Davis v. Stevens
| Citation | 208 Mass. 343,94 N.E. 556 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STEVENS. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1911 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James A. Halloran, for appellant.
Dana Malone, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Treasurer and Receiver General.
By her last will Mary E. Elliott gave to the town of Hopkinton in the state of New Hampshire the residue of her property as a perpetual fund to be invested by a board of three trustees (thereinafter named), the income to be expended under their direction and at their discretion 'in conjunction with the almoners of the town, in aid of the worthy poor of American parentage, residents of the town of Hopkinton.' The testatrix died on November 23, 1908, leaving personal property within this commonwealth which passed under this residuary clause, and the question to be decided is whether it is subject to an inheritance tax under our statutes.
If the testatrix had died seven months later the question would have been settled by St. 1909, c. 527, § 1, which took effect on its passage June 19, 1909. That section provides (1) that the exemption of gifts to 'charitable, educational or religious societies or institutions, the property of which is exempt by law from taxation,' shall be to such societies or institutions 'the property of which is by the laws of this commonwealth exempt from taxation'; (2) that the exemption of gifts to charitable purposes shall be an exemption of gifts to 'charities to be carried out within this commonwealth'; and (3) that the exemption of bequests to 'a city or town for public purposes' shall be an exemption to 'a city or town within this commonwealth for public purposes.'
The question which we have to decide is whether this statute (St. 1909, c. 527, § 1) is declaratory of the previous statutes or whether it made a change in them.
We are of opinion that it was declaratory and that it did not make a change in the previous statutes.
The only one of these three exemptions found in the original act (St. 1891, c. 425, which was limited to duties upon collateral inheritances) was an exemption of gifts 'to or for charitable, educational or religious societies or institutions the property of which was by law exempt from taxation.' It was held in the first case which arose under that act (Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113 126, 38 N.E. 512, 517 ) that this exemption did not apply to a bequest to a church in New York. It was there said that this exemption 'is confined to societies the property of which is exempt from taxation by the laws of this commonwealth.' To the same effect see Balch v Shaw, 174 Mass. 144, 54 N.E. 490; Rice v. Bradford, 180 Mass. 545, 63 N.E. 7; Pierce v. Stevens, 205 Mass. 219, 91 N.E. 319.
The exemption of 'bequests to towns for any public purpose' was added by St. 1895, c. 307.
It was decided in Hooper v. Shaw, 176 Mass. 190, 57 N.E. 361, that a gift for charitable uses was not exempt. This was changed by St. 1906, c. 436. The new exemption was in terms limited to gifts 'to a trustee or trustees for charitable purposes within this commonwealth.'
Apart from any change which may have been made by the wording used in the re-enactment of the original acts, there can be no question as to the extent of these exemptions. Before the re-enactment of any of the original acts, the exemption of gifts to 'charitable, educational or religious societies or institutions, the property of which is exempt by law from taxation,' had been held by the court to be confined to such societies or institutions the property of which was exempt from taxation by the laws of this commonwealth. The act which created the exemption of gifts for charitable uses had in terms confined it to gifts 'to a trustee or trustees for charitable purposes within this commonwealth.' The only exemption which had not been thus limited by the court or by the Legislature was that of 'bequests to a city or town for any public purpose,' added by St. 1895, c. 307. When this St. 1895, c. 307 was passed, the decision in Minot v. Winthrop was a recent one (having been made late in the previous year), and it is fair to presume that the Legislature had that in mind in not expressly limiting the new exemption to a city or town within this commonwealth. And there is an additional reason why it should have been thought not to be necessary to state in terms that the exemption of a gift to a city or town for public purposes was confined to a city or town within the commonwealth. That reason is to be found in the fact that the ground for exemption of property from taxation is the benefit that accrues to the public from the use of that which is exempted. See Opinion of the Justices, 195 Mass. 607, 609, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial