BIR Ruling No. 060-81 (April 1, 1981)

118-00 000-00 060-81

Santiago, Sison & Associates

106 Paseo de Roxas

Makati, Metro Manila

Attention : Atty. Priscilla R. Gonzales

Special Counsel

M a d a m :

This refers to your letter dated October 28, 1980, requesting a ruling on what is meant by the taxes imposed on joint account deposit under Section 118 of the Tax Code, and what should be reported thereon for estate tax purposes.

In reply thereto, please be informed that the taxes mentioned in Section 118 of the Tax Code refers to estate taxes only, as Presidential Decree No. 69, which took effect on January 1, 1973 had abolished the imposition of inheritance taxes.

Pursuant to Section 53(3)(1) of the Tax Code, interest on a deposit account maintained by two persons shall be deemed to be equally owned by them for income tax purposes. The same presumption may likewise apply for estate tax purposes. Accordingly, only half of the balance of the deposit should be reported for estate tax purposes. aisadc

Very truly yours,

RUBEN B. ANCHETA

Acting Commissioner

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 050-84 (March 6, 1984)

34-h-000-00-050-84

S i r :

This refers to your letter dated January 17, 1984 requesting exemption from payment of capital gains tax on the receipt of your share in the estate of the late Macaria P. Angeles who died intestate on January 8, 1981 consisting of a parcel of land with an area of 817 square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 288566 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

Documentary evidence submitted show that on July 30, 1982 a Deed of Assignment was executed whereby the assignor, granted the assignees, namely, Ignacio Palacio and Anacleta Palacio Villena who are the brother and sister of the decedent their lawful share in the estate of the late Macaria Angeles, wife of the Assignor; and that as certified to on May 18, 1981 by the Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 4-A, the estate tax due on the transmission of said estate had already been fully paid.

In reply, please be informed that no capital gains tax accrued and became collectible on account of the aforementioned Deed of Assignment because in this case, no taxable sale or transfer of property took place between the assignor and the assignees. The assignor did not part with any property but merely gave to the assignee what rightfully belonged to them as their share in the decedent’s estate, the corresponding estate tax on which had already been fully paid.

In view thereof, this office is of the opinion as it hereby holds that the assignor of real property in this case is not subject to the capital gains tax imposed by Section 34(h) of the Tax Code as amended. Accordingly, the aforesaid Deed of Assignment may be registered with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, without the necessity of payment of capital gains tax by the assignor. cda

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RUBEN B. ANCHETA

Acting Commissioner

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 046-98 (April 14, 1998)

83(b) & (c)-000-00-46-98

M.M. Lazaro & Associates

19th Floor, Chatham Building

Valero Cor. Herrera Streets

Salcedo Village, Makati City

Attention : Attys. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan &

Manuel M . Lazaro

Gentlemen :

This refers to your letter dated May 28, 1997 requesting for the waiver of surcharge and interest on the estate tax liability of the Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr.   LLphil

It is represented that Benigno P. Toda, Jr. (the “Decedent”) died on January 16, 1994 leaving properties, both real and personal, in the Philippines and in the United States: that the Decedent is survived by his children from his first marriage to Rosemarie T. De Toda, namely Benigno Toda III and Rosemarie Toda-Delgado, and his surviving spouse. Conchita Simo Toda: that the Decedent left two wills, one which purportedly applies to the properties he left in the United States, and one for the properties he left in the Philippines; that the co-administrators are ready to file the estate tax return and to pay the basic amount of the estate tax by the end of July 1997; that they, however, request that the time for the payment of the estate tax be deemed to have been extended to such date; and that no surcharge and interest be due thereon, for the reasons stated in their letter, viz:

“(1)            The preparation of the estate tax return was beset with difficulties.

