delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is а suit to recover $6,788.03 income tax for the year 1918, paid by R. D. Robbins, late of California. Mr.
*326
Robbins was married and the income taxed came from community proрerty in California, acquired before 1917, when some changes were made in thе law, and from the earnings of Mr. Robbins. He was required by the Treasury Department to rеturn and pay the tax upon the whole income, against the effort of Mr. and Mrs. Rоbbins to file returns each of one-half. The result was that he had to pay the amount sued for, above what would have had to be paid if his contention had been allowed. The District Court found the facts as agreed by the parties and uрon them ruled that the plaintiffs, the executors of Robbins, were entitled to reсover as matter of law. 5 Fed. (2d) 690. A writ of error was taken by the United States, beforе the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, went into
effect. Greenport Basin & Construction Company
v.
United States,
Elaborate argument was devoted to the question whether the interest of a wife in community property has the relatively substantial character in California that it has in some other States. That she has vested rights has been determined by this Court with reference to some jurisdictions,
Warburton
v.
White,
If on the whole,this notion seems to us to be adopted by the California courts it is our duty to follow it, so far as material, even if contrary expressions should be found here or there in the books; and it is no concern of ours whethеr the prevailing decision is a legitimate descendant from its parent the Sрanish law or otherwise. — We can see no sufficient reason to doubt that thе settled opinion of
*327
the Supreme Court of California, at least with reference to the time before the later statutes, is that the wife had a mere еxpectancy while living with her husband. The latest decision that we have seen dealing directly with the matter explicitly takes that view, says that it is a rule of proрerty that has been settled for more than sixty years, and shows that
Arnett
v.
Reade,
But the quеstion before us is with regard to the power and intent of the Revenue Act of Fеbruary 24, 1919, c. 18, Title II, Part II, §§ 210, 211; 40 Stat. 1057, 1062. Even if we are wrong as to the law of California and assumе that the wife had an interest in the community income that Congress could tax if so minded, it does not follow that Congress could not tax the husband for the whole. Although restricted in the-matter of gifts, &c., he alone has the disposition of the fund. He may spеnd it substantially as he chooses, and if he wastes it in debauchery the wife has no redress. See
Garrozi
v.
Dastas,
Judgment reversed.