New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-04-15
Controller Attacks Trans
fer of Mrs. ROckefeller's
Requests TO Foundation.
NOT TAX EXEMPT,
SURROGATE is TOLD
Argument Heard on Appeal
Taken by State Official
Decision Reserved.

Argument resisting transfer tar
exemptions Tor requests from Mrs.
John d. Rockefeller 20 the Rockefeller
Foundation was presented yesterday
before Surrogate Cohalan on an appeal
taken By the State Controller from the
transfer tax appraisers report. The
appraiser held that such property was
exempt as passed 10 the Foundation
under provision Of Mrs Rockcfel-
ler's will giving the trustees power 20
turn over her residuary estate 20
eha,ity.
She left an estate Of about sl.500,-
00o. the residusry amounting 20 $500
600. Of which s425.5lS has been turned
over TO the Foundation This was the
portion involved in the argument.
winch centred on whether the Founda-
ton could be construed As a charitable
or benevolent institution.
Schuyler c. Carlton, Tor the Con.
,roller. held that the Foundations
charter describes its powers and duties
20 be 20 receive and maintain funds
and 20 apply the interest Of income 70
promote the wellbeing OF mankind and
10 carry on research work.
Not Exempt. Says Carlton.
Nothing could be more broad" Mr.
Carlton said. III means. a. take Il,
wna, Mr.. Rockefeller deems the vel
fare o, mankind" lie went on 20 show
that once In the hands Of the Founda-
ton the requests might be used for
purposes which would not warrant the
exemption.
Tie argued also that IN itself the
Foundation is not IN exempt corpora
ton because rs purposes arc vague
and cover every branch OF activity Of
which human ingenuity can conceive
which. in the minds Of is officers
might seem for the promotion OF the
good o, humanity.
lie showed that among the matters
taken up By the Foundation, as stated
in its report. were the China Medical
Board. bird refuge in Louisiana, the
international nesltn Commission, in
vestigation Of government problems,
the Bureau OF Social Hygiene, the Alta
Social Settlement Of Cleveland and the
Homes Association Of New York. None
OF these, he said. would be entitled TO
transfer tar exemption
He made the point that since the
Foundation uses rs funds for purposes
rot entitled 70 such exemption all
money going 20 the institution should
be taxed. The report Of the Founde-
ton showed. he said, that for seven
months in 1913 It's income was $1,000
600. and that only 100000 was spent.
the rest being invested Under the
law. he said. a charitable organization
cannot do this. being Obliged TO spend
all its income.
Calls Charter a Safeguard.
George ". Murray. counsel for the
estate. contended that IN every way
tho organization is a charitable instr
tuition. and that IN 1914 Do gave l,OOO,-
600 20 the Belgian relief funds. As 20
the possibility that the funds might be
used for purposes other than those m
tended BIZ the charter. be said there -
4 safeguard in the Attorney General,
whose duty i. 20 see that the charter
IS carried out The issue before the
court. he said. was simply whether the
Foundation Wss or was not p cnarity.
one definition le gave in support o.
f's contention thai 10 wac charity was
that charitable use. where neither
fa,, nor public policy forb.da. may be