extent that the value of such property is included in the decedent's gross estate and not deducted under paragraphs (1) or (3) of subdivision (a) of this sec tion. This deduction shall be made in case of the estates of all decedents who have died since September 8, 1916;

It is understood that your first question has reference to cases in which the estate tax imposed under section 401 of the act was collected without making proper allowance for the deduction provided for in the paragraph hereinbefore quoted, and in which a claim for refund of the amount of the excess payment has been filed. The question presented is as to whether interest on the amount found due on such a claim is payable under the provisions of section 1324 (a) of the said act of November 23, 1921, 42 Stat., 316, which reads:

That upon the allowance of a claim for the refund of or credit for internal revenue taxes paid, interest shall be allowed and paid upon the total amount of such refund or credit at the rate of one-half of 1 per centum per month to the date of such allowance, as follows: (1) if such amount was paid under a specific protest setting forth in detail the basis of and reasons for such protest, from the time when such tax was paid, or (2) if such amount was not paid under protest but pursuant to an additional assessment, from the time such additional assessment was paid, or (3) if no protest was made and the tax was not paid pursuant to an additional assessment, from six months after the date of filing of such claim for refund or credit. The term additional assessment as used in this section means a further assessment for a tax of the same character previously paid in part.

66

As the estate tax imposed under section 401 of the act is an "internal revenue tax, there would appear to be no room for reasonable doubt that the provisions of section 1324 (a) relative to the allowance and payment of interest are applicable to claims for refund of or credit for such estate taxes paid to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as in the case of claims on account of other internal revenue taxes paid.

The appropriations available for payment of such claims and the interest payable thereon are the appropriations from which other claims for refund of taxes illegally collected and interest thereon are payable. See 27 Comp. Dec., 20; 1 Comp. Gen., 357; id., 411; id., 430. See also act of January 3, 1923, 42 Stat., 1098, act of January 22, 1923, 42 Stat., 1162, and the deficiency appropriation act approved March 4, 1923, 42 Stat., 1549.

The questions submitted are answered accordingly.

PURCHASE OF MOTOR TRUCKS-INDIAN SERVICE.

Motor trucks do not come within the prohibition as to the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles, even though fitted with seats and used for transportation of Indian youths to and from places of employment, and their purchase for that purpose is within the purview of the appropriation act of May 24, 1922, 42 Stat., 562.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Interior, March 17, 1923: I have your letter of March 12, 1923, requesting decision whether the appropriation "Indian school transportation (obtaining employment), 1923" is available for the purchase, maintenance, and opera

tion of automobile trucks for use in transporting Indian youths from the reservations in Arizona, where they live, to different localities in said State where employment may be obtained for them.

The appropriation in question is made in the following terms, act May 24, 1922, 42 Stat., 562:

For collection and transportation of pupils to and from Indian and public schools, and for placing school pupils, with the consent of their parents, under the care and control of white families qualified to give them moral, industrial, and educational training, $85,000: Provided, That not exceeding $5,000 of this sum may be used for obtaining remunerative employment for Indian youths and, when necessary, for payment of transportation and other expenses to their places of employment: Provided further, That where practicable the transportation and expenses of pupils shall be refunded and shall be returned to the appropriation from which paid.

If authority exists for the proposed expenditure it must be found in the proviso authorizing the use of not to exceed $5,000 "for obtaining remunerative employment for Indian youths and, when necessary, for payment of transportation and other expenses to their places of employment."

With reference to the question presented, the Commissioner of Indian affairs states:

A favorable opportunity is at hand for giving Indian youths employment in connection with the cotton and other industries in Arizona. It will be necessary, however, that the Indians be provided with transportation from the reservations where they live to the places of employment, which in some cases are at considerable distance from the reservation. The cost of such transportation by rail or stage would be excessive. Such transportation can be effected at less than half what it would cost otherwise, by the use of automobile trucks.

