delivered the opinion of the Court. ■

This case presents the same question as that involved in No. 328, Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., ante, p. 110. Certiorari was granted because of a conflict in the decisions below. . The statutory provision under which this case arises is § 22 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932, which is the same as the .corresponding section of the Revenue Act of 1928. The regulations, original and amended, have the same relation to this controversy as to that in No. 328. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained a determination of a deficiency in the petitioner’s tax for the calendar year 1933 and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirm'ed the Board’s ruling. 1

For the reasons given in No. 328 the judgment must be

Reversed.