should not be applied to London whether or not the rest of the country enjoys its advantages and no one has yet attempted that task.

In the same issue, under the heading "Education's Toll to Landlordism," it is said:

Arising out of a question in the House of Commons, 27th July, 1938, the Rt. Hon. Col. Josiah C. Wedgwood has been supplied with particulars of 105 sites compulsorily acquired under authority of the Board during the years 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937. Not all the prices can yet be stated as a number await approval. Eliminating these and also cases where acquisition included buildings, we have compiled the following table: [Then follows a table listing 290 acres stated to be "agricultural land or vacant land which despite its value was exempt from contributions to local taxation-landowners received the gift out of the public purse of not less than £212,477.”]

In "News of the Movement," in the September 1938 issue-a subdivision or title appearing in each journal-is a suggestion that contributions be made for the purpose of reprinting some of the pages of the August issue:

as a pamphlet and thus give the widest possible publicity to the action of the London County Council and its importance for everyone interested in permitting the rating of land values. That is what should be sent far and wide to councillors and others. The inclusive cost of such an enterprise along with necessary circulars and postage would be in the neighborhood of £100. The opportunity is so inviting and the occasion so vital that we have no hesitation in appealing to our supporters for special donations that will be earmarked for this purpose.

In the October 1938 issue, in a signed editorial by the assistant editor, it is said:

What is most needed to secure the peace of the world is throwing down of all barriers between nations which prevent the free movement of goods and all people, together with the abolition of the barriers which prevent the denizens of each country from making use of its national resources and which require them to make payment to a few among them for this essential and national right. If such conditions were established, every man would be in effect a citizen of the world with liberty to produce wealth wherever opportunity offered and freedom to transport himself and his possessions where he chose.

A statement of the leader of the London County Council for Site Value Rating is set out, in which it is said:

The general body of ratepayers have every interest in the Councillors' proposal and they should write to their Members of Parliament asking them to support the bill. Those Members of Parliament who oppose this bill are thereby insisting that the occupiers shall continue to carry the full burden in order that the owner of the land shall escape.

Under the heading "Wanted-More and More Publicity," it is stated:

By arrangement (Land & Liberty offices) "The Bradford Citizen" is getting an article every month. A syndicated article by F. C. R. Douglas [assistant editor of the Journal] issued some months past and published widely came to light again in "The Rotherham Express" on 17th September-indicating how

editors have material on file ready to be used when a question comes to the front * *. Turning again to special articles, "The Labour Press" service of 7th September, produced the facts and figures (Land & Liberty has given them) of "Expensive Playgrounds-or None at all", how land speculation hinders the "Keep Fit" campaign.

In "News of the Movement," in the October issue, speakers are urged to secure the handbook printed by the committee, and it is said:

Leaflet literature for the municipal elections will be immediately in demand and we ask our supporters to help us in meeting it. Two of the leaflets (octavo size) most in request are "Tax Land Values" and "Who Should Pay."

In a 222-page Handbook for Speakers and Writers published by the committee and bearing the title "Why Rents and Rates Are High-Land Monopoly in Town and Country-600 Examples," forewords by members of Parliament appear in which is is said:

In this book the author sets out with great clarity the facts of the land ramp. He shows how in instance after instance the values created by the community are taken by individuals who have done no service whatever. It is easy to condemn the people who make extravagant profit by holding the owner to ransom but the real condemnation should be on the people of this country who allow exploitation to go on. I hope that this book will be widely read and that the striking examples will be brought before the electors.

To obtain the driving force necessary to remedy this injustice it is essential that the facts should be brought home to the electorate.

In the subdivision "News of the Movement" in the November 1938 issue it is said:

The English provincial papers * are much more willing to give publicity to our views than are the "national" papers. It is already known that many of the 340 papers, to which the general secretary had sent a letter on the Borough Elections, have printed it and applications are being received from readers who wish for further information. Thanks are due and are hereby tendered to members who sent to the office lists of candidates for their Borough Councils. All candidates whose names and addresses were obtained, in this or other ways, have been communicated with.

Petitioner insists that Slee v. Commissioner, 42 Fed. (2d) 184; Leubuscher v. Commissioner, 54 Fed. (2d) 998; Cochran v. Commissioner, 78 Fed. (2d) 176; and Girard Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 122 Fed. (2d) 108, directly or impliedly hold that the political activity inhibited by the phrase "carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" is "that kind of political effort which is directly aimed at procuring the enactment or repeal of specific laws." We do not so construe the cases. In the Slee case the only activities touching upon legislation consisted "in directing persons how best to prepare proposals for changes in the law and in distributing leaflets to legislators and others recommending such changes * In the Leubuscher case, as pointed out above, the advocacy of the single tax was held not to be exclusively educa

tional; but a corporation to be formed only for the purpose of teaching and propounding the ideas of Henry George and not for seeking the passage of legislation met the test. In the Cochran case the court was of the opinion that the evidentiary findings of the Board of Tax Appeals did not support its conclusion that the World League Against Alcoholism was organized for legislative purposes. The Girard Trust Co. case possibly comes closer to suggesting the rule urged upon us by petitioner. In that case the court reversed our holding in Estate of Ida Simpson, 41 B. T. A. 157, that the Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals of the Methodist Episcopal Church was not engaged exclusively in religious, charitable, or educational purposes because it advocated the enactment of laws to suppress the liquor traffic, extensively carried on propaganda, and had for one of its objects "the speedy enactment of * legislation [to suppress the liquor traffic] throughout the world." With all due deference to the court, we adhere to the views expressed by us in the Simpson case; but the point need not be pressed. The reasonable inference from the meager evidence before us is that the committee was, during the four months immediately following the death of the decedent, engaged in political activities directly aimed at procuring the enactment of the London County Council Bill for Site Value Rating; that it was backing the Parliamentary Labour Party in the promotion of "legislation * * which would enable all local authorities to take rates off houses and industry and put them on site values"; and that it aided and intended to aid, both by its publications and through its officers, in making "the L. C. C.'s proposal a national issue." Thus even under the rule urged by petitioner-which, however, we do not approve-it has been shown that the deduction may not be allowed.