It is understood that the trucks which it is proposed to purchase are surplus Army trucks which have been used and which can be obtained for approximately $150 each and that if purchased they will be repaired and fitted with seats suitable for the necessary accommodation of Indian youths being transported for manual employment in connection with the cotton and other industries, a distance of from 50 to 250 miles, and that the trucks will then be used in transporting the Indian youths, of whom there are several hundred on the different reservations in Arizona, to the Salt River Valley and other sections of the State where remunerative employment can be obtained for them. It is understood also that it is proposed to charge the Indian youths the actual cost to the Government of furnishing the transportation by truck, the amount collected from them to be returned to the appropriation as provided for in the second proviso as hereinbefore quoted.

There would appear to be no doubt that the purchase, maintenance, and operation of the trucks for use as hereinbefore indicated would be an expenditure fairly within the intent and purpose of the appropriation. You are advised, therefore, that the use of the appropriation not exceeding $5,000 for such purchases, maintenance, and operation is authorized.

With reference to the provision in section 5 of the act of July 16, 1914, 38 Stat., 508, prohibiting the use of any appropriation for the purchase, maintenance, or operation of any motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicle,. unless specific authority is given therefo, it is noted that the act of May 24, 1922, 42 Stat., 565, in which the appropriation now under consideration is made, contains a provision as follows:

That not to exceed $150,000 of applicable appropriations made herein for the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be available for the maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles for the use of superintendents, farmers, physicians, field matrons, allotting, irrigation, and other employees in the Indian field service: Provided, That not to exceed $14,000 may be used in the purchase of horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles, and not to exceed $35,000 for the purchase of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles, and that such vehicles shall be used only for official service: Provided further, That such motor-propelled vehicles shall be purchased from the War Department, if practicable.

The trucks here under consideration, even when equipped with seats as hereinbefore indicated, are not to be regarded as passengercarrying vehicles within the meaning of the provisions of section 5 of the act of July 16, 1914, or the provision last above quoted from the act of May 24, 1922. See 21 Comp. Dec., 38; id., 116; id., 830; 23 id., 19.

TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILY OF DECEASED CONSULAR OFFICER. The expenses of the transportation of the family of a deceased consular officer from his last station to the former home of the widow in England, if not in excess of that to the family domicile of the officer in the United States, is within the purview of the consular regulations and the appropriation in the act of June 1, 1922, 42 Stat., 603, and allowable.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of State, March 19, 1923: I have your letter of March 3, 1923, stating in part as follows: Referring to paragraph 46 of the Travel Regulations and to the provision in the existing appropriation act providing for the return to their homes of the families of American consular officers dying at their post of duty, you are informed that the department has been notified of the death at Mukden, China, on February 25, 1923, of Mr. Albert W. Pontius, American consul general at that place. It appears from a telegram received recently from the American vice consul at Mukden that Mrs. Pontius, who desires to have her husband's body buried in that city, wishes to return immediately to her family in England. The vice consul has made inquiry as to whether the Government will pay the transportation of Mrs. Pontius and her children to England via the Suez Canal, and he has added that she is urgently in need of funds.

In view of Mr. Pontius's long and efficient services and the evident need of this assistance on the part of the widow and her children, the department is desirous of aiding her so far as practicable and it will appreciate a statement of your views as to whether it is possible to pay Mrs. Pontius's transportation and subsistence, and that of her children to England, provided such charge shall not exceed the cost of transportation and subsistence for the trip from Mukden to Mr. Pontius's former home in this country, which is understood to have been at St. Paul, Minnesota.

It is assumed that the appropriation in view, as applicable to such expenses, is that of June 1, 1922, 42 Stat., 603, under subhead, "Transportation of diplomatic and consular officers":

To pay the itemized and verified statements of the actual and necessary expenses of transportation and subsistence, under such regulations as the Sec

989449 0-52-38

retary of State may prescribe, of diplomatic and consular officers and clerks in embassies, legations, and consulates and their families and effects in going to and returning from their posts.