“First, the executor (Atty. Antonio R. Bautista) and the successor-executor (Atty. Leonardo Siguion Reyna) nominated in the will governing the Decedent’s Philippine properties both declined to serve. For several months after the Decedent’s death, no one was attending to the administration of the estate. Then the Decedent’s children and surviving spouse contested the validity of the wills and the purported distribution of the properties of the Decedent. The court hearing the special proceedings in the matter of the Estate of Benigno Toda, Jr. (SP No. M-3792, Branch 33, RTC Makati) finally appointed as co-administrators, Atty. Lorna Patajo Kapunan (counsel for the surviving spouse) and Atty. Mario L. Bautista (counsel for the children). After the latter resigned as co-administrator, Justice Manuel M. Lazaro was appointed in his place.   LLcd

“Second, the properties to be included in the estate of the Decedent could not readily be determined accurately as some of the properties also belonged to the estate of Rosemarie T. De Toda, who died on March 4, 1991 (approximately three years before the Decedent died). In the letter of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated March 24, 1997 addressed to the Revenue District Officer of Revenue District No. 50, South Makati, she recognized that a property located in Banaba Street, Forbes Park (the “Banaba Property”) which was supposed to have been inherited by the Decedent from his first wife was sold in order to raise money to settle the estate tax due from the estate of Rosemarie T. De Toda, as well as to pay the mortgage on the said Banaba Property. [A copy of the letter was attached to their request.]

“Third, even with the best efforts of the co-administrators, the preparation of an inventory of the properties left by the Decedent could not readily be done. Aside from ascertaining the Decedent’s ownership of the properties, the co-administrators also had to ascertain the fair market value of these properties as of the date of the Decedent’s death, which proved to be an arduous task considering that the properties include shares of stock of relatively obscure companies that were not listed in the stock exchange (so that audited financial statements had to be obtained to establish the book value of the shares as of the date of the Decedent’s death) and disputed leasehold rights.

“(2)            The estate was not in a financial position to pay the estate tax due, after the inventory was completed and the fair market values of the properties, determined.   cdrep

“In fact, in order to settle the estate tax due on the estate of the Decedent’s first wife, the Banaba Property had to be sold, but only after the probate Court’s authority was secured pursuant to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 89, Rules of Court.”

that their request has been filed because the heirs have already reached a Compromise Agreement which has been approved by the probate court; and that a copy of the Order approving the Compromise Agreement was likewise submitted to this Office.

In reply, please be informed that under Section 83(b) and (c) of the Tax Code, as amended, estate tax return is required to be filed within six (6) months from the decedent’s death, and in meritorious cases, a reasonable extension not exceeding thirty (30) days for filing the return may be granted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The payment of the estate tax or any part thereof shall be made upon the filing of the return or on such date as fixed if an extension is granted by the Commissioner as when payment of the same would impose undue hardship on the estate or any of the heirs, but in no case to exceed five years if the estate is settled through the courts, or two years in case the estate is settled extrajudicially pursuant to Section 84 of the same Code. (BIR Ruling No. 106-96 dated October 15, 1996)   cdlex

In view thereof, considering that the preparation of the estate tax return was beset with difficulties after which payment cannot be effected due to financial constraints, your request for waiver of the surcharge on the estate tax due on the transmission of the estate of the late Benigno P. Toda, Jr. is hereby granted. However, it is reasonable that the interest must be paid to compensate for the concomitant use of the funds by the estate when it is supposed to have been paid. In this regard, you are requested to advise your client to pay the basic estate tax and the corresponding interest accruing thereon, if the same has not yet been paid on the date above requested or if the basic estate tax has been paid without the corresponding interest, to pay the interest which has accrued thereon.

This ruling is issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, and/or any of the requirements imposed in this letter are not complied with, then this ruling shall be considered null and void.   LLphil

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 042-80 (October 27, 1980)

123-a-3 065-79 42-80

Messrs. Bito, Misa & Lozada

P.O. Box 781

M a n i l a

Attention : Atty. Renato G. Calma

Gentlemen:

This refers to your letter dated November 15, 1979 seeking confirmation of your opinion that the donation made on January 25, 1977 by your client, Faith Academy, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, to Christian Education Assistance Foundation, Inc., of three (3) parcels of land in Antipolo and Cainta, Rizal for exclusive use as a place to aid, assist, guide, promote and encourage Christian education is exempt from donor’s tax, pursuant to Section 123(a)(3) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended.

It appears that Christian Education Assistance Foundation, Inc., is a non-profit, non-stock educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, that it is a non-stock entity, paying no dividends, governed by trustees who receive no compensation, and devoting all its income, to the accomplishment, promotion, and furtherance of the purposes and activities enumerated in its Articles of Incorporation.

