See, e.g., Warthan v. Haynes, 1956, 155 Tex. 413, 288 S.W.2d 481; Volunteer Life Ins. Co. v. Hardin, 1946, 145 Tex. 245, 197 S.W.2d 105, 168 A.L.R. 337; Martin v. McAllister, 1901, 94 Tex. 567, 63 S.W. 624, 56 L.R.A. 585. See, e.g., National City Bank of Cleveland v. United States, 6 Cir. 1966, 371 F.2d 13; Goodnow v. United States, 1962, 302 F.2d 516, 157 Ct.Cl. 526; Estate of Gray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1950, 14 T.C. 390. In the Chase Manhattan Bank case, which is factually similar to the case at bar, this Court sustained the Commissioner's imposition on the wife of a federal gift tax on the value of one-half of the policy proceeds that were paid into an insurance trust comparable to the Martin Wright Insurance Trust.

Petitioner states that when the husband attempts to dispose of his wife's share of the community property she must elect between her community rights and her husband's gift, and if she elects to take under the will she affirms the testamentary transfer of her share of the community property, but that absent an election to take against the will the transfer is valid and the property passes under her husband's will. Petitioner cites Estate of Selina J. Gray, 14 T.C. 390 (1950), for the proposition that no conveyance or transfer from the wife is necessary to have title to the entire community pass under the will since the testamentary disposition by the husband of the wife's one-half of the community property is only voidable and not void. Petitioner recognizes that the Estate of Selina J. Gray, supra, dealt with community property acquired prior to 1927, and that under the laws of California the wife had an interest in such property more in the nature of an expectancy than a vested interest.

With respect to such community property acquired prior to the 1927 amendment, it was 5 consistently held that the wife's interest was a mere expectancy and that the full value of the property was includible in the husband's gross estate for estate tax purposes. See United States v. Robbins, 296 U.S. 315; Estate of Alfred S. Gump, 42 B.T.A. 197, affd. (C.A. 9) 124 F.2d 540, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 697; Rickenberg v. Commissioner, (C.A. 9) 177 F.2d 114, affirming 11 T.C. 1, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 949; and Estate of Salina J. Gray, 14 T.C. 390.We note that by amendments to section 201 made in 1957, the interest of the surviving spouse is referred to as an expectancy.