appraisal was not an “independent appraisal,” Mrs. Jameson’s estate owns only 80,405 shares of Johnco. E. Constitutionality of the Estate Tax. The Estate raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal estate tax. It argues that the tax as applied in this case is an uneonstitutionál direct tax. The Estate concedes that a tax on property actually transferable to a decedent’s heirs is constitutional. It asserts, however, that a tax on the portion of the estate used to pay the estate tax is an unconstitutional tax on a tax, resulting in this case in an effective rate of 92.7% on the property actually received by the heirs. The Estate contends that 0 S.Ct. 356, 74 L.Ed. 991 (1930) (same); New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 348-49, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (<HOLDING>); Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 82-83, 20
holding that a claim for breach of contract against a lawyer regarding estate taxes arose no later than the date on which the estate tax return was filed not when the alleged error was discovered holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others holding that the tax was not direct even though it encompassed a spouses joint interest in the decedents property holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient