See 68 O.S.Supp. 1974 § 807[68-807](A)(6) (7)(a). Hewett, for support, refers us to Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Harris, 455 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1969) for the general proposition that proceeds from a life insurance policy, payable to a specific beneficiary and not to the insured or his estate, is not subject to estate taxes. With this general proposition, we find no controversy or fault. However the Harris decision qualifies this general rubric or rule and goes onto hold that if at the time of decedent's death, he had the right, directly or indirectly, to change the beneficiary . . . then the proceeds are includable in the value of the estate for tax purposes.
Okla. Tax Comm'n. v. Harris, 455 P.2d 61, 73 (Okla. 1969). AFFIRMED.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the transferors (Henry and Katherine) transferred ownership of the property and that such ownership was held by a transferee. For a similar issue involving an insurance policy, see Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Harris (1969), Okla., 455 P.2d 61. The dispute here in issue is whether Irma is to be deemed the transferee determining the inheritance tax rate.
This construction also resolves any doubt in favor of the taxpayer and against the state, as required by C. H. Leavell Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, supra. See also Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Harris, Okl., 455 P.2d 61 (1969). In summary, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that your hypothetical case should be resolved as follows: The Oklahoma Tax Commission may not, after the expiration of ten years from the date of death of the decedent, assert a claim for additional estate taxes and interest due concerning cash, stocks and bonds discovered after the expiration of the ten year period and inadvertently excluded from a previously filed estate tax return.