In reply, please be informed that since the donee, Christian Education Assistance Foundation, Inc., in whose favor, your client, Faith Academy, donated three parcels of land is a non-profit educational institution, the said donation is exempt from the payment of donor’s (gift) tax, pursuant to Section 123(a)(3) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, subject to the condition that not more than 30% of said gifts are used for administration purposes. cdti

Very truly yours,

ROMULO M. VILLA

Acting Commissioner

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 021-98 (February 19, 1998)

000-00-021-98

Mr. Mariano B. Padilla

141 Fort Santiago St.,

Bago-Bantay

Quezon City

S i r :

This refers to your letter dated September 5, 1997 requesting, in effect, for a ruling that the transfer without consideration of one-half (½) portion of five (5) parcels of land by virtue of the Deed of Transfer executed by and between a trustee and a trustor is exempt from taxes.

Documents submitted to this Office disclosed that Mr. Mariano B. Padilla and the late Roy B. Padilla, Sr. are the registered owners of five (5) parcels of land located in Plaridel, Bulacan, more particularly described as follows:   

Property            TCT No.            Area            Registry of Deeds

Land            RT-20752(T-259737)            151 sq. m.            Province of Bulacan

Land            RT-20753(T-259738)            687 sq. m.            Province of Bulacan

Land            RT-20754(T-259739)            688 sq. m.            Province of Bulacan

Land            RT-20755(T-259740)            680 sq. m.            Province of Bulacan

Land            RT-20756(T-259741)            687 sq. m.            Province of Bulacan

that prior to their acquisition, Mr. Mariano B. Padilla and the late Roy B. Padilla, Sr. have agreed by themselves that they would buy said properties in equal shares; that the latter would become the trustee of one-half (½) portion of the above-mentioned properties; that in 1987, before the death of Mr. Roy B. Padilla, he withdrew his becoming a trustee of said properties for his failure to give his share appertaining to him, i.e., not a single centavo was ever contributed to pay the one-half (½) share due from him; that on June 27, 1997, the administrator for and in behalf of the late Roy B. Padilla, received from Mr. Mariano B. Padilla a letter claiming that he is the sole and exclusive owner of the aforesaid properties; that on July 22, 1997, a Deed of Transfer was executed by and between the Estate of Roy B. Padilla, Sr. represented by the Legal Administrator, Mr. Roberto A. Padilla, in favor of Mr. Mariano B. Padilla; that in an Order dated July 16, 1997 entitled “In the Matter of the Petition for Judicial Settlement of the Estate left by the Honorable Judge Gregorio E. Manio, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch No. 40, Daet, Camarines Norte, it was ruled as follows:   

“xxx                    xxx                    xxx

(more…)

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 011-86 (February 18, 1986)

091-b 000-00 011-86

Gentlemen:

This refers to your letter dated December 6, 1985 requesting a ruling for and in behalf of your clients, the heirs of the late Lim Boon Hai, as to the valuation for estate tax purposes, of certain shares of stock of the following companies, viz: cda

“a)            Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, (suspended)

“b)            Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corp. (suspended)

“c)            Philippine Iron Mines, Inc. (delisted)

“d)            Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP-B) (no transaction)”

In reply, please be informed that pursuant to Section 91 (b) (formerly Section 103) of the Tax Code as amended, for estate tax purposes, the value of every item of property includible in the gross estate is the fair market value thereof at the time of the decedent’s death. However, shares of stock which had been either suspended, delisted or where no transactions involving them have been made, shall be valued at their book value nearest the valuation date which in this case, is the date of descendents death. Said book value shall be prima facie considered as their fair market value. If there have been previous bona fide sales/exchanges of such shares, the price at which such shares exchanged hands should be taken or considered as their fair market value. The shares of stock of Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank which, as represented, had been found insolvent and presently under liquidation, may be given a zero valuation for estate tax purposes. In other words, should the said shares later on appreciate in value and are subsequently sold or disposed, for tax purposes, their cost basis shall be zero.

