7 T.C. 859">*859 A deficiency in estate tax has been determined by the Commissioner in the amount of $ 4,198.66. The question, hereinafter stated, relates to a claim of the estate for deductions under section 812 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The petitioner contends that there should be deducted from the gross estate sums which were received by charitable and religious institutions.

The estate tax return was filed with the collector for the twenty-third district of Pennsylvania.

The facts have been stipulated by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT.

Petitioner is the executor of the estate of William A. Carey, deceased. The decedent died, testate, on November 13, 1942, a resident of Erie, Erie County, Pennsylvania. His last will was executed on October 21, 1942, which was less than thirty days before his death. The will was duly admitted to probate by the Orphans' Court of Erie County.

Items IV, V, VI, and VII of said will contained a bequest for the use of St. Joseph's Home for Children, 1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*72 Erie, Pennsylvania, and bequests to the Zem Zem Hospital for Crippled Children, St. Andrew's Church, and St. Vincent's Hospital Association, all of Erie, Pennsylvania, having an aggregate value for the purpose of this proceeding of $ 14,912.50. The aforesaid corporations are organized and operated exclusively for charitable or religious purposes within the meaning of section 812 of the Internal Revenue Code.

A document reading as follows was filed in the Orphans' Court of Erie County, Pennsylvania:

Erie, Pa., November 18, 1942.

Know all men by these presents:

That we the undersigned, residuary legatees of the Estate of William A. Carey, Deceased, do hereby consent, direct and authorize The Marine National Bank of Erie, as the executor of the Estate of William A. Carey, to make payment of all 7 T.C. 859">*860 the charitable bequests enumerated in the last will of William A. Carey, to the charities named and in the amounts named respectively to them.

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals.

On March 29, 1944, the Orphans' 1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*73 Court of Erie County, Pennsylvania, entered an adjudication and decree confirming absolutely the account of the executor and ordering that distribution be made to the charities named in items IV, V, VI, and VII of the will.

In an opinion filed in the case, the court stated:

Testator's will dated 10/21/42 contains several bequests to charity. Because of his death occurring on 11/13/42, less than 30 days after the date of the will, these bequests were ineffective. In order to carry out the testator's expressed intention as to these charitable bequests, an agreement was made and signed by all of his heirs and residuary legatees whereby these charitable bequests are to be paid in full.

Petitioner has made distribution to the charities named above of the money and property provided in the will.

The decedent, by his last will, made some bequests, in addition to the bequests to the charitable and religious institutions named above, and then he devised and bequeathed the residue of his estate to four residuary legatees.

OPINION.

The question is whether amounts paid to charities by the executor of the estate of William A. Carey were bequests under his will and, therefore, deductible from1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*74 the gross estate under section 812 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code. ¹ It is agreed that the bequests were charitable under section 812 (d). Therefore, to warrant the deduction under this section, it is necessary only that the charities took the gifts by bequest, legacy, devise, or transfer from the decedent.

William A. Carey devised and bequeathed sums to an individual and to charitable organizations, and left the residue of his estate to four cousins who were his only heirs at law. He died within 30 days after the execution of1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*75 his will. This circumstance rendered the bequests 7 T.C. 859">*861 to charities subject to being defeated ² by the residuary legatees, but did not render the will invalid. Carson's Estate, 241 Pa. 117">241 Pa. 117. The residuary legatees, the heirs of the decedent, filed consents dated November 18, 1942, (which was 5 days after the death of the decedent) to the payment of the charitable bequests by the executor under the will in accordance with its terms. The will, being valid, was admitted to probate. When the time came for the adjudication of the executor's accounts and the approval of the distributions under the will by the Orphans' Court of Erie County, no question was raised by those who had a right to object regarding the validity of the bequests in the will to the charities. The Orphans' Court in its decree of distribution approved the will in its entirety, and the executor made all of the distributions according to the terms of the will. Thus, the bequests to the charities did not fall into the residuary estate, and the executor distributed to the residuary legatees the residue after making distributions of the charitable bequests according to the will.

