Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 348 views

    Lorenzo Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Jezreel Y. Chan
    The court ruled that the inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death, not when the property is delivered to the heir. For Thomas Hanley, who died in 1922, the inheritance tax accrued on the date of his death, May 27, 1922, regardless of when the property was actually distributed. The court also noted that while the tax accrues at death, the obligation to pay does not necessarily arise then. In this case, the tax should have been paid before March 10, 1924, when the property was delivered to the trustee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lorenzo Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Jezreel Y. Chan
    348 views3 pages
    The court ruled that the inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death, not when the property is delivered to the heir. For Thomas Hanley, who died in 1922, the inheritance tax accrued on the date of his death, May 27, 1922, regardless of when the property was actually distributed. The court also noted that while the tax accrues at death, the obligation to pay does not necessarily arise then. In this case, the tax should have been paid before March 10, 1924, when the property was delivered to the trustee.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Lorenzo vs Posadas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ruled that the inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death, not when the property is delivered to the heir. For Thomas Hanley, who died in 1922, the inheritance tax accrued on the date of his death, May 27, 1922, regardless of when the property was actually distributed. The court also noted that while the tax accrues at death, the obligation to pay does not necessarily arise then. In this case, the tax should have been paid before March 10, 1924, when the property was delivered to the trustee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    348 views3 pages

    Lorenzo Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Jezreel Y. Chan
    The court ruled that the inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death, not when the property is delivered to the heir. For Thomas Hanley, who died in 1922, the inheritance tax accrued on the date of his death, May 27, 1922, regardless of when the property was actually distributed. The court also noted that while the tax accrues at death, the obligation to pay does not necessarily arise then. In this case, the tax should have been paid before March 10, 1924, when the property was delivered to the trustee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Lorenzo vs Posadas

    64 Phil 353 No. 43082. June 18, 1937

    Doctrine:
    The right of the state to an inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death.

    Facts:
    On May 27, 1922, Thomas Hanley died in Zamboanga, leaving a will and considerable
    amount of real and personal properties. By June, proceedings for the probate of his will and the
    settlement and distribution of his estate began. The will was admitted to probate. Said will
    provides that the testator had one brother living, Malachi, who has a son Matthew. The will
    provided that:
    1) any money left by the testator be given to his nephew Matthew
    2) All the real estate he owned at the time of his death be not sold or otherwise disposed
    of for a period of ten (10) years after death. It must be handled and managed by the
    executors.
    3) Proceeds thereof must be given to Matthew at Castlemore, Ballaghaderine, County of
    Rosecommon, Ireland, and it must only be used for the education of Hanley’s
    brother’s children and their descendants.
    4) If the property would be disposed after 10 years, it would be in the manner that
    Matthew thinks is most advantageous.
    The CFI thought that it was proper to appoint a trustee, namely P. J. M. Moore. Moore
    resigned in February 1932, to which Lorenzo was appointed in his stead. During the incumbency
    of the Lorenzo as trustee, Posadas, the Collector of Internal Revenue, assessed against the estate
    consisting of real (P27,290) and personal (P1,465), allowing a deduction of P480.81, an
    inheritance tax in the amount of P1,434.24 which, together with the penalties for delinquency in
    payment consisting of a 1% monthly interest from July 1, 1931 to the date of payment and a
    surcharge of 25% on the tax or total amount of P2.052.74. Posadas filed a motion in the
    testamentary proceedings praying that Lorenzo be ordered to pay. The motion was granted. On
    September 15, 1932, Lorenzo paid this amount under protest.
    Lorenzo, then filed a complaint for the refund of the amount plus interest arguing that the
    lower court erred in holding that the real property of Thomas passed to his instituted heir,
    Matthew, from the moment of Thomas’ death. He argued that the property passed to and its
    value should be assessed at the expiration of the period of ten years after which the property
    could be and was to be delivered to the instituted heir.

    Issues:
    When does the inheritance tax accrue? Inheritance accrues at the moment of death.

    Ruling:
    The accrual of the inheritance tax is distinct from the obligation to pay the same. Section
    153 of the Administrative Code, imposes the tax upon "every transmission by virtue of
    inheritance, devise, bequest, gift mortis causa, or advance in anticipation of inheritance, devise,
    or bequest." The tax therefore is upon transmission or the transfer or devolution of property of a
    decedent, made effective by his death.
    Article 657 of the Civil Code (now Art. 777) provides that the rights to the succession of
    a person are transmitted from the moment of his death. The property belongs to the heirs at the
    moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered
    to them a deed for the same before his death." Thomas Hanley having died on May 27, 1922, the
    inheritance tax accrued as of that date. There is no distinction on whether it applies only to
    forced heirs. The language of the said provisions makes no distinction between different classes
    of heirs. It speaks of the rights of succession and of the transmission thereof from the moment of
    death.
    The provision of section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the authentication
    and probate of a will as a necessary condition to effect transmission of property does not affect
    the general rule laid down in article 657 of the Civil Code. The authentication of a will implies
    its due execution but once probated and allowed the transmission is effective as of the death of
    the testator in accordance with article 657 of the Civil Code.
    Whatever may be the time when actual transmission of the inheritance takes place,
    succession takes place in any event at the moment of the decedent's death. The time when the
    heirs legally succeed to the inheritance may differ from the time when the heirs actually receive
    such inheritance.
    From the fact, however, that Thomas Hanley died on May 27, 1922, it does not follow
    that the obligation to pay the tax arose as of that date. The accrual of the inheritance tax is
    distinct from the obligation to pay the same.
    The right of the state to an inheritance tax accrues at the moment of death, and hence is
    ordinarily measured as to any beneficiary by the value at that time of such property as passes to
    him. Subsequent appreciation or depreciation is immaterial. A transmission by inheritance is
    taxable at the time of the predecessor's death, notwithstanding the postponement of the actual
    possession or enjoyment of the estate by the beneficiary, and the tax measured by the value of
    the property transmitted at that time regardless of its appreciation or depreciation.

    IN CASE HE ASKS ABOUT WHEN THE TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN SATISFIED:

    Sections 1543 and 1544 provides:


    "SEC. 1543. Exemption of certain acquisitions and transmissions.
    —The following shall not be taxed:
    "(a) The merger of the usufruct in the owner of the naked title.
    "(b) The transmission or delivery of the inheritance or legacy by the
    fiduciary heir or legatee to the trustees.
    "(c) The transmission from the first heir, legatee, or donee in favor of
    another beneficiary, in accordance with the desire of the predecessor.
    "SEC. 1544. When tax to be paid.—The tax fixed in this article shall
    be paid:
    ''(a) In the second and third cases of the next preceding section,
    before entrance into possession of the property.
    "(b) In other cases, within the six months subsequent to the death of
    the predecessor; but if judicial testamentary or intestate proceedings
    shall be instituted prior to the expiration of said period, the payment
    shall be made by the executor or administrator before delivering to
    each beneficiary his share.
    To constitute a valid testamentary trust there must be a concurrence of three
    circumstances: (1) Sufficient words to raise a trust; (2) a definite subject; (3) a certain or
    ascertained object; statutes in some jurisdictions expressly or in effect so providing. There is no
    doubt that the testator intended to create a trust. P. J. M. Moore became trustee on March 10,
    1924. The instant case does not fall under subsection (a), but under subsection (b), of section
    1544 above-quoted, as there is here no fiduciary heir, first heir, legatee or donee. Under that
    subsection, the tax should have been paid before the delivery of the properties in question to P. J.
    M. Moore as trustee on March 10, 1924.

    You might also like