
    THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SINKING FUND OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE AND THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [31 C. Cls. R., 1; 169 U. S. R., 249.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    Under tlie act 30th June.., 1864, a railroad company pays taxes on dividends and on profits not declared as dividends. In 1890 Congress pass an act authorizing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to adjust the claim of the city of Louisville for a refund of “taxes on dividends” which the city owned, it being, under the decision of the Supreme Court, “a portion of the sovereign power of a State.” A refund is allowed, both for taxes withheld from dividends and for taxes paid by the company on surplus profits which subsequently, in 1868, entered into a stock dividend. These refunds are paid under a special appropriation to pay “the amount found due under the act of” 1890. In 1893 Congress pass a third act, authorizing the adjustment of claims “for internal-revenue taxes collected on railroad dividends on stock and on interest on railroad honds owned hy said county and oily.” The Commissioner makes an award, which is not questioned, but the Comptroller deducts from it the refund previously allowed for taxes paid on surplus profits not declared as dividends.
    Tbe court below decides:
    1. An allowance by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as a refund of taxes illegally collected, duly approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, is an award upon wdiich an action may be maintained; it is conclusive unless impeached, and the burden of’ impeaching it is upon the defendants.
    2. Money paid by authority of a specific appropriation of Congress can not be recovered back.
    3. The Act of $5th February, 1893 (27 Stat. L., p. 477), requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to audit and adjust the claim of the city of Louisville “for internal-revenue taxes collected on railroad dividends on stock, and on interest on railroad honds” “to the extent that such taxes were deducted from any dividends or interest due and payable,” and directs that the amounts when ascertained, if “not heretofore refunded, shall he paid out of the permanent annual appropriation.” This does not authorize the accounting- officers to reopen and reexamine a refund previously allowed by the Commissioner and paid under a special appropriation by Congress.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed' on the same grounds.
    February 21, 1898.
   Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court,  