Be that as it may, the valuation given to every item of property included in the gross estate of the decedent shall be subject to verification by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. cdtech

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RUBEN B. ANCHETA

Acting Commissioner

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 009-99 (January 22, 1999)

86(A)-000-00-009-99

Mr. Pepito A. Gonzales

Certified Public Accountant

2895 Benita Street

Tondo, Manila

S i r :

This refers to your letter dated November 19, 1998, requesting for a ruling to the effect that all items enumerated in Section 86(A) of the Tax Code of 1997 are allowable as deductions from the value of the gross estate of a resident decedent, in computing the net estate upon which the estate tax shall be due.   cdasia

Section 86(A) of the Tax Code of 1997 enumerates the allowable deductions in computing the net estate of a deceased resident or citizen, to wit:

1.            Expenses, Losses, Indebtedness, and Taxes - . . .;

2.            Property Previously Taxed - . . .;

3.            Transfers for Public Use - . . .;

4.            The Home - . . .;

5.            Standard Deduction - . . .;

6.            Medical Expenses and - . . .; and

7.            Amount Received by Heirs under Republic Act No. 4917 - . . .

In reply, please be informed that when the provisions of a law contain an enumeration of things, the enumeration shall be construed in the sense of “mentioned,” “indicated,” “referred to,” or “authorized.” (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 14A, p. 415). The interpretation that must prevail, therefore is, that the above enumerated items are separate and distinct items, independent of each other. As such, the above enumerated items are properly authorized by law to be deducted as independent, separate and distinct items of deduction, which may properly be deducted from the gross estate of a resident decedent, subject to the limitations or conditions that are provided for under each said item above.   cdasia

Clearly, therefore, it is not a requirement of the law, that the amounts computed, corresponding to the other remaining items in the enumeration (namely #s1-4 and 6-7 of Section 86(A) of the Tax Code of 1997), be included in the standard deduction, in #5 above, which will limit the entire deduction to the amount of the said item, amounting to One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). This interpretation is certainly contrary to the intention of the law.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) BEETHOVEN L. RUALO

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Add comment

BIR Ruling No. 003-80 (Aug. 25, 1980)

030-a 000-00 03-80

Wack Wack Golf and Country Club

Mandaluyong, Manila

Attention : Mr. Eduardo C . Lim

Director-Corporate Secretary

Gentlemen:

This refers to your letter dated August 14, 1980 requesting a ruling on the tax consequences of the Corporate Hole Sponsorship Scheme adopted by that Corporation per its Resolution approved on March 30, 1980. cdphil

You have represented that under this Scheme, you are authorized to solicit from selected private corporations specific amounts at P250,000.00 per hole for the so-called TV holes of which there are nine (9) holes in the East course and at P200,000.00 per hole for the remaining nine (9) holes of the East Course; that the amounts raised under this Scheme will be used for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Club; and that each hole shall be named after the paying corporation or a product which it will specify.

You also stated that in exchange for the amount paid, the paying corporation can advertise its name, business or product not only on the green of the hole for which payment was made but also on the teeing area of the said hole, aside from advertisements in official documents and communications and during televised tournaments. Such privileges to advertise can be made by the paying corporation for ten (10) years, renewable upon mutual agreement of both parties.

In reply, I have the honor to inform you that, under the foregoing facts, the payments to be made by the paying corporations constitute advertising and business promotion costs. They are included in business expenses; hence deductible from gross income. (Sec. 65, Revenue Regulations No. 2)

“Both advertising and business promotion costs can be deducted currently, even though the business benefit which they generate may extend over a period beyond the year in which they are incurred or paid.” (34 Am. Jur. 2d, 1976 Ed., p. 380) In other words, therefore, the paying corporations can claim the whole amount as deductible from gross income during the year payment was made even if the business benefit they will derive therefrom will extend for a period of ten (10) years.

The paying corporation is not subject to the donor’s gift tax or to any tax liability, since its payment does not constitute a gift to that Club. cdpr

Very truly yours,

TOMAS C. TOLEDO

Acting Commissioner

Add comment

Beauty

Its been a while that I really took the time to wrote (and not copy-paste my posts).  Im a very busy person I must say.  I’ve been trying to juggle things in my hand for the past 2 years.  I don’t know if its worth the time, or is it just because I don’t have anything to do with my life, or am I just a masochist.  But I’ve managed so far and I’m  happy.  Most people who know me are often amazed on how I manage things and my time.  If only I can survive without food and sleep I’d probably be doing that now.

