Sec. 256. "Persons" Includes Corporations. The word "person" in an inheritance statute includes corporations. The omission in the Virginia statute of 1867, c. 64, s. 3, of the words "bodies politic and corporate" and of the words "to any other use than to and for the use of the father," etc., cannot be taken as an indication of an intention of the legislature to exempt corporations from this tax. If the word "person" in the act embraces corporations, then these words were useless and unnecessary and were properly omitted, and the court finds that "person" here covers corporations. Miller v. Commonwealth, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 110, 116. Sec. 257. Foreign Corporations. It is the general rule in this country that exemptions to charitable1 or religious corporations are confined to domestic corporations, although the foreign corporation may have a limited right to hold property in the state. A bequest to Bowdoin College, a Maine institution, is not exempt from the Massachusetts inheritance tax, although Bowdoin College was a corporation created by Massachusetts by the statute of 1794 before Maine was separated from Massachusetts. The court holds that nevertheless after the separation it ceased to be an institution incorporated within the state of Massachusetts within the meaning of the Massachusetts statute, and therefore it is subject to tax.4 1 People v. Western Seamen's Friend Society, 87 Ill. 246. In re Speed, 216 Ill. 23, 74 N. E. 809, 108 Am. St. Rep. 189, affirmed 203 U. S. 553, 27 S. Ct. 171, 51 L. Ed. 314. In re Crawford, 148 Iowa 60, 126 N. W. 774. Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 26 L. R. A. 259. Alfred University v. Hancock, 69 N. J. Eq. 470, 46 A. 178. In re Rothschild, 72 N. J. Eq. 425, 65 A. 1118, affirming 71 N. J. Eq. 210. In re Gopsill (N. J. Prerog.), 77 A. 793. In re McCoskey, 1 N. Y. Suppl. 782, 22 Abb. N. Cas. 20, 6 Dem. Surr. 438. Catlin v. Trinity, 113 N. Y. 133, 3 L. R. A. 206n. In re Prime, 136 N. Y. 347, 362, 32 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R. A. 713, affirming 64 Hun 50. Humphreys v. State, 70 Ohio St. 67, 101 Am. St. 888, 70 N. E. 907, 65 L. R. A. 776, affirming 13 Low. D. 168, 1 C. C. N. S. 1, 14 Cir. D. 238 (although the foreign charitable corporations have agencies in Ohio). 1 Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 126, 21 L. R. A. 259. In re Balleis, 144 N. Y. 132, 38 N. E. 1007, affirming 78 Hun 275. In re Smith, 77 Hun 134, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 476. In re Taylor, 80 Hun 589, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 582. In re Fayerweather, 30 N. Y. Suppl. 273, 31 Abb. N. Cas. 287. See ante, s. 60. 'The American Baptist Publication Society was empowered by the New York statute to take and hold property in New York state, but the court holds that this right alone does not relieve the respondent from taxation. In re Wolfe, 23 Misc. Rep. 439, 52 N. Y. Suppl. 415, 2 Gibbons 446. The fact that a foreign charitable corporation was given a limited privilege of taking and holding real and personal property in New York did not relieve that corporation from a tax on a legacy due it; that was an enabling statute merely. The corporation remained a foreign corporation as before, but possessing in this state a privilege granted by that statute. In re Prime, 136 N. Y. 347, 363, 32 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R. A. 713, affirming 64 Hun 50. 4 Batt v. Stevens, 209 Mass. 319. The court follows Rice v. Bradford, 180 Mass. 545. Sec. 258. Gift to Foreign Corporation for Domestic Use. Although a gift is made nominally to a charitable corporation organized under the laws of another state, still where the gift is not to or for the corporation itself, and where the corporation is given no power or authority to take it out of the jurisdiction of the state or to expend it for any other than the local purposes mentioned in the will, it is exempt from the inheritance tax. The court distinguishes between a gift made generally to or for a charitable society organized in another state and a gift made to aid the work of a strictly local charity with which the foreign society may be associated. The court regards it as a trust in which the existence of the trustee is not material. In re Crawford, 148 Iowa 60, 126 N. W. 774. Sec 259. Corporation Chartered in More than one State. A corporation incorporated in more than one state may for the purpose of exemptions be treated as a domestic corporation in each state. Where one charitable corporation has only a single entity but is incorporated in three states theoretically it must be said that there is a distinct entity in each of three states, but the substance is the same in all. It has a single body possessing the franchises and privileges of a domestic corporation in three states. To say that the bequest is to a foreign corporation merely because the testatrix named the place where its principal office is located as Boston, Massachusetts, is to substitute form for substance. In re Lyon, 141 N. Y. App. Div. 34, 128 N. Y. Suppl. 1004. See further, ante, s. 212. Sec. 260. Effect of Use Made of Funds. The common rule is that an exemption to charitable corporations includes any domestic corporation although the corporation had a right to spend its money outside the state. The courts have attempted in some cases to look beyond this rule and allow exemptions only where it appeared that the domestic beneficiary was to expend the funds received within the state. The New Jersey statute on the other hand refuses the exemption to certain institutions which confine their activities within state lines.3 Under the New Hampshire statute of 1905, as amended in 1907, if the gift is absolute it is the use made of the property or fund constituting the gift that determines the exemption, but if it is in trust it is the use made of the income or beneficial interest that governs, for in such case it is that property or interest alone which comes into the hands of the donee for use. And so where bonds are given to churches as trustees, the question is not whether the bonds should be exempt from tax, but whether their income in the hands of the beneficiaries should be exempt.1 1 Balch v. Shaw, 174 Mass. 144 (under the act of 1891). *The court holds that a legacy to trustees for the purpose of establishing a certain Latin school in a foreign country is not exempt from taxation under the statute of 1906, chapter 436. The fact that the will authorized the trustees to form a corporation to administer the fund and that