Contents

INTERNATIONAL GIVING BY INDIVIDUALS THROUGH ESTATESwhether it was a corporation. Although the Danish school district was a corporationoperated exclusively for educational purposes, the law 26 limits deductiblebequests to political subdivisions to those that are subdivisions of the Americangovernment. Thus, the court held that this bequest was not deductible for estatetax purposes. 27(c) Transfer to TrusteeAn estate tax charitable deduction is allowed for “contributions or gifts to atrustee or trustees . . . to be used by such trustee or trustees . . . exclusively forreligious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, or for the preventionof cruelty to children or animals.” 28 The question of whether a bequestto a foreign governmental body, to be used exclusively for charitable purposes,could be deductible as a bequest to a foreign charitable trust has arisen.A growing body of federal case law holds that a bequest to a foreign governmentalentity can be instilled with a charitable purpose. In such a case, it wouldbe deductible under the rule concerning bequests to a trustee for charitablepurposes. 29The two courts that have considered this matter subsequent to this courtopinion have expressly rejected the first court’s rationale and have adoptedanother approach to statutory construction. 30 Both cases involved bequests toforeign governmental units. Both courts applied this rule, allowing a deductionfor a bequest to a trustee for exclusively charitable purposes. The precedent wastherefore set that a transfer to a foreign government, subdivision, or instrumentalitymay qualify for the estate tax charitable deduction, provided it is restrictedexclusively for charitable purposes and the government subdivision acts in afiduciary capacity.In another case, 31 the question was whether a clause in the will of an individualconstituted a charitable trust and thus qualified as an allowable deduction inthe computation of New York state taxes. A controversial paragraph in the decedent’swill provided in part as follows:I hereby give, devise and bequeath the entire collection of gold and platinumcoins left me by my late beloved husband, to the State of Israel, upon conditionthat the same be kept and exhibited in the State of Israel, in an appropriatemuseum, that the same be marked and identified to the viewing public as“The Collection of Dr. Aron A. Kaplun” and that the State of Israel willundertake to keep said collection in perpetuity, never to be sold or otherwisedisposed of . . . .Obviously, the State of Israel is not a domestic governmental body as definedunder the law, 32 nor is it a corporation organized and operating exclusively forcharitable purposes as described in the law. 33 Thus, the claimed deduction had26 IRC § 2055(a)(1).27 Edwards v. Phillips, 373 F.2d 618 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 834 (1967).28 IRC § 2055(a)(3).29 See text accompanied by note 28.30 Schoellkopf v. United States, 124 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1942).31 Kaplun v. United States, 436 F.2d 799 (2d Cir. 1970).32 IRC § 2055(a)(1).33 IRC § 2055(a)(2). 562