282 U.S. 101 (1930)
Seaborn and his wife were citizens and residents of the State of Washington.1 For the year 1927 they made separate income tax returns as permitted by the Revenue Act of 1926.2 During and prior to 1927 they accumulated property comprising real estate, stocks, bonds and other personal property.3
While the real estate stood in his name alone, all of the property real and personal constituted community property and neither owned any separate property or had any separate income.4 The income comprised Seaborn’s salary, interest on bank deposits and on bonds, dividends, and profits on sales of real and personal property.5 He and his wife each returned one-half the total community income as gross income and each deducted one-half of the community expenses to arrive at the net income returned.6
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that all of the income should have been reported in the husband’s return and made an additional assessment against him.7 Seaborn paid under protest, claimed a refund, and on its rejection, brought this suit.8
The District Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.9 The Collector appealed, and the Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court the question whether the husband was bound to report for income tax the entire income, or whether the spouses were entitled each to return one-half thereof.10 This Court ordered the whole record to be sent up.11
Whether the husband was bound to report for income tax the entire income?12
Sections 210(a) and 211(a) of the Revenue Act of 1926 tax the net income of every individual, with the word 'of' denoting ownership; under Washington law the wife possesses a vested property right in community property and community income, including earnings, equal to that of the husband, so that the husband functions merely as agent of the community rather than sole owner.1314
No. The established facts show that Seaborn and his wife, citizens and residents of Washington, accumulated only community property during and prior to 1927 with no separate property or income of either spouse.15 The income at issue consisted of Seaborn’s salary, interest, dividends, and profits from sales of that community property.16 Under the governing state statutes the wife holds a present vested one-half interest in all such property and income from the moment of acquisition.17 The husband’s statutory powers of management do not convert the community assets into his individual property, because those powers constitute an agency for the community that the legislature may alter without infringing any property right of the husband.18 Consequently the entire community income cannot be characterized as income 'of' the husband alone for purposes of the federal tax.19
The District Court correctly entered judgment for the taxpayer on these facts, and the certified question must be answered in the negative.
The husband was not bound to report the entire community income.
Whether the spouses were entitled each to return one-half thereof?20
Because each spouse owns a present vested one-half interest in Washington community income, Sections 210(a) and 211(a) permit each spouse to report one-half of that income on a separate return.21
Yes. The established facts establish that Seaborn and his wife each reported one-half the community gross income and deducted one-half the community expenses for 1927.22 Washington law treats the wife’s interest as equal and vested rather than a mere expectancy, distinguishing the case from California law.23 The Commissioner’s contrary determination that all income must be reported by the husband therefore conflicts with both the ownership test of the Revenue Act and the settled community-property rules of Washington.24
The District Court’s judgment sustaining the separate returns was correct.
The spouses were entitled each to return one-half of the community income.