I love to stretch myself to the limit.  It gives a feeling of worthiness and excitement.  As a recent fellow once said, we must bend ourselves just a notch below the breaking point.  Because that’s where everything looks and feels good.  Its like ecstasy.  Imagine having to clean a super messy room that’s estimated to last for a week or so and you managed to do that for a day.  That’s the feeling!  Its like the gushing cold wind on your face on a summer day.

But life is beautiful and full of surprises; not a single creature was made perfect.  Behind the success stories of every person lies some bunch of failures, heartaches, and pain.  I guess that’s the secret behind success.  Successful people had a lot of baggage in their past which they tried to overcome and they did.  And so they are happy, even when bad times come.  It is because they get to appreciate all things that come their way, whether good or bad.

I realize today that nobody is perfect.  Its a cliche i know but only a few really understood its meaning.  Imagine flying so so high and having almost the best experience of your lifetime, when suddenly, a very tiny dirt catches your eye and you stumble down, so so down.  It is very painful at start, but once you get used to it, or when you experienced at least one really hard blow, then you’re sure to survive other blows easily.  You can surpass any challenge that will come your way.  Soon enough you’ll see yourself smiling and accepting hardships, knowing its a sign for another lesson in life.

What’s most important at the end of it all is that you should learn to stand up and fight again.  Not aiming for revenge, nor to prove yourself right to other people, but just for the sake of fighting and hoping you’ll soon overcome the challenge, to advance to the next level.  I guess that’s the beauty of life.  One simply has to live with no specific plans but simply living.

I am glad to have lived and loved.  Thank you to all who have loved me as well.  You’re beautiful!

Add comment

THE PSE EXPERIENCE

I began the first half of my summer internship program with the Philippine Stock Exchange (the “PSE”) last April 13, 2009.  While waiting for task assignment here at EMSAVVIL, I want to share my adventures and how I got in to the PSE.

Well, as planned, I distributed my resume all over Tektite and other law firms, outside Tektite, which I personally consider as good offices.  Luckily, I was invited for interview on prestigious law offices like the “Puno and Puno Law Office”, “Maceda and Maceda Law Office”, “VGS Law Firm”, and of course the PSE (Note: EMSAVVIL is another story).  I experienced the longest interview at the PSE.  I was there 7am for an 8am interview.  I had to fill up a long questionaire and an essay, which took me up to 10am to finish.  I then waited for the interview until 11am and finished with the interview by around 1:30pm.  Its good thing that it was a Monday and I had no work at the office that day.

And so I got accepted and began work.  At first, I have to admit I had a bad impression of the place because during my interview, I got to meet only one person from PSE, namely Atty. Banaag (who was very kind by the way).  The rest that I saw at that time are but ‘old chinese men walking in and out of the trading floor’, who I later learned were brokers.  So I had an impression that PSE people are old, boring, etc. (which I later proved to be wrong)

As the days passed by, I realized how lucky I am for being given the opportunity to get good training from a good office.  I also met there Sheelah, my co-intern in the Office of the General Counsel (”OGC”).  We were trained to do the practical side of the legal profession.  We made position papers, re-draft contracts, revised rules, etc.  We also met a lot of different people in the profession and even went to the Senate and Congress.

As Atty. Refran (our Supervising Attorney) told us, we could never get the same experience anywhere else.  PSE offers not just legal experience but even that of quasi-administrative powers.  And the most special moment at the PSE is of course our bonding moments with Atty. Refran, Atty. Varvs, Sir Dennis, Ate Mavel, and many other people who visits us at the floor.

I have personal favorites in the PSE experience too.  First is the visit to the Senate.  It was my first time to go to the Senate so it was very exciting and I enjoyed it very much.  And also, the drafting of a contract with PSE.  There is this specific contract between PSE and a broadcasting company and I handled the revision of the other party’s proposal contract until its finalization.  The biggest thing there is that they had the contract signing at my last day and it was a big event, I must say.  We had TV coverage for the signing and even the ringing of the bell in the trading floor (it was a symbolic act for traders).  Its like the fireworks for the end of my internship program.

As a summary, I super enjoyed my stay at the PSE and I miss them already.  Hope to see everyone soon at Sir Dennis’ treat for lunch.

Add comment