The reference in the preceding paragraph to specific political activities is not to be construed as an intimation that they constituted all of the activities which we believe should be construed as "carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." The monthly journals of the committee, and particularly the excerpts set out above, indicate it was engaged in political agitation, that it was set up for that purpose, and that it did not limit its activities purely to education-teaching and expounding. Thus it can not be said that the corporation was organized and operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes. Whether any substantial sums were expended in espousing or opposing the election of public officers is, on this record, difficult to determine. As stated above, we prefer not to accept the reports of 1935 and 1936 as proof that similar expenditures were made by the committee at about the time of the death of the decedent. The important circumstance is that the committee, under "The quotations are from the September issue of Land & Liberty, p. 148.

its articles of association, was free to make such expenditures if it chose to do so. That, in our judgment, prevents the allowance of the claimed deduction under section 303 (a) (3), supra.

The remaining issue is whether the estimated present value of trustees' commissions, payable in substantially equal annual installments during the 25 years following the decedent's death, denominated "termination fee" or charges for paying out the trust property, may be taken into account in determining the amount of estate tax due. As shown in our findings, deduction was claimed in the estate tax return in the amount of $8,890.95, of which $542.35 has been allowed, this being the amount actually paid. Petitioner concedes that the amount claimed is not deductible under section 303 (a) (1) (B) of the Revenue Act of 1926 as amended, but claims that the amount in its hands for transfer to the committee "was inevitably diminished and the value of the transfer * was certainly,

in fact, lessened" by the obligation to pay the termination fee. It therefore urges that there should be a reduction, apparently under section 303 (a) (1) (D) of the Revenue Act of 1926 as amended, in the value of the property transferred to the trust. The applicable regulation is shown in the margin.

*

*

In Estate of George S. Fiske, 45 B. T. A. 52; affirmed sub nom. Commissioner v. Davis, 132 Fed. (2d) 644, it was held that a termination charge, payable by the trustee of an inter vivos trust to itself as "compensation for services in the conservation of the trust fund for the entire period of its existence up to the time of its transfer to the executors under the will [1903 to 1936]," was excludible from the value of the gross estate. Petitioner insists this case supports its claim that the value of the property in the trust at the date of the death of the decedent should be reduced by $8,379.12. We do not agree.

The same question was before us in Central Hanover Bank & Trust

SEC. 303 [as amended by § 805 of the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169, 280]. For the purpose of the tax the value of the net estate shall be determined

(a) In the case of a resident, by deducting from the value of the gross estate(1) Such amounts

(A) for funeral expenses,

(B) for administration expenses,

(C) for claims against the estate,

(D) for unpaid mortgages upon, or any indebtedness in respect to, property where the value of decedent's interest therein, undiminished by such mortgage or indebtedness, is included in the value of the gross estate

* under which the estate is being,

as are allowed by the laws of the jurisdiction
administered * * *. [26 U. S. C. A., Int. Rev. Acts, p. 232.]

ART. 33 [Regulations 80 (1937 Ed.)]. Executor's commissions.-The executor or administrator, in filing the return, may deduct his commissions in such an amount as has actually been paid or which at that time it is reasonably expected will be paid, but no deduction may be taken if no commissions are to be collected.

Amounts paid as trustees' commissions do not constitute expenses of administration and are not deductible, whether received by the executor acting in the capacity of a trustee or by a separate trustee as such.

Co., Executor, 40 B. T. A. 1210. We held it was "too obvious for comment that such future commissions are not measurable by applying the statutory rates of percentage to the value of the property at the time of decedent's death, but only by applying such rates to the value of the property when distributed or paid out." Opinion was expressed that it was doubtful if any evidence could be produced by which the amount of future commissions could be determined. This was the view hinted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Bowers, 98 Fed. (2d) 794, and in Adriance v. Higgins, 113 Fed. (2d) 1013, and taken definitely in affirming our decision in the Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. case. See Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 118 Fed. (2d) 270. The fundamental distinction between this line of cases and the Fiske case, supra, as well as Estate of Frederic E. Baldwin, 44 B. T. A. 900, upon which petitioner also relies, is that in the latter group the trustees' commissions were payable before the property was to be turned over to the estate, while in the other group and in the instant case the commissions will become due and payable, almost in their entirety, for services to be rendered after the death of the decedent,

The Commissioner, in our judgment, committed no error in determining the deficiency in tax.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

D. D. HUBBELL, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

ELIAS F. WILDERMUTH, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

Docket Nos. 3322, 3323. Promulgated April 17, 1944.

A corporation purchased annual premium annuity contracts for petitioners, who were stockholders of the corporation and its principal officers. So-called employees' trusts were created for petitioners, under which a trustee held the annuity contracts. The corporation had no pension plan or program for its employees generally and none of its employees other than petitioners have ever received pension or retirement benefits. Held, (1) the trusts were not within the purview of section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect prior to the amendments made by the Revenue Act of 1942; (2) the premiums paid by the corporation on the annuity contracts were for petitioners' benefit and represented additional compensation to them and they are taxable thereon under the provisions of section 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

S. U. Robinson, Esq., and J. I. Boulger, Esq., for the petitioners. W. W. Kerr, Esq., for the respondent.