Argument for Petitioners. 276 U.S. Mr. A. L. Humes, with whom Mr. Milward W. Martin was on the brief, for petitioners. The will bequeathed approximately twelve million dollars to charity, the bequests to be defeated if a fifteenyear-old unmarried girl should live to be forty or should die leaving issue. It is obvious that the fact that the bequests were subject to be defeated by the subsequent event reduced their present value, but did not prevent them from being "bequests" or from having present value. It is impossible to foretell definitely what value any future interest, even a life estate, will turn out to have, but the present value of such an interest is legally determinable if the probabilities involved are all shown by the standard mortality and probability tables. The charities received a vested interest in a contingent estate, and such an interest is a present property right having present value. Chaplin on Suspension of the Power of Alienation (2d Ed.), p. 87; 2 Washburn, Real Property (6th Ed.), p. 527, § 1557; Clarke v. Fay, 205 Mass. 228; Heath v. Widgeon, (1907) 2 Ch. D. 270; Stringer v. Barker, 110 N. Y. App. Div. 37; In re Twaddell, 110 Fed. 145; In re Hoadley, 101 Fed. 233; Nat'l Park Bank v. Billings, 144 N. Y. App. Div. 536. The present value of a property right that is dependent upon some future event may be determined by the use of standard mortality and experience tables, and by the calculations and testimony of actuaries. Dugan v. Miles, 292 Fed. 131; United States v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U. S. 158; Simpson v. United States, 252 U. S. 547. The present value of a bequest that is subject to be defeated by some subsequent event, may well involve identically the same probabilities as the present value of a bequest that is absolutely vested and hence the attempt to distinguish between them is unjustifiable. Cushman v. Cushman, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 763; and Kahn v. Bowers, 9 F. (2d) 1018, distinguished. 487 Argument for the United States. It has been adjudicated in other cases that the value of bequests identical with the charitable bequests in the present case is, for legal purposes, determinable from the standard experience tables. Heath v. Widgeon, (1907) 2 Ch. D. 270; Clarke v. Fay, 205 Mass. 288; Ex parte Thistlewood, 19 Vesey, Jr., 236. See Shover v. Myrick, 4 Ind. App. 7. In the following cases, to prove the present value of some future interest, the opinion and calculations of an expert actuary were admitted in evidence and accepted as reliable. Thayer v. Denver, etc. Co., 21 New Mex. 330; Fort Worth, etc. Ry. Co. v. Spear, 107 S. W. 613; St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 106 S. W. 194; Galveston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 42; Clark County Cement Co. v. Wright, 16 Ind. App. 630. In the following cases, it was held that the value of such interests could be shown from standard mortality tables, and the values thus shown were accepted as reliable: Simpson v. United States, 252 U. S. 547; United States v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U. S. 158; Pierce v. Tennessee, etc. Co., 173 U. S. 1; Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U. S. 545. See also Western Assurance Co. v. Mohlman, 83 Fed. 811, certiorari denied, 168 U. S. 710. The deduction must be taken now, for if the executors should wait until the contingency happens, and then, if the charities receive the property, claim a refund, the claim for refund would be barred by the statute of limitations. The purpose of Congress in allowing the deduction of charitable bequests, was to encourage such bequests. That purpose shows that the statute should be broadly applied. Edwards v. Slocum, 264 U. S. 61. Solicitor General Mitchell, with whom Mr. T. H. Lewis, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, was on the brief, for the United States. Whether or not contingent bequests to charity may be deductible under some circumstances, the value of the Opinion of the Court. 276 U.S. charitable bequests here are not ascertainable, and not presently deductible. Kahn v. Bowers, 9 F. (2d) 1018; 5 Am. Fed. Tax Rep. p. 5888; Herron v. Heiner, 1928 Prentice-Hall Tax Service, Vol. 1, p. 164; First Nat'l Bank v. Snead, id. 426; Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 64 Ct. Cls. 686; Dugan v. Miles, 292 Fed. 131. The use of mortality tables to determine values of life estates has been approved in tax cases. United States v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U. S. 158; Simpson v. United States, 252 U. S. 547. There has been no provision in the Revenue Acts expressly to the effect that readjustment of estate taxes may be made at any time in the distant future on which, through the happening of future events, uncertainties of the kind here involved are removed. The statutes of limitation provide that claims for refund inust be filed within a limited time. It is the practice of the Treasury Department, however, if a claim for refund is filed within the prescribed time and is denied on the conditions as they stand, to allow the taxpayer to have the claim reopened and reconsidered at any time in the future on the production of new evidence or developments; and so in this case, although the application for refund has necessarily been denied because the value of the bequest to charity is not now ascertainable, the way may be open in the future, if the developments justify it, to apply for a reconsideration of the claim and then obtain a readjustment. T. D. 3240, Vol. 23, Treasury Decisions (Internal Revenue) p. 830. