sons0M v. UNITED STATES• 37
FOLSOM v. UNITED STATES. `
(Circuit Oourt. S. D. New York. July 26, 1884.)
1. INTERNAL REVENUE Tax-Lasser AND Soocmssron Durms-Vmsrmn 1NTmz· A
ESTShe estate of a person who, at the time of the passage of the not of CODQTBSB
of June 30, 1864, had already become entitled to and invested with an estate
in fee in certain lands, subject to his fatl1er’s life-estate, does not come within
the operation of that act.
2. Saim-Rnrnoxcrivs OPERATION Nom T0 an Grviam Law.
A retroactive operation "is not to be given by construction so as to subject
persons to a tax upon interests they may have acquired years before the act of
June 30, 1864, was passed.
On Writ of Error. `
De Forest tf Wee/as and Goo. S. Sedgwick, for plaintiff in error;
, Eli/tu Root, U. S. Atty., and W. W. Wood, for defendant in error.
Wsnmoa, J. I am unable to agree with the construction placed
on section 128 of the act of June 30, 1864, in the case of Bruno v.
Smit/z, cited by counsel for the defendant in error. When that act
was passed, the plaintiff in error had already become entitled to and
invested with an estate in fee in the lands in question, subject to his
fathers life-estate. The life-estate determined upon the death of
the father in 1869, and all the plaintiff in error succeeded to after
the act was passed, was the increase of benefit accruing by the ex-
tinction of the life-estate. Section 128 was obviously framed to meet
just such a case. A retroactive operation is not to be given by con- ‘
struction, so as to subject persons to a tax upon interests they may
have acquired years before the law was passed. The language of
section 127 defines a succession as an interest in lands to which any
person "shall become" beneficially entitled in possession or expect-
ancy, and by section 133 the tax is imposed upon such a succession.
_ When a person has a vested remainder he has become beneiicially
entitled. It might be maintained, if his interest was contingent and
became vested by the death of another after the law was enacted,
that he acquired a succession within the meaning of section 127.
The point which was considered by the court below, and which was
the only question that the demurrervpresented, was whether an as-
sessment was a condition precedent to the right to collect the tax.
That question was correctly decided upon the authority of U. S. v.
Tilden, 9 Ben. 368; U. ·S. v. Holloron, 14 Blatchf. 1; U. S. v. Eric
Ry. C0. 107 U. S. 1 ; S. G. 2 Sup. Gt. Rep. 83; Dollar Savings Bank
v. U. S. 19 Wall. 227. _
The complaint alleges the clear value of the succession at $353,500. U
It is conceded by the United States attorney that this sum represents
the value of the whole estate of the defendant, and not the increase of
beneht accruing by reason of the extinction of the father’s life-estate.