Opinion of the Court. 292 U.S. holders of the two corporations were substantially the same constitutes such a basis. 3 As a general rule a corporation and its stockholders are deemed separate entities and this is true in respect of tax problems. Of course, the rule is subject to the qualification that the separate identity may be disregarded in exceptional situations where it otherwise would present an obstacle to the due protection or enforcement of public or private rights. But in this case we find no such exceptional situation-nothing taking it out of the general rule. On the contrary, we think it a typical case for the application of that rule. The petitioner relies on Pioneer Pole & Shaft Co. v. Commissioner, 55 F. (2d) 861; Industrial Cotton Mills v. Commissioner, 61 F. (2d) 291; and H. H. Miller Industries Co. v. Commissioner, 61 F. (2d) 412. The decisions in these cases are not wholly in point but contain language giving color to the petitioner's claim, and are to that extent in conflict with other federal decisions, notably Athol Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 54 F. (2d) 230; TurnerFarber-Love Co. v. Helvering, 68 F. (2d) 416; and the decision now under review. In so far as they are not in harmony with the views expressed in this opinion they are disapproved. Judgment affirmed. 3 Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 587, 596-597; Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 208 U.S. 267, 273; United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 238 U.S. 516, 527-529; Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Co., 267 U.S. 333; Klein v. Board of Supervisors, 282 U.S. 19, 24. *Klein v. Board of Supervisors, 282 U.S. 19, 24; Dalton v. Bowers, 287 U.S. 404, 410; Burnet v. Clark, 287 U.S. 410, 415; Burnet v. Commonwealth Improvement Co., 287 U.S. 415, 418–420. 5 United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 220 U.S. 257, 272–274; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic Assn., 247 U.S. 490, 500-501; Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 337-338; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Lewellyn, 248 U.S. 71. Syllabus. REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 734. Argued May 3, 1934.-Decided May 28, 1934. 1. Although the function of determining whether a veteran is entitled to hospital facilities under the World War Veterans Act, and of ordering his hospitalization or certifying to his right thereto, is a function of the Director of the Veterans Bureau, the right of the veteran, where it exists on indisputable facts as a matter of law, may be enforced by the courts. P. 446. 2. An honorably discharged veteran of the Spanish-American War, suffering from a neuropsychiatric ailment, was in 1911 committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to statutory authority, and remained there confined as an insane person until, in 1930, he was discharged. Held: (1) That the Veterans Bureau having had and exercised the right to make use of this hospital for insane veterans, the facilities of the hospital were under the control and jurisdiction of that Bureau within the meaning of § 202 (10) of the World War Veterans Act of 1924, as amended July 2, 1926. P. 445. (2) Under the proviso of § 202 (10) of this amended Act, the pension money credited to the veteran while in the hospital could not, upon his discharge, be withheld to pay for his board at the hospital during that period. P. 447. (3) This applies to the charges for board incurred before July 2, 1926, the date of the proviso, as well as to those incurred afterwards, the entire deduction having been made after the proviso became effective. P. 447. 3. A statute is not rendered retroactive merely because the facts or requisites upon which its subsequent action depends, or some of them, are drawn from a time antecedent to the enactment. Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 435. P. 449. 78 Ct. Cls. 401, reversed. CERTIORARI * to review a judgment rejecting a claim for recovery of pension money which had been applied to pay for the board of a Spanish War Veteran at a government hospital for the insane. * See Table of Cases Reported in this volume. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Francis W. Hill, Jr., for petitioner. 