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. This action was brought in the Court of Claims by the executors of Dellora R. Gates to recover $120,508.50, a part of the estate tax alleged to have been illegally exacted under the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, § 403, 40 Stat. 1057, 487 Opinion of the Court. 1098. The basis of the claim is that a sum of $482,034, which was disallowed in ascertaining the net estate taxable, should have been deducted from the gross amount of $11,783,072.30 disposed of by Article Fifty-first of the will. The sum disallowed represents the alleged present value of certain contingent bequests to charities made by that article. The question for decision is whether the alleged present value of such contingent bequests is deductible under § 403, par. (a), sub-par. 3, of the Revenue Act. The Court of Claims held that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was right in refusing to allow the deduction. 63 Ct. Cl. 613. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 275 U. S. 515. (3) The The governing provision of the Act is: "That for the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined-(a) In the case of a resident, by deducting from the value of the gross estateamount of all bequests to or for the use of any corporation organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes." Allowance of the deduction was denied pursuant to Treasury Department Regulations 37, Article 56, which declared: "Conditional Bequests. Where the bequest, legacy, devise, or gift is dependent upon the performance of some act, or the happening of some event, in order to become effective it is necessary that the performance of the act or the occurrence of the event shall have taken place before the deduction can be allowed. Where by the terms of the bequest, devise or gift, it is subject to be defeated by a subsequent act or event, no deduction will be allowed." Article Fifty-first of the will gives one-half of the residuary estate to the testatrix's trustees in trust for her niece, Dellora F. Angell, portions of the principal to be paid to her upon her attaining the ages of thirty and thirty-five years, the balance to be paid to her upon her attaining the age of forty, the income to be paid to her in the meantime. Opinion of the Court. 276 U.S. In the event that the niece should die without issue before attaining the age of forty, the amount of the principal not paid to her was given to charities. The remaining half of the residue was to be held in trust for the testatrix's brother during his life, the principal to be disposed of on his death in like manner as the half first mentioned. The testatrix died in 1918. Dellora F. Angell was then living, was fifteen years old and was unmarried. The contention of the executors is that the bequests gave the charities a present property right in the estate; that the present value of a property right which is dependent upon some future event may be determined by the use of standard mortality and experience tables and by the calculations and testimony of actuaries; that the value so determined of the contingency that the whole or a part of the gift would go to charities is at least $482,034; that the deduction must be taken now, for if the executors should wait until the contingency happens and then, if the charities receive the property, claim a refund, the claim for refund would be barred by the Statute of Limitations; and that, because it was the purpose of Congress to encourage bequests for charitable purposes, the act should be construed so as to allow such a deduction. The Court of Claims did not find that the present value of the contingent bequests to the charities can be determined by the calculations of actuaries based upon experience tables. No basis is laid in the record for supplementing the findings in this respect. But the executors urge that we may take judicial notice that such tables exist; and that, by the use of them, actuaries are able to determine that in 1918 the possibility that the residuary gift of $11,783,072.30, or a part thereof, would ultimately go to the charities was worth at least $482,034; or in other words, 4.0909 per cent of the amount of that residue. The figure, $482,034, we are told, is reached, through the actuarial art, by some combination and adjustment of the |