Anne Molner died intestate on May 19, 1943, at the age of sixty-nine after an illness of one week. She was in good health up to a short time before her death. Between 1939 and 1943 she created six joint savings bank accounts, aggregating nеarly thirty thousand dollars, naming various relatives as joint owners. She had contributеd all of this money. The smallest account was established in 1939; four, which accounted for the bulk of the sum named, were established in' 1940, and one on January 6, 1943. She retained the books and, except in the case of the smallest account, withdrew the interest as it accrued until her death. Before her death, only one of the survivors knew of the transfer of the accounts to thеir joint names.
On these facts the trial court concluded that the decedent retained no life estate in any of the accounts, that the several transfers were intended to take effect immediately on the crеation of the accounts and that they were taxable under General Statutes, Sup. 1941, § 184f, rather than under General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1939, § 395e (d), as claimed by the plaintiff.
The defendant admits that the accounts are taxable under § 184f as jоint savings bank accounts. This provides for the taxation of the right of the survivor оr survivors to the immediate ownership or possession and enjoyment of property held in the joint names of two or more persons, and it contains a provision that it shall not be construed to prevent the taxability in *347 wholе or in part under § 395e (c) or (d) of any property held in the names of two оr more persons, specifically including joint savings bank accounts. Seсtion 395e (d) provides that even such accounts shall be taxed fully if they werе intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or aftеr the death of the transferor. It goes on to say “Such a transfer as last mеntioned shall include, among other things, a transfer under which the decedent rеtained for his life, or for any period not ascertainable without refеrence to his death, or for a period of such duration as to evidence an intention that he should retain for his life (1) the possession or enjoyment of, or the right to the income from the property. . . .” The tax under the latter statute amounts to much more than under the former.
The basis of our tax is the succession to possession and enjoyment of property.
Blodgett
v.
Guaranty Trust Co.,
The finding is that the gifts were “intended to take effect immediately on the creation of the accounts.” This means no more than that, if the gifts were valid, and if the donees knew of the creation of the accоunts and could get possession of the deposit books, they could withdraw thе whole deposit.
McLaughlin
v.
Estate of Cooper,
No other facts are found whiсh support the conclusion of the trial court. On the contrary, the subordinаte facts lead almost irresistibly to the opposite result. The decedent, speaking generally, kept the bankbooks, drew the dividends and failed tо notify the joint owners of their interest. See
Read Co.
v.
American Bank & Trust Co.,
The evidence is not before us. It may be that on a new trial facts may be found which support the defendants’ position. • Suffice to say that it is untenable on this finding.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.