JURISDICTION TO TAX 631 intangible property in two states, the result is a double burden of taxation; to which is now added an additional federal tax. This triple burden is, however, quite within the law.^" The burden is often ameliorated by allowing a deduction of debts and of other taxes, and by a marshaUing of assets so as to diminish one of the taxes; but such provisions are beyond the scope of this article.^^ A state which is neither the domicile of the decedent nor the situs of any of his property extends no privilege to the successor, and cannot tax the succession.^^ It has already been seen that an estate under administration is situated in the court by which it is being administered. If a bene- fidary of such an estate should die pending its administration, an inheritance tax upon his succession is leviable in the state where the estate is being administered ; ^ and on the other hand such a tax is not assessable at the domicile of the decedent beneficiary,^^ except in a state which lays the tax upon the foreign property of a domiciled decedent.^^ Nor will the presence of bona notahilia within a state suffice to support a tax on the succession to a legatee; for the interest of the beneficiary of the estate is not an interest in specific chattels, but in the distribution of the balance after the payment of debts and charges.^® Where a trust estate has its situs within a certain jurisdiction, and a beneficial interest in the estate is transferred at the death of an owner of it, an inheritance tax is payable at the place of ad- ministration of the trust.^^ To use the language of Jessel, M. R.,
- " Frothingham v. Shaw, 175 Mass. 59, 55 N. E. 623 (1899).
^^ For examples of such proceedings, see Tilford v. Dickinson, 79 N. J. L. 302, 75 Atl. 574 (1910); Matter of Ramsdill, 190 N. Y. 492, 83 N. E. 584 (1908); Matter of McEwan, 51 N. Y. Misc. 455, loi N. Y. Supp. 733 (1906); Matter of Grosvenor, 124 App. Div. 331, 108 N. Y. Supp. 926 (1908). ^^ Matter of Bentley, 31 N. Y. Misc. 656, 66 N. Y. Supp. 95 (1900); Matter of Bishop, 82 App. Div. 112, 81 N. Y. Supp. 474 (1903); Matter of HiUman, 116 App. Div. 186, loi N. Y. Supp. 640 (1906); State v. Brim, 4 Jones Eq. (57 N. C.) 300 (1858); Hood's Estate, 21 Pa. 106 (1853). ^ Matter of Clinch, 180 N. Y. 300, 73 N. E. 35 (1905); Weaver's Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. 260 (189s). ^ Matter of Thomas, 3 N. Y. Misc. 388, 24 N. Y. Supp. 713 (1893). ^ Milliken's Estate, 206 Pa. 149, 55 Atl. 853 (1903).
- " Matter of Lord, iii App. Div. 152, 97 N. Y. Supp. 553 (1906), affirmed 186
N. Y. 549, 79 N. E. mo (1906); Lyall v. Lyall, L. R. 15 Eq. i (1872).
- " Matter of Lord, in App. Div. 152, 97 N. Y. Supp. 553 (1906), affirmed 186 N. Y.
549, 79 N. E. I no (1906); Commonwealth v. Kuhn, 18 Phila. 403, 2 Pa. Co. Ct.
