With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to alter this standard. The Commonwealth Court held appellant did not satisfy the HUP test, and our grant of allocatur was limited to its continued viability in light of Act 55. As such, we will not review the Commonwealth Court’s application thereof, nor the relevance or constitutionality of Act 55. The order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Justices BAER, TODD and McCAFFERY join the opinion. Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice CASTILLE and Justice ORIE MELVIN join. 1 . This is not the precise measure, as a charity can relieve the government of some of its burden, even if the beneficiaries are not in the jurisdiction from which it seeks a tax exemption. See West Indies Mission Appeal, 387 Pa. 534, 128 A.2d 773, 781 (1957) (<HOLDING>). However, this issue is outside the scope of

A: recognizing that application of the seaman exemption is a factintensive question that can be answered in many cases only after a trial
B: holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief
C: holding charity can be entitled to exemption when its beneficiaries are outside pennsylvania
D: holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated
C.