1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*76 Respondent contends in this proceeding, as he has done in many others, that the charities took from others than the decedent because of the limitation in the state statute upon charitable bequests. Upon this postulate he contends that there were no charitable bequests within section 812 (d), and that the claim of the executor of the estate for deductions under that section should be denied.

The general question has been considered several times, and in each case a state statute similar to the Pennsylvania statute involved here has been the source of the respondent's contention. See Estate of Dudley S. Blossom, 45 B. T. A. 691 (involving an Ohio statute); First National Bank of Atlanta, 36 B. T. A. 491; affd., 102 Fed. (2d) 129 (involving a Georgia statute); Dimock v. Corwin, 99 Fed. (2d) 799; and Humphrey v. Millard, 79 Fed. (2d) 107 (both cases involving a New York statute). ³ The question presented arises under the Federal estate tax statutes, but a particular type of state statute, limiting charitable bequests and found1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*77 in the statutes of seven states, creates a special question for the executors of estates of citizens who die domiciled in those seven states. Thus it is evident that the decision of the particular question has wide application even though it is a special question. In 7 T.C. 859">*862 such instance some consideration should be given to the principle that the revenue acts are to be interpreted, in the absence of language evidencing a different purpose, "so as to give a uniform application to a nation-wide scheme of taxation." Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103">287 U.S. 103, 287 U.S. 103">110. Unless there is a real difference in the Pennsylvania statute from the corresponding statutes of Georgia, Ohio, and New York, which were considered in the above cited cases, and we do not perceive any substantial differences, the result reached in this case should be the same as in the cited cases, because the facts in this case are much the same as the facts in the cited cases, and, in our opinion, the factual differences are immaterial. Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188">305 U.S. 188.

1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*78 The question is whether the distributions to charities were made by petitioner under the decedent's will. After careful consideration and examination of decisions of Pennsylvania courts, we conclude that the distributions were made under the decedent's will under an adjudication of the court which had jurisdiction over the administration and construction of the will. The estate of the decedent was before the Orphans' Court for distribution under the will. The decree in distribution was "a quasi-proceeding in rem," binding upon the whole world, especially binding those who were actual parties, and settling all matters raised and matters which might have been raised. The decree of the court settled the question of the right of the charitable organizations to take the bequests under the will. Channon's Estate, 28 Pa. Dist. 479, 481; affd., 266 Pa. 417">266 Pa. 417; Crozer Estate, 341 Pa. 75">341 Pa. 75; 18 A. 323. See Humphrey v. Millard, supra;Dimock v. Corwin, supra.

The Pennsylvania courts have said frequently 1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*79 that the time to question the validity of bequests to charities is on distribution. 241 Pa. 117">Carson's Estate, supra. When the estate of William A. Carey came before the Orphans' Court for distribution, there were on file the consents, or waivers, of the heirs, the residuary legatees, to distributions to charities under the will, and no question of the validity of the bequests was raised. The Orphans' Court said, in effect, in its decree that the consents which had been filed relieved the provisions in the will relating to the charitable bequests from being ineffective on account of the time at which the decedent died. The matter of the invalidity of the bequests was waived. The Orphans' Court awarded by its decree the bequests made in the will to the charitable organizations. Such decree is recognized by Pennsylvania courts as constituting an adjudication that the charitable bequests conformed to the law. Channon's Estate, 28 Pa. Dist. 479, 482. This brings this case within the principle enunciated in First National Bank of Atlanta, supra;Dimock v. Corwin, supra;1946 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 70">*80 and Estate of Dudley S. Blossom, supra.

7 T.C. 859">*863 The sums paid to the charitable organizations did not pass to the residuary legatees, but passed under William A. Carey's will, and therefore the distributions fall within section 812(d), and are deductible in computing the amount of the net estate. It is held that respondent erred in disallowing the deductions.

Decision will be entered under Rule 50.