Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/658

622 622 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Suppose an administrator carries the property away from the state of his appointment into another state, may the property be taxed there? It has been held not; ^^^ and this decision seems cor- rect, even in the case of tangible property. The administrator is answerable to his court for the disposition of the property, and for this reason it is submitted that the property would acquire no more than a temporary place in the state into which it is taken. The case of the guardian is usually regarded as the same as that of the executor or administrator; property held by him is taxable in the state of his appointment, although he lives in another state and so does the ward.^^^ In accordance with this principle it has been held that property of a resident ward in the hands of a foreign- appointed guardian is not taxable.^^" In Kentucky, however, it has been held that such property is taxable at the domicile of the ward, the beneficial owner.^^^ For the reasons already given in the case of the executor or ad- ministrator, property in the hands of a receiver is taxable in the court where the receiver holds it; the fact that it is in the control of the court protecting it from taxation no more in the one case than in the other, even though the court be a federal court, and the tax assessed by the state.^^^ Thus where property formerly held by an ancillary receiver is transmitted to the principal re- ceiver it is taxable in the state which appointed him, though there are many foreign distributees.^-^ Where there are joint owners of property, each is taxable for his interest; and the same thing is true of joint trustees.^^ If, however, there are joint trustees, some of them nonresidents, and the nonresidents have possession of the trust res outside the state, the resident trustee is not taxable on any part of the estate, i^s Weaver v. State, no la. 328, 81 N. W. 603 (1900). "9 Baldwin v. Washington County, 85 Md. 145, 36 Atl. 764 (1897); Baldwin v. State, 89 Md. 587, 43 Atl. 857 (1899). "» Kinehart v. Howard, 90 Md. i, 44 Atl. 1040 (1899). "1 Boske V. Security T. & S. V. Co., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 181, 56 S. W. 524 (1900). 182 Stevens v. New York & O. M. R. R., 13 Blatch. (U. S.) 104 (1875); Ex park Chamberlain, 55 Fed. 704 (1893); Walters v. Western & A. R. R., 68 Fed, 1002 (1895); Hamilton v. David C. Beggs Co., 171 Fed. 157 (1909); Midland G. & T. Co. V. Douglas County, 217 Fed. 358 (1914); Coy v. Title G. & T. Co., 220 Fed. 90 (1915)- !» Schmidt v. Failey, 148 Ind. 150, 47 N. E. 326 (1897). "* People V. Feitner, 168 N. Y. 360, 61 N. E. 1132 (1901).