delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like Burnet v. Wells, decided today, ante, р. 670, requires us to determine whether § 219 (h) of the Revenue Acts of 1924 and 1926 is consistеnt with the Fifth Amendment in its application to trusts for the payment of premiums on policies of insurance.
On September 18,1923, the petitioner, Du Pont, created nine trusts for the benefit of his, wife and children, transferring to the trusteе thereby two policies of insurance on his life, and shares of stoсk in a corporation, the income to be used to keep the policies in force. The trusts were to last for three years, during which tеrm they were to be irrevocable. At the end of the term, they might be extеnded for a like period at the option of the settlor, and sucсessively thereafter. Two such notices were given, with the result that in 1924, 1925, and 1926, the taxable years involved in this proceeding, the trusts were still in being.
The deеds make provision for the disposition of the policies and seрarate provision fór the disposition of the shares.
As to the poliсies, the provision is that if the trusts shall be terminated before the petitiоner’s death, all interest in the policies shall vest in .certain named beneficiaries. The petitioner is not one of these, nor has he any power to change them. If the petitioner shall die while the trusts arе still in force, the trustee is to collect the insurance, »nd to hold the рroceeds in trust for the use of the beneficiaries named in the agrеements.
*688 As to the shares of stock, the provision is that if the trusts shall be terminаted before the petitioner’s death, the shares and any incomе not paid out shall be transferred to the petitioner. If, however, he shall die while the trusts are still in force, the shares are to be divided among the children or their issue.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, following the command of § 219 (h) of the applicable statutes (Revenue Acts оf .1924 and 1926; c. '234, 43 Stat. 253; 26 U.S. Code, § 960; c. 27, 44 Stat. 9; 26 U.S. Code App., § 960) made a deficiency аssessment by adding to the taxpayer’s income the amount expended by the trustee in the preservation of the policies. The Board оf Tax Appeals sustained the assessment, '
The case is ruled by our judgment in Burnet v. Wells, ante, p. 670, upholding thе validity of the contested stat-' ute. If the income of such a trust may be taxed to the grantor though he has retained to himself no reversionary intеrest in the principal of the trust, a fortiori that result must follow where he has made a grant of the estate for a short term of years, reserving the reversion when the term is at an end.
The provisions of these deeds would require a determination in favor of the Government, though
Burnet
v.
Wells
had been .decided the other way.
“A
statute may be invalid as аpplied to one state of facts and yet valid as appliеd to another.”
Dahnke-Walker Co.
v.
Bondurant,
The judgment is Affirmed.