under protest, after which the county court reduced the tax as fixed by the county judge. The Court awards claimant the difference between the tax as fixed by the county judge and as reduced by the county court. D. J. Normoyle, for Claimant.

LEROY D. KELLOGG

STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed May 22, 1914.

D. J. Normoyle, for Claimant.

P. J. Lucey, Attorney General, and Arthur R. Roy, Assistant Attorney General, for State.

The claimant in this case seeks to recover for certain inheritance tax moneys paid under protest, in connection with the estate of Milo G. Kellogg, deceased, which said estate was administered upon in Cook County, Illinois.

The county judge of said county made an order in said estate fixing the inheritance tax at thirty-one thousand one hundred thirty-five and 60-100 ($31,135.60) dollars, from which order an appeal was prayed and prosecuted by the claimant and other heirs to the county court of said county, as was authorized by statute. Pending the appeal, the amount of tax so levied was paid under protest to the county treasurer of Cook County, in order to obtain the statutory discount. The county court made a reduction of six hundred fifty-eight and 33-100 ($658.33) dollars, and it is for this amount, that claimant, on his account and as assignee of the other heirs, asks an award.

The record in this case discloses, that the claimant did everything essential to protect himself against the excessive levy by the county judge, and we are of the opinion, that claimant is entitled to recover the amount so rebated by the county court, less two (2%) per cent [*237] which was deducted by the county treasurer, in remitting to the State Treasurer, conformably to the statute.

We, therefore, make an award in favor of the claimant, for six hundred forty-five and 17-100 ($645.17) dollars.