292 U.S. Mr. H. Brian Holland, with whom Solicitor General Biggs, Assistant Attorney General Sweeney, and Mr. Paul A. Sweeney were on the brief, for the United States. MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought in the Court of Claims by petitioner, an honorably discharged veteran of the SpanishAmerican War, to recover judgment against the United States for money deducted from his pension on account of board furnished him while he was an inmate of St. Elizabeths Hospital. He was committed to the hospital as an insane person on June 19, 1911, and remained there until April 25, 1930, when he was discharged in the custody of his brother. Thereafter, petitioner regained his sanity and was of sound mind when this suit was prosecuted. During the entire period of his confinement he suffered from a neuropsychiatric ailment. Preceding the time of his discharge from the hospital there had been placed to his credit on the books of the institution, under the certificate of the Bureau of Pensions, $4,036, representing funds paid to the institution by the Bureau of Pensions on his behalf. Upon his discharge the hospital deducted from these pension funds a sum which had been advanced to him for clothing and cash, and applied the remaining $3,259.17 on account of board furnished during the period of his confinement. Petitioner, at the time, protested against the application thus made and against the refusal of the hospital to pay over to him the amount so withheld. Shortly after his discharge from the hospital, application was made on his behalf to the Director of the Veterans' Bureau for an order authorizing and directing his hospitalization at St. Elizabeths Hospital from the effec 443 Opinion of the Court. tive date of the World War Veterans' Act of June 7, 1924, to the date of his discharge, April 25, 1930. The director held that since no application had been made by petitioner or by anyone acting in his behalf until after his discharge, the question was moot, and the director was without authority of law to issue a retroactive order authorizing hospitalization in such a case. Following this ruling, however, the bureau issued a certificate recognizing petitioner as a veteran entitled to hospitalization under § 202 (10) of the World War Veterans' Act of 1924, as amended. Petitioner, by three successive enlistments, served in the army of the United States from November 30, 1897, until January 25, 1907, at which time he was honorably discharged by reason of the expiration of his term of service. The Court of Claims denied petitioner's right to recover and dismissed his petition. 78 Ct. Cls. 401. Section 202 (10) of the World War Veterans' Act, as amended (U.S.C., App., Title 38, § 484), directs that all hospital facilities under the control and jurisdiction of the Veterans' Bureau shall be available "for every honorably discharged veteran of the Spanish-American War, . . suffering from neuropsychiatric . . . ailments," with the following proviso: "That the pension of a veteran entitled to hospitalization under this subdivision shall not be subject to deduction, while such veteran is hospitalized in any Government hospital, for board, maintenance, or any other purpose incident to hospitalization." This proviso appeared for the first time in the Act of July 2, 1926, c. 723, § 9, 44 Stat. 794. The Veterans' Bureau had and exercised the right to make use of St. Elizabeths Hospital for insane veterans; and this, we think, satisfied the requirement contemplated by the statute that the hospital facilities (not the hospi Opinion of the Court. 292 U.S. tal) shall be under the control and jurisdiction of that bureau. The court below, in ruling against petitioner, proceeded upon the theory that a court is without jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for the determination of the question whether a veteran is entitled to hospital facilities, to order his hospitalization, or to certify his right thereto those being matters, the court said, within the sole authority of the director of the bureau. Granting the correctness of this view, we are of opinion that it does not apply in this case. The undisputed and indisputable facts bring the veteran within the requirements of the statute. Undoubtedly, therefore, as matter of law, he was entitled to the hospital facilities of St. Elizabeths, and if timely application had been made to the director of the bureau, a refusal upon his part to order the hospitalization would have been wholly without evidentiary support, clearly arbitrary and capricious, and would not, upon well settled principles, have concluded the courts. Silberschein v. United States, 266 U.S. 221, 225, and authorities cited; United States v. Williams, 278 U.S. 255, 257. So much, indeed, seems to be within the concession made in the brief and argument for the government: "It may be conceded at the outset that if a court may determine whether a person is entitled to hospitalization under the statute when the Director of the Veterans' Bureau has not passed upon the facts of the case, the petitioner has stated and proved a good cause of action, and the court below erred in rendering judgment in favor of the United States." Here no application was made to the director for the sufficient reason that petitioner was mentally, and therefore legally, incapable of making it; and apparently he had no guardian to act for him. However, his condition being certified to the Secretary of the Interior, in virtue of a statutory provision, that official, acting under the |