The regulations promulgated governing transportation of diplomatic and consular officers provide:

45. The expenses of the family of an officer or clerk entitled to transportation at Government expense will be allowed, under the limitations imposed by these regulations, whether they accompany him or follow him, but not if they precede him. Such expenses will not be allowed, however, unless the members of the family begin the journey within six months after the officer or clerk himself. 46. Allowances for the expenses of transporting to the United States the remains of a consular officer who dies at his post are governed by the provisions of the current appropriation act. In addition to the allowance which may be made for that purpose, the expenses for return to the United States of the family and effects of an officer or clerk who dies at his post will be allowed, under the limitations imposed by these regulations, provided the family returns within six months. This time limit shall not be extended except upon the special authorization of the Secretary of State.

The enactment relates to officers going to and returning from their posts. The effect of their appointment in connection with this act is to impose an obligation upon the Government to return such public officers and their families to their domiciles, under the regulations governing such transportation, and the regulations provide for a return to the United States apparently on the presumption of the domicile being situated therein. As regulations are to give effect to and not in modification of laws, any interpretations thereof in the interests of the public service that do not enlarge the obligations of the United States are for the administrative discretion. While the provisions are for expenses for return to the United States, the very apparent intention is to assure a return at public expense from distant posts, and such assurance may be as well satisfied by the equivalent of a return to the former domicile.

Accordingly, such transportation furnished to the widow's former home in England, if not in excess of a return to the consul general's domicile in the United States, would be in accordance with a fair interpretation of the intentions of the appropriation act, and, if authorized by you, expenditures therefor would be sanctioned.

RENTAL ALLOWANCE-OFFICERS OF THE ARMY ON DUTY AT COBLENTZ, GERMANY.

Officers of the Army on duty at Coblentz, Germany, with troops, on and after July 1, 1922, and there billetted in rooms in hotels furnished by the German Government to the American military headquarters authorities at Coblentz for quarters for American officers, were serving at a station where furnished with quarters in kind and are not entitled to a rental allowance, notwithstanding they may have dependents residing in the United States.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, March 19, 1923: There has been received your letter of January 26, 1923, requesting decision whether rental allowance for dependents residing in the

United States is payable for period from July 1 to September 30, 1922, to two officers, stationed at Coblenz, Germany, and who were billetted as officers of the United States there serving with troops in rooms in hotels furnished by the German Government to the American military headquarters authorities at Coblenz for quarters for American officers, subject to such payment there for as Germany may ultimately receive from the United States in the form of a deduction in a settlement of its occupation debt to this country.

The period in question was while the status of the United States as to Germany was that of peace and following the termination of the emergency act of April 16, 1918, 40 Stat., 530, under which these officers, as officers on duty" without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States " with dependents in the United States had been in receipt of commutation of quarters to June 30, 1922.

The rental allowance statute of June 10, 1922, unlike said expired emergency statute of 1918 as to commutation of quarters, contains no blanket provision for rental allowance of officers with dependents on duty "without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States," or other distinguishing language for the purpose between duty within and without the United States, and the right to the rental allowance must therefore be determined under a statute stripped of such a provision.

The duty of these Coblenz officers was clearly neither "sea duty, temporary duty away from permanent station, in hospital, on leave of absence or on sick leave," and for rental allowance purposes it need only be considered whether it is duty at a station Dr field duty. See section 6, act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628.

Stations are equally stations for military purposes, whether located within the United States or outside of the United States, and Coblenz was a station. Not only was it a station-it was a military headquarters' station-and within its station radius there was for occupation purposes a fortress. In the United States neither peace-time duty at an ordinary station, at a military headquarters' station, nor at a post or fortress station, would be "field duty" for rental purposes. As the rental statute carries no distinction with respect to stations for rental purposes between those within and without the United States, it is concluded that the duty of these officers for this period at Coblenz may not be regarded otherwise than as duty at a station for rental purposes.

The hotel rooms furnished to them by the United States through the German Government for their use as quarters were public quarters for the purpose of the rental statute. See in this connection 3 Asst. Comp. for France, 30.