the trustees did form a Massachusetts corporation does not alter the case, as the fund vested in the trustees on the death of the testator, and there was no requirement that a corporation should be formed. The gift took effect absolutely in the trustees on the death of the testator. Pierce v. Stevens, 205 Mass. 219, 91 N. E. 319. The court distinguishes the case of Balch v. Shaw, 174 Mass. 144, where there was no gift to anyone until the corporation was formed. A legacy to the New Hampshire Baptist convention was not subject to the inheritance tax. The convention is authorized by its charter to receive and hold donations and use the same for "the purpose of promoting foreign and domestic missions and the education of indigent and pious young men for the gospel ministry and any other religious charities which they may deem proper." The convention had always confined its work to this state and purposes to ask the legislature to amend its charter so as to prevent its use of funds outside the state. In view of these facts it seems clear that the charity is of substantial benefit to the people of New Hampshire and is therefore exempt from taxation. Carter v. Story, (N. H. 1911,) 78 A. 1072. The Home Missionary Society was not entitled to an exemption under the New Hampshire statute of 1905, as it devoted substantially all its funds to the support of charities outside of New Hampshire. The question was whether its charity was of such a character and so administered as to be of any substantial benefit or advantage to the people of New Hampshire, and this was a question of fact to be determined upon competent evidence. Carter v. Whitcomb, 74 N. H. 482, 491, 69 A. 779. The Woman's Foreign Missionary Society, the principal object of which is the "evangelization of heathen women," is not a public charity even though there may be heathen women in New Hampshire, as it was found that none of the funds of the society could be used within the state of New Hampshire. "The expenditure of large sums of money for the enlightenment upon religious subjects of the natives of the Antipodes evidently was not one of the objects the legislature intended to encourage, when in 1895 the property of charitable associations 'devoted exclusively to the uses and purposes of public charity' was exempted from taxation, or when in 1905 legacies to such associations 'in this state' were exempted from the inheritance tax." Carter v. Whitcomb, 74 N. H. 482, 489, 69 A. 779. "The New York Yearly Meeting of Friends is the general governing body of the society of Friends and has primary control over the missionary purposes and general benefactions of such minor bodies as act by its authority. Funds are set apart for the work among the Indians and for the benefit of former slaves in the south. It has missions in Mexico, North Carolina, Palestine and Japan and China. Its membership is not confined to the state of New York. It has meetings organized in Vermont and in Canada, and membership in these meetings is not confined to state lines. The court holds that there is no difference between the methods of these meetings and the methods of the boards of home and foreign missions of the various religious organizations. Therefore, the society of Friends comes clearly within the statutory exemption. State v. N. Y. Meeting of Friends, 61 N. J. Eq. 620, 48 A. 227. The Union for Ministerial Education, whose purpose is to assist in educating for the ministry suitable men, is a religious institution; so the Baptist Education Society, the object of which is to furnish the means for instruction to young of personal piety, who have a call to the ministry; and the American Baptist Home Missionary Society, whose object is to promote the preaching of the gospel in North America, are all religious institutions. As the first two are not limited to students of any particular locality, they are certainly not local in their nature and the board of missions is clearly of a general purpose also. Therefore, all three of these institutions are exempt from payment of the collateral inheritance tax. In re Jones, (N. J. 1907,) 67 A. 1035, affirmed 70 A. 1101. * Carter v. Eaton, 75 N. H. 560, 78 Atl. 643. Sec. 261. Special Exemptions. Special exemptions of individual bequests from inheritance taxation have been sometimes passed in this country,' and upheld where uniformity of taxation is not required. A general inheritance tax exemption may supersede special exemptions.3 1 Mass. St. 1908, p. 840. Pa. St. 1855, c. 47, specially exempts a certain legacy to an orphan asylum from the payment of the inheritance tax. Pa. St. 1873, c. 290. Va. St. 1897-98, c. 562. 2 Commonwealth v. Henderson, 172 Pa. St. 135. 3 In re Huntington, 168 N. Y. 399, 408, 61 N. E. 643, affirming 62 N. Y. App. Div. 96. CHAPTER XXXIII. EXEMPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES. § 262. Federal Taxation of Bequest to State or Municipality. § 263. State Taxation of Bequest to United States. The federal congress has the power to impose a succession tax upon a bequest to a municipal corporation of a state for a corporate and public purpose, and U. S. Stat. June 13, 1898, as amended March 2, 1901, exercises this authority.1 As congress has the power to tax successions and the states have the same power, and such power of the states extends to bequests to the United States, it follows that congress has the same power to tax the transmission of property by legacy to states or their municipalities and that the exercise of that power in neither case conflicts with the proposition that neither the federal nor the state government can tax the property or agencies of the other, since the taxes imposed are not upon the property but upon the right to succeed to property.2 1Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 23 S. Ct. 803, 47 L. Ed. 1035, Fuller, White and Peckham, JJ., dissenting. Snyder v. Bettman, 190 U. S. 249, 23 S. Ct. 803, 47 L. Ed. 1035. Sec. 263. State Taxation of Bequest to United States. In re Murphy, 4 Misc. Rep. 230, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 107. In re Cullum, 5 Misc. Rep. 173, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 699. A legacy to the United States is subject to the inheritance tax. "This tax, in effect, limits the power of testamentary disposition, and legatees and devisees take their bequests and devises subject to this tax imposed upon the succession of property. This view eliminates from the case the point urged by the appellant that to collect this tax would be in violation of the well-established rule that |