This action is begun to recover the sum of $6,611.68 with interest on account of taxes alleged to have been erroneously assessed and collected for the year 1919. On the submission of the case the parties agreed that the only issue in the case was whether a certain liquidating dividend of $8,000 which the commissioner included in the taxable income of plaintiff for 1919 was properly taxable in that year. This depends on whether the dividend was received by plaintiff or placed under his control during the year 1919; or, on the other hand, whether it was not received by him and did not come under his control until the year 1920, as plaintiff alleges. This matter is wholly a question of fact to be determined from all of the evidence in the case. The commissioner of this court who heard the testimony and made a report thereon has found in favor of the plaintiff on this matter. His report recites: “Not only was the dividend not paid plaintiff until January 19, 1920, as heretofore shown, but, also, it was not subject to his unqualified demand until subsequent to December 31, 1919.”
To this finding and other findings on which it is in part based the defendant has excepted. We have carefully examined the testimony and from this examination conclude that the preponderance of the evidence sustains the commissioner’s findings and have therefore adopted them. While the testimony is not long, no useful purpose will be sub-served by .discussing it.
It is sufficient to say that upon these findings and the stipulation of the parties as to the amount of overpayment, if the findings of the commissioner are sustained, judgment must be rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $3,094.60 with interest at 6 per cent, from September 28, 1925, for the period provided by law. It is so ordered.