GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
The question here involved has to do with the application of the estate tax to certain expenses involved in the administration after the death of the settlor of an inter vivos trust.
The operative facts are simple and undisputed. On April 17, 1946, the decedent established a revocable inter vivos trust, reserving the income to herself for life with several remainders over. On the same day she also executed a will leaving her residuary estate to the trustees. The settlor's death necessitated, under the law of Pennsylvania, the filing of an account for the trust with the Orphans' Court of Philadelphia County, and in that proceeding expenses were approved as follows:
Attorney fee $5,000.00 Filing and adjudication costs, etc. 125.50 Trustee commissions 9,170.48
In computing the federal estate tax, the Commissioner allowed as a deduction from the gross estate the trustee commissions of $9,170.48, apparently because this was a liability which accrued during the decedent's lifetime. The Commissioner disallowed, however, the deductions totaling $5,125.50 for the attorney fee and expenses. The Tax Court agreed with him. 1949, 13 T.C. 14. The executors have appealed from that decision.
We think the Tax Court was incorrect. While equitable considerations evidently play little or no part in the settlement of tax problems
The Commissioner's argument makes much of language of this Court in Sharpe's Estate v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 179, 181, in which we pointed out the difference between the duty of an executor and the duty of a trustee. That was a case where an allowance was sought for future fees to be earned by trustees. We have no doubt as to the correctness of the language, but it is not applicable here. No allowance for future fees is being asked for and those which were allowed by the Orphans' Court were proper in the administration of the decedent's affairs.
Whether they are to be allowed as expenses of administration
The two Court of Appeals decisions in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bronson, 8 Cir., 1929, 32 F.2d 112, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Davis, 1 Cir., 1943, 132 F.2d 644, tend to support our conclusion. We think the Tax Court was mistaken in endeavoring to distinguish its earlier case, Elroy N. Clark, 1943, 1 T.C. 663. That decision, we think, is in accordance with the result reached here.
The decision of the Tax Court will be reversed and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.