
    JOHN C. DELANEY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [31 C. Cls. R., 44; 164 U. S., 282.]
    
      On tJie defendants’ Appeal.
    
    Under the act 30th June, 1864, a railroad company pays taxes on dividends and on profits not declared as dividends. In 1890 Congress passed 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 poioer 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 “ ille amount found due xmder the act of" 1890. In 1893 Congress passed a third act, authorizing the adjustment of claims “for internal-revenue taxes collected on railroad dividends on stock and on interest on railroad bonds owned by said county and city." 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. (See County of Logan v. The United States, post.)
    The 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 which 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 25th of February, 189S (27 Stat. L., p. 477), requires the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to audit and adjust the claim ofo the city of Louisville “for internal-revenue taxes collected on railroad dividends on stock, and on interest on railroad bonds” “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 be 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.
   Mr. Justice Peokham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 30, 1896.  