
    In the Matter of the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of William D. Burnham, Deceased. Joseph D. Tomlinson et al., as Executors, Appellants; State Tax Commission, Respondent.
    
      Tax — transfer tax — additional tax imposed by section 221-6 of Tax Law — when additional tax -properly assessed upon transfer of investments to exempt corporations.
    
    
      Matter of Burnham (Estate), 205 App. Div. 893, affirmed,
    (Argued June 5, 1923;
    decided July 13, 1923.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 2, 1928, which affirmed an order of the West-chester County Surrogate’s Court denying a motion to strike from a former order assessing a transfer tax upon the estate of William D. Burnham, deceased, certain taxes assessed under section 221-b of the Tax Law.
    The following questions were certified: “ 1. Was section 221 of the Tax Law, as amended by chapter 765 of the Laws of 1920, exempting certain charitable corporations from the additional transfer tax imposed by section 221-b of the Tax Law and directing a refund of said tax assessed against transfers to such charitable corporations, in effect at the date of the entry of the order appealed from in this proceeding?
    
      “ 2. Are the appellants herein entitled to a refund under said section of the additional tax under section 221-b of the Tax Law imposed by the taxing decree herein, against the exempt corporations therein named?
    “ 3. Did the provisions of the Transfer Tax Law as they existed on February 13, 1920, the date of the entry of the taxing decree herein, authorize the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county to impose an additional tax under section 221-b of the Tax Law upon the transfer of “ investments ” as defined in section 330 of the Tax Law, to the exempt corporations named in this proceeding ?
    “ 4. Should a deduction have been made for a proportionate share of the debts and expenses of the estate from the additional tax under section 22 • o imposed by the taxing decree entered herein? ”
    
      Francis H. Warland for appellants.
    
      Charles A. Curtin and John B. Gleason for respondent.
   Order affirmed; with costs; first, second and fourth questions certified answered in the negative; third question certified answered in the affirmative. Question No. 1 is answered simply as applicable to the particular facts of this case; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  