Vincent

(dissenting).

I am compelled to dissent in this ease, because I believe that, under its special facts, it is controlled by Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U. S. 221, 230 , 38 S. Ct. 537 , 62 L. Ed. 1087 . I do not think that the facts in the case of Edwards v. Douglas et al., 269 U. S. 204 , 46 S. Ct. 85 , 70 L. Ed. 235 , relied upon by the government, are sufficiently similar to those at bar to make that ease determinative here.

This action was brought by the taxpayer, Vincent, to recover from the tax collector a portion of the tax paid by him upon moneys paid to him by the Santa .Maria Steamship Company in 1917 in liquidating the affairs of-the steamship company which was dissolved March 26, 1917. 'The'facts were ' stipulated, and the question involved is as to the proper interpretation of section 31 (b) of the Income Tax Act of 1916, as added by Income Tax Act of October 3, 1917, § 1211 ( 40 Stat. 336 ), which directs that such distribution) “shall constitute a part of the annual income of the-distributee for the year in which received, and shall be taxed to the distributee at the rates prescribed by law for the years in which such profits or surplus were accumulated by the corporation.” The sole asset of the corporation was the steamship Santa Maria, used for the transportation of oil. It was purchased in 1915 for $300,000; $10,000 had been allowed for depreciation. It was sold on January 5, .1917, for $1,000,000, and the owners paid $220,000 for release of the charter party. Profit arising from the sale after deducting the $220,000 necessary to deliver the ship as required by the contract of sale was…