
    BENJAMIN F. JONES, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [49 C. Cls., 408 ; 236 U. S., 106.]
    
      On the Defendants’ Appeal.
    
    The plaintiff is the administrator oí the estate of Adelaide P. Dalzell, and as such brings this suit for the recovery of taxes alleged to have been unlawfully collected under the act of June 30, 1898, 30 8tat. It., 448, as amended by the act of March 2, 1902, 32 Stat. It., 964, known as the Spanish War revenue act .
    The court below decides:
    I.Nothing is actually vested in the heirs of a decedent until after the debts are provided for and the legitimate costs and expenses of the administration are ascertained and discharged.
    II.The beneficial interests in the estate to which the heirs or dis-tributees are entitled were technically vested at the date of the intestate’s death by relation back to the date of the death of the decedent, as the heirs’ interest came by descent from the intestate and not from the administrator, who was a personal representative.
    III. Where the statute qualifies the words “ absolutely vested ” with the further words “ in- possession or enjoyment ” thereby defining the nature of the vested estate prior to the refunding act, the statute must be taken in a broad sense and as referring to the time when the beneficial interests were capable of being received into absolute possession or enjoyment and not referring necessarily to the strict legal character of the interest.
    IV. The rate of the tax assessable could only be determined after the debts and legitimate cost of the administration of the estate are known, and when these are known and deducted, the share of each distributee is established, and the rate of the tax fixed.
    V.Where the right to tax is uncertain, indefinite, and doubtful the public right is subordinated to the claim of exemption for the private right, and the right of tax must be so clear as to avoid the forfeiture of any part of the estate.
    VI.Taxes illegally collected are nothing more nor less than forfeiture tp the extent of the illegal exaction and should be refunded.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice VaN DevaNter delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 25,1915.  