If an insurance company retires from the state of Indiana, leaving policies in force therein, and continues to collect premiums on these policies, it would not be required to pay taxes on such gross premium receipts after withdrawing from the state.

signs of the monument and will expect to pay the successful de- signer for services rendered in preparing the designs for the plans adopted. Where should this expense be charged,-to the $2,500 fund, or to the $7,500 provided for the erection of the monu- ment ? '' The act appropriates $7,500 "for the erection," and $2,500 "for the expenses of the commission as traveling expenses, and for the expense of the governor, and of the participation of the state in the dedication of ceremonies of said monuments (monument), 0 "1 0 clerk hire, labor employ, office rent and other neces- sary expenses, and included in this is any expense for the pur- pose for which this commission is created, for services which are valuable to the commission." I am of the opinion that, if the commission pays a designer for services rendered in preparing the designs, such payment would be a charge against the $7,500 fund rather than against the fund for general expenses. The method which most readily sug- gests itself would be to advertise for competitive bids, based upon designs submitted by each competitor; these bids including not only compensation for the design itself, together with value of labor and material furnished subsequent to acceptance, but also time and material consumed in preparing the designs. The total bid would be for the erection of the figure, pedestal or monu- ment; and preparation of designs is an essential step in such erection. If the commission sees best to pay for these preliminary services separately, this would not alter the situation, so far as the statutory appropriation is concerned. INSURANCE-COMPANY WITHDRAWING FROM STATE, LEAVING POLICIES IN FORCE THEREIN, CONTINU- ING TO COLLECT PREMIUMS. July 18, 1907. Hon. John C. Billheimer, Auditor of State: Dear Sir-In your communication of July 7th, you ask the following question: "If an insurance company retires from the state of Indiana, leaving policies in force therein, and continues to collect premiums on these policies, would it be required to pay taxes on such gross premium receipts after withdrawing from the state?" 255 Section 8477 Burns' Statutes 1901 provides: "Every insurance company not organized under the laws of this state, and doinq business thv'n, shall report to the auditor of state under oath of the president and secretary the gross amount of all receipts received in the state of Indiana on account of insurance premiums for the six months last preceding." The answer to your question depends upon the interpretation of the words "doing business therein." It has been recently held in the case of State v. Insurance Company, 106 Tenn. 282, 61 S. W. 75, that a company, which has retired from the state under the circumstances you mention, is not taxable upon its gross receipts of premiums collected from former policy holders who reside with- in the state. In concluding the opinion the court say, pages 294 and 295: "We may admit that the receipt of premiums is doing business, but when such receipt is made in a foreign state it does not amount to doing business in Tennessee, but in such foreign state. When the premium is paid and the renewal made and completed in a foreign state, we are unable to see how any business is done in Tennessee. Neith- er the policy is renewed or continued, nor is the money paid in Tennessee, but both are in the foreign state. There is nothing done in Tennessee, no new business done or so- licited, no agent there and no agency, no contract made., no money paid, no receipt for renewal given, and no business done of any character. The postal and express authori- ties are not the agents of the company, but of the insured, as the company's policy stipulates that the premiums shall be paid at the home or foreign office. "It is said that this view will operate harshly upon do- mestic companies and such foreign companies as continue to issulh policies and do an active business in the state. In other words, that a company may come into the state and write a large number of risks, then withdraw and collect its premiums in another state, and thus escape taxation while it receives the protection of the laws of the state. It is true such condition of affairs might arise, but we can not decide the question before us upon any consideration of expediency or public policy, but upon a proper construe-' tion and application of the law as we find it." 256 The above case is exactly similar to the present except that. the Tennessee statute levied the tax as "gross premium receipts." According to the Indiana law the tax is computed on the "gross amount of all receipts received in the state of Indiana." This makes the decision even stronger in favor of excluding from the latter act such companies as have withdrawn in good faith, and which receive premiums not in, but from residents of the state. In accord with the above conclusion, compare: Vaughn Co. v. Lighthouse, 64 App. Div. (N. Y.) 138, 141-2, 71 N. Y. Supp. 799; Frawley v. Penn. Co., 124 Fed. 259; Beale on Foreign Corps., §§201, 207. There is a dictum contained in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Sprat- ley, 172 U. S. 602, 611, and statements in Smyth v. Assurance Co., 35 How. Pr. 126, and Price v. St. Louis Co., 3 Mo. App. 262, 268-9, indicating a different view; but I consider that expressed by the case in 106 Tennessee as preferable. It need scarcely be said that if a company has entered the state, solicited business, written policies and has then withdrawn, as a mere trick to evade the tax laws, while it continues to reap the benefit of its Indiana business, the above statute applies in all its force; for no such evasion would be tolerated. I have assumed throughout the foregoing opinion that the withdrawing company has left no agent within the state, and that all premiums are forwarded to it from Indiana policy holders by mail or express, and are not paid to any representative of the company in this state. SCHOOL FUND-FOR RELIEF OF CORPORATIONS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN SCHOOLS FOR MINIMUM TERM FIXED BY LAW. July 19, 1907. Hon. John C. Billheimer. Auditor of State: Dear. Sir-In your letter of July 17th you state there is a bal- ance of $53,885.02 in the state treasury to the credit of the spe- cial fund provided by the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 34) for. the relief of school corporations which are unable to maintain their schools for the minimum term fixed by law: that this balance rep- resents the unused portion of the levy of 1905, after paying out re- lief during the school year of 1906-1907. You also state that un- der the levy of 1906 there has been paid into the state treasury $58,368.87 for the benefit of this special fund, being the first half