District of Columbia v. Joseph F. Castiello and William T. Hannan, Executors and Trustees

D.C. Circuit

District of Columbia v. Joseph F. Castiello and William T. Hannan, Executors and Trustees

230 F.2d 839, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 289, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1956

Docket12941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 F.2d 839 (District of Columbia v. Joseph F. Castiello and William T. Hannan, Executors and Trustees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

District of Columbia v. Joseph F. Castiello and William T. Hannan, Executors and Trustees, 230 F.2d 839, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 289, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3331 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The will of Ada Harris Maley left property to trustees, the income and finally the principal of which was to be distributed to such worthy “charity or ehai'ities in the District of Columbia as [the trustees] may select in their own discretion.” The District of Columbia Tax Court, construing this language, decided that “It is the duty of the trustees to see that the income or corpus is not used for any purpose other than the promotion or carrying on of some worthy charity in the District. The payment of income by the trustees to a charity which is carried on in whole or in part without the District of Columbia would be pro tanto a perversion of the trust.” We think this construction is not erroneous. From this construction it follows that, as the Tax Court held, the property is “transferred * * * exclusively for charitable, educational, or religious purposes within the District of Columbia” and is therefore exempt from inheritance tax under D.C. Code 1951, § 47-1601(e), 50 Stat. 684, as amended 60 Stat. 303.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The will of Ada Harris Maley left property to trustees, the income and finally the principal of which was to be distributed to such worthy “charity or ehai'ities in the District of Columbia as [the trustees] may select in their own discretion.” The District of Columbia Tax Court, construing this language, decided that “It is the duty of the trustees to see that the income or corpus is not used for any purpose other than the promotion or carrying on of some worthy charity in the District. The payment of income by the trustees to a charity which is carried on in whole or in part without the District of Columbia would be pro tanto a perversion of the trust.” We think this construction is not erroneous. From this construction it follows that, as the Tax Court held, the property is “transferred * * * exclusively for charitable, educational, or religious purposes within the District of Columbia” and is therefore exempt from inheritance tax under D.C. Code 1951, § 47-1601(e), 50 Stat. 684, as amended 60 Stat. 303.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 F.2d 839, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 289, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-of-columbia-v-joseph-f-castiello-and-william-t-hannan-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack