Thе question presented in this case is whether the amounts received by plaintiff during the taxable years 1927 to 1930, inclusive, as the sole beneficiary of a distributable trust created by the will of her husband, Percy Russell Grаce, were taxable to her as income from source.s within the United States in accordance with sections 213 (c) and 217 of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 26, 30.
The amounts received by plaintiff upon whiсh she was held taxable consisted of dividends of a domestic corporation received by her during the taxable years from the trustee of a distributable testamentary trust created by her former husband.
Plaintiff contends that under the applicable revenue acts she is subject to income tax only on income from sources within the United States; that the amounts received by her were income from a foreign testamentary trust and not income to her from sources within the United States; that the trust was a separate entity; and that the revenue acts do not provide that income re-' cеived by a nonresident alien from a foreign testamentary trust shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, nor is any such provision made in any rules or regulations prescribed by the Commissiоner of Internal Revenue. Stated another way, plaintiff contends that what she received was trust income rather than dividends, and that, since the stock of the domestic corporation upоn which such dividends were paid was held by the trustee and the dividends upon such stock were paid to the trustee, such dividends, if taxable at all, were taxable only to the trust and that the character of such dividends as being income from sources within the United States ceased upon their receipt by the trust.
The power of Congress to tax the income in question is Conceded, but it is con
*852
tended that Congress did not intend to tax it in circumstances here present and that the language of the pertinent sections of the revenue acts does not reach it. We are of opinion that the income in question was taxable to plaintiff as dividends from a domestic corporation and that the Commissioner correctly denied her claims for refund on this ground. It is generally true that a trustee is not the agent оf a beneficiary and that the receipt by a trustee does not amount to a receipt by the beneficiary, but this rule is subject to important exceptions, particularly with respect to fеderal taxation. The argument that a trustee is not an agent for a beneficiary and that the language of the revenue acts does not, in the circumstances, reach this income fails to tаke proper account of the structure and the underlying purpose of the revenue acts providing for the taxation of the income of the trust and also of the fact that a benefiсiary of a distributable trust has an equitable, if not a legal, interest in the trust property. See Edward T. Blair v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 299 U.S. -,
See, also, Helvering v. Butterworth et al., Trustees,
If it be аssumed that the amounts received by plaintiff during the years in question were not dividends within the meaning of section 217 (a) (2) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 30) when received by plaintiff, they were, nevertheless, taxablе to her as income from sources within the United States since such amounts were paid on stock of a corporation during business in the United States and were, therefore, derived from sources within thе United States.
*853
In Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank,
The case of Vondermuhll v. Helvering,
Our conclusion that plaintiff was properly taxed upon the amounts received by her in the years involved presents the further question whether she may recover any portion of the net tax determined by the Commissioner for the years 1927, 1928, and 1929 on acсount of her failure to receive at the hands of the Commissioner the full benefit of the authorized deductions for income taxes paid to Great Britain. Neither the amount of taxes so paid tо Great Britain in each of the years 1927 to 1929, inclusive, nor the legality of the deduction thereof is in controversy. The only question is whether the claims for refund for these years, when acted upon by the Commissioner, were sufficient as originally made and as amended by the filing of written receipts for the taxes paid after and pursuant to a conference with the Commissioner on July 18, 1932, as disclosed in finding 6. In the circumstances of this case we think the claims were made sufficient for the purpose of the allowance and suit as a result of the consideration and discussion of the claims between the Commissioner and the plaintiff on July 18, 1932, with specific reference to the allowable deductions for income taxes paid to Great Britain and the filing by plaintiff with the Commissioner, as a part of its clаims, of the written receipts for the taxes paid to Great Britain in each of the years 1927 to 1930, inclusive. The Commissioner was not misled. He had all the information that he desired and all that plaintiff could furnish аnd the demand of plaintiff for the refund of such amounts as might result from these conceded deductions was evidenced in written form before the Commissioner acted upon the claims. In addition, plaintiff and the Commissioner, during consideration of the claims when this question was raised and discussed, considered and treated the filing of the written receipts by plaintiff as being sufficient to bring these items into her claims thеn under consideration, as a ground for refund in the years involved. The Commissioner allowed the deductions in his computations of the tax liability but refused to refund the overpayments resulting from such deductions fоr 1927, 1928, and 1929. For 1930 the Commissioner allowed the entire deduction claimed of $4,848.67 in determining the net tax of $575.19 paid for that year. There has, therefore, been no overpayment for that year.
Entry of judgment fоr the years 1927, 1928, and 1929 will be withheld pending the filing by the parties of a computation showing the amounts of the overpayments for those years resulting from the deductions of taxes paid to Great Britain. It is so ordered.