The rules also stated that only persons under the age of 17 years and 1 month were eligible to receive the prizes.

Respondent, Commissioner, determined that the policy constituted gross income to the petitioners.

The respondent, Commissioner, relies heavily on the case Helvering v. Horst[3] especially the language of the opinion that "The power to dispose of income is the equivalent of ownership of it.

In addition the rule applicable to an anticipatory assignment of income does not apply because it only applies when the assignor is entitled at the time of the assignment to receive the income at the future date and is vested with such a right In this case, Paul was never entitled to receive the prize.

It is well settled in United States income tax law that personal earnings are taxable to the earner.

By naming his daughter as the beneficiary, when she received the annuity it actually constituted the enjoyment and hence the realization of the income by Paul.

In other words, for the purposes of taxation, income is attributable to the person entitled to receive it.