Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

(There are two facts here for Marcos case. You choose which one youll like to write.

The first one is quite short


the other, is much more understandable. Anyway, you choose.)

MARCOS II V. CA

FACTS:
Ferdinand R. Marcos II, the eldest son of the decedent, questions the actuation of CIR in assessing, and collecting through
the summary remedy of Levy on Real Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon the estate and properties of his
late father, despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the will of the late president.


Facts: On September 29, 1989, former President Ferdinand Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. On June 27, 1990, a
Special Tax Audit Team was created to conduct investigations and examinations of the tax liabilities and obligations of
the late President, as well as that of his family, associates and cronies. Said audit team conducted its investigation with a
Memorandum dated July 26, 1991. The investigation disclosed that the Marcoses failed to file a written notice of the death
of the decedent, an estate tax returns, as well as several income tax returns covering the years 1982 to 1986, all in
violation of the NIRC.

Subsequently criminal charges were filed against Mrs. Imelda Marcos for violations of Sections 82, 83 and 84 of the
NIRC.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue thereby caused the preparation and filing of the Estate Tax Return for the estate of
the late president, for the years 1985 and 1986, and the income tax returns of petitioner Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos II
for the years 1982 to 1985. The CIR avers that copies of the deficiency estate and income tax assessments were all
personally and constructively served upon Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos II (through their caretakers)
at their last known address.

The deficiency tax assessments were not protested administratively by Mrs. Marcos and the other heirs of the late
President within 30 days from service of said assessments.

On February 22, 1993, the BIR Commissioner issued 22 notices of levy on real property against certain parcels of land
owned by the Marcoses to satisfy the alleged estate tax and deficiency income taxes on spouses Marcos.
On June 25, 1993, petitioner Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos II field the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: 1. Whether or not in case of failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal.
2. WON BIR may collect on estate and income tax of a deceased pending probate proceedings?

Held: (1) The omission to file an estate tax return and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by
the BIR is fatal to the petitioners cause, as under Sec. 223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the tax may be
assessed at any time within 10 years after the omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real
property within 3 years following the assessment of the tax. Since the estate tax assessment had become final and
unappealable by the petitioners default as regards protesting the validity of said assessment, there is now no reason why
the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said tax. Any objection against the assessment should have been
pursued following the avenue paved in Section 229 of the NIRC on protests on assessments of internal revenue taxes (now
Sec. 228, 1997 NIRC
(2) NO. Under Section 87 of the NIRC, it is the probate or settlement court which is forbidden not to authorize the
executor or judicial administrator of the decedent's estate to deliver any distributive share to any party interested in the
estate, unless it is shown a Certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the estate taxes have been paid.

The Government has two ways of collecting the taxes in question. One, by going after all the heirs and collecting from
each one of them the amount of the tax proportionate to the inheritance received. Another remedy, pursuant to the lien
created by Section 315 of the Tax Code upon all property and rights to property belong to the taxpayer for unpaid income
tax, is by subjecting said property of the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the payment of the tax
due the estate.
It has been repeatedly observed, and not without merit, that the enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes, is
of paramount importance for the sustenance of government.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such
collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It
is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real
purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved. The court recognized the liberal
treatment of claims for taxes charged against the estate of the decedent. Such taxes were exempted from the application of
the statute of non-claims, and this is justified by the necessity of government funding, immortalized in the maxim that
taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Vectigalia nervi sunt rei publicae taxes are the sinews of the state.


VERA v. FERNANDEZ
GR No. L-31364 March 30, 1979
89 SCRA 199

FACTS: The BIR filed on July 29, 1969 a motion for allowance of claim and for payment of taxes representing the
estate's tax deficiencies in 1963 to 1964 in the intestate proceedings of Luis Tongoy. The administrator opposed arguing
that the claim was already barred by the statute of limitation, Section 2 and Section 5 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
which provides that all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contracts, express or implied, whether the
same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and
judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred
forever.

ISSUE: Does the statute of non-claims of the Rules of Court bar the claim of the government for unpaid taxes?

HELD: No. The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of
exception from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government
and their prompt and certain availability are imperious need. (CIR vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105). Upon taxation depends the
Government ability to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To safeguard such interest, neglect or
omission of government officials entrusted with the collection of taxes should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment
to the people, in the same manner as private persons may be made to suffer individually on account of his own negligence,
the presumption being that they take good care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to government officials
with respect to matters not of their own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the government's exception, as a
general rule, from the operation of the principle of estoppel.


DIZON vs. CTA
April 30, 2008G.R. No. 140944

Facts
Jose P. Fernandez died in November 7, 1987. Thereafter, a petition for the probate of his will
was filed. Theprobatec o u r t a p p o i n t e d A t t y . R a f a e l A r s e n i o P . D i z o n a s administrator of
the Estate of Jose Fernandez. .An estate tax return was filed later on which showed ZERO estate tax liability. BIR thereafter
issued a deficiency estate tax assessment, demanding payment of Php 66.97 million as deficiency estate tax. This was
subsequently reduced by CTA to Php 37.42 million. The CA affirmed the CTAs ruling, hence, the instant petition. The
petitioner claims that in as much as the valid claims
of c r edi t or s a gai ns t t he Es t at e ar e i n exces s of t he gr os s e s t a t e , n o
e s t a t e t a x wa s d u e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , respondents argue that since the claims of the Estates
creditors have been condoned, such claims may no longer be deducted from the gross estate of the decedent.
Issue
Whether the actual claims of creditors may be fully allowed as deductions from the gross estate of Jose despite the fact
that the said claims were reduced or condoned through compromise agreements entered into by the Estate with
its creditors.

Ruling:
YES.Following the US Supreme Courts ruling in Ithaca Trust Co.v . Un i t e d S t a t e s
, t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t p o s t - d e a t h developments are not material in determining the amount
of deduction. This is because estate tax is a tax imposed on the act of transferring property by will
or intestacy and, bec aus e t he act on whi ch t he t ax i s l e vi ed oc cur s at a discrete time, i.e., the instance of
death, the net value of the property transferred should be ascertained, as nearly aspossible, as of the that
time. This is the date-of-death valuation rule. The Court, in adopting the date-of-death valuation principle, explained that:

First.
T h e r e i s n o l a w, n o r d o we d i s c e r n a n y legislative intent in our tax laws, which disregards
the date-of-death valuation principle and particularlyprovides that post -
death developments must becons i der ed i n det er mi ni ng t he net val ue of t he estate. It bears emphasis
that tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statute expressly and clearly
imports, tax statutes being construed
strictissimi juris against the government.


Second
. Such cons t r uct i on f i nds r el e vance a ndconsistency in our Rules on Special Proceedings wherein the
term "claims" required to be presented against a decedent's estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a
pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime, or liability contracted by
the deceased before his death. Therefore, the claims existing at the time of death are significant to, and should be made
t h e b a s i s o f , t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f a l l o wa b l e deductions.

Вам также может понравиться