(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the holding that the joint bank account is not taxable. I disagree with what is said concerning the taxability of the other items of property involved.
R. C. M. 1947, section 91-4405, must be liberally construed with a view to effect its object. R. C. M. 1947, sec. 12-202.
The purpose of the last two lines of section 91-4405 was to exempt the survivor of a joint tenancy from the payment of an inheritance tax on property which was originally his and hence *183which did not come to him by inheritance. The majority opinion holds that the two parcels of real estate never belonged to the survivor Ole Hanson within the meaning of section 91-4405, though it was purchased with his money. With this I do not agree. The court was justified in finding that in creating the joint tenancy the presumption of a gift by Ole Hanson to his wife was overcome by the testimony that the purpose of carrying the property in the joint names was to avoid probate proceedings. The statute does not require that the person claiming the exemption must have originally owned the property any particular length of time. Certainly he and not his wife owned it between the time the money was paid and the making of the deed placing the legal title in the names of the two jointly and this even though it was purchased with money from their joint bank account where as here, the husband furnished all the money going to make up the bank account. The same is true as to the note held by the two jointly.
In my opinion Judge Comer correctly held that there is no inheritance tax due on the two parcels of real estate in question here or on the note held in joint ownership. As to the other notes, as well as the one held jointly, the record shows that Ole Hanson at all times had control and dominion over (them. They were never delivered to decedent Ethel L. Hanson. Had Ole Hanson died before his wife, she would have had to pay a tax on the entire amount represented by the notes. In re Brown’s Estate, 122 Mont. 451, 206 Pac. (2d) 816. This would have been so because of the fact that the notes remained the property of Ole Hanson notwithstanding they were payable to the two jointly or in the alternative. Being already his property they were not acquired by him through inheritance and hence Judge Comer properly held there was no inheritance tax due thereon.
I think the judgment should be affirmed in its entirety.