Bagnall

. This is a proceeding to review a decision of the Board qf Tax Appeals sustaining the assessment of a deficiency.

In 1928 Albert Lawrence Bagnall, a resident of California, established a trust inter vivos, vesting in the trustee title to certain- shares of corporate stock. The trust was irrevocable and was admittedly made in contemplation of death. It was created primarily for the benefit of the trustor’s wife, petitioner here, it b.eing provided that she is to receive during her- life the entire net income of the property. Bagnall died testate in September, 1929, leaving an estate appraised at approximately $46,000 aside from the assets of the trust theretofore created. An administrator was appointed with the will annexed.

The estafe of the decedent, including both the property in the hands of the administrator’ and that in the possession of the trustee, was assessed for state inheritance and federal estate tax purposes, the total of the taxes being approximately $30,000. In the discharge of these assessments the trustee paid a proportionate part ($26,547.20) and the administrator paid the *957 remainder. These payments were made in 1930.

The following returns for that year…

(dissenting).

I dissent on two questions of law:

(1) Under the controlling terms of the trust, its contribution to the taxpayer’s gross income is the net income of the trust estate. Each income is subject to a separate tax on a separate taxable entity, under different computations.' Failing to recognize this, the majority has erroneously held that, in computing the beneficiary’s tax, the gross income of the estate is to be considered as a part of the gross income of the beneficiary. In so doing it contravenes the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the taxpayer and not mentioned in the majority opinion. Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 27 , 53 S.Ct. 417, 420 , 77 L.Ed. 1004 , and others considered infra.

(2) The taxpayer properly raised the question below, where it was considered and erroneously decided — though the plain words of the Board’s decision are not quoted in the majority opinion or even commented upon. It was properly presented here and fully briefed. It does not “lurk in the record.” It sticks out like a sore thumb.

This dissent, it is submitted, shows the majority is imposing on the taxpayer an unjust contribution to federal income, thereby unjustly relieving…