626 HARVARD LAW REVIEW on the ground that as personalty it passes by the law of the domicile? In most jurisdictions it is held that no tax may be laid on the land; the reason usually given being that the doctrine of equitable con- version prevails only in equity, while the levying of a tax is a legal, not an equitable, process.^"^ This reason is perhaps suflScient; but it W9uld be enough to say that the doctrine of equitable conver- sion, though it treats the land as personalty, does not and cannot make it any the less immovable, and does not and cannot in any way affect its transfer by the law of the situs. In Pennsylvania, however, a different view has been taken. The equitable conversion of foreign land of a Pennsylvania de- cedent by a direction that the executor sell and pay over the pro- ceeds makes the inheritance taxable in Pennsylvania.^^ While a mere power given to the executor to sell the foreign land does not equitably convert it, so as to make it liable to tax at the domicile,^"* if the executor is directed to sell the land and out of the proceeds to pay debts or legacies, it is held that an inheritance tax may be exacted at the domicile of the decedent ^°^ unless it becomes un- necessary to exercise the power because the personal property is sufficient.^"' Conversely where such directions as to Pennsylvania land are given in a foreign will no inheritance tax can be collected in Pennsylvania.^"^ No satisfactory reason for this exceptional doctrine has been offered. Even in Pennsylvania this doctrine is confined to cases where the sale was directed for the payment of debts or legacies, or at least for some use within the state. When the will directed the ex- ecutor to sell foreign land and invest the proceeds in another state, to be held as a trust fund, the court held that the transfer could not be taxed in Pennsylvania.^"^ ^"^ Connell v. Crosby, 210 111. 380, 71 N. E. 350 (1904); McCurdy :;. McCurdy, 197 Mass. 248, 83 N. E. 881 (1908); Matter of Swift, 137 N. Y. 77, 32 N. E. 1096 (1893). 20* Miller's Estate, 182 Pa. 157, 37 Atl. 1000 (1897); Dalrymple's Estate, 215 Pa. 367, 64 Atl. 554 (1906).
- "* Drayton's Appeal, 61 Pa. 172 (1869).
- "• Miller v. Commonwealth, iii Pa. 321, 2 Atl. 492 (1885); Williamson's Estate,
153 Pa. 508, 26 Atl. 246 (1893); Vanuxern's Estate, 212 Pa. 315, 61 Atl. 876 (1905). 2"^ Marr's Estate, 240 Pa. 38, 87 Atl. 621 (1913); Crozer's Estate, 253 Pa. 15, loi Atl. 801 (1916).
- °' In re Shoenberger, 221 Pa. 112, 70 Atl. 579 (1908); Lamberton's Estate, 40 Pa.
Super. Ct. 548 (1909). 209 Hale's Estate, 161 Pa. 181, 28 Atl. 1071 (1894)
