2. Definition 3. Nature
4. Purpose or object
5. Time and transfer of properties Post-mortem dispositions typically –
(1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive;
(2) That before the [donor’s] death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will,
ad nutum
; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed;
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee;
[4] [T]he specification in a deed of the causes whereby the act may be revoked by the donor indicates that the donation is
inter vivos
, rather than a dispositionmortis causa
;
[5] That the designation of the donation as
mortis causa
, or a provision in the deed to the effect that the donation is “to take effect at the death of the donor”are not controlling criteria; such statements are to be construed together with the rest of the instrument, in order to give effect to the real intent of the transferor; and
(6) That in case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed donation
inter vivos
rather thanmortis causa
, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.(GONZALO VILLANUEVA vs. SPOUSES FROILAN, G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011)
The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of
mortis causa,
which should be embodied in a will. In this case, the monies subject of savings account were in the nature of conjugal funds. In the case relied on,Rivera v. People's Bank and Trust Co.,
we rejected claims that a survivorship agreement purports to deliver one party's separate properties in favor of the other, but simply, their joint holdings.(ROMARICO G. VITUG vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA, G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990)
But although the survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law its operation or effect may be violative of the law. For instance, if it be shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legitime of a forced heir, it may be assailed and annulled upon such grounds.
(ROMARICO G. VITUG vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROWENA
FAUSTINO-CORONA, G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990)
6. Classification of decedent
7. Gross estate vis-à-vis net estate
8. Determination of gross estate and net estate 9. Composition of gross estate
10. Items to be included in gross estate 11. Deductions from estate
As held in
Propstra v. U.S.
, where a lien claimed against the estate was certain and enforceable on the date of the decedent's death, the fact that the claimant subsequently settled for lesser amount did not preclude the estate from deducting the entire amount of the claim for estate tax purposes. These pronouncements essentially confirm the general principle that post-death developments are not material in determining the amount of the deduction.(RAFAEL ARSENIO S. DIZON vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008)
We express our agreement with the date-of-death valuation rule. There is no law, nor do we discern any legislative intent in our tax laws, which disregards the date-of-death valuation principle and particularly provides that post-death developments must be considered in determining the net value of the 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.(RAFAEL ARSENIO S.
DIZON vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008)
Such construction finds relevance and consistency 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 the basis of, the determination of allowable deductions.(RAFAEL ARSENIO S. DIZON vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008)
Administration expenses, as an allowable deduction from the gross estate of the decedent for purposes of arriving at the value of the net estate, have been construed by the federal and state courts of the United States to include all expenses "essential to the collection of the assets, payment of debts or the distribution of the property to the persons entitled to it." In other words, the expenses must be essential to the proper settlement of the estate and expenditures incurred for the individual benefit of the heirs, devisees or legatees are not deductible.
(COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
123206, March 22, 2000)
Thus, in
Lorenzo v
.Posadas
, the Court construed the phrase "judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings" as not including the compensation paid to a trustee of the decedent's estate when it appeared that such trustee was appointed for the purpose of managing the decedent's real estate for the benefit of the testamentary heir. In another case, the Court disallowed the premiums paid on the bond filed by the administrator as an expense of administration since the giving of a bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office, and not necessary in the settlement of the estate. Neither may attorney's fees incident to litigation incurred by the heirs in asserting their respective rights be claimed as a deduction from thegross estate.
(COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
123206, March 22, 2000)
The notarial fee paid for the extrajudicial settlement is clearly a deductible expense since such settlement effected a distribution of Pedro Pajonar's estate to his lawful heirs. Similarly, the attorney's fees paid to PNB for acting as the guardian of Pedro Pajonar's property should also be considered as a deductible administration expense as PNB provided a detailed accounting of decedent's property and gave advice as to the proper settlement of the latter's estate, acts which contributed towards the collection of decedent's assets and the subsequent settlement of the estate.
(COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
123206, March 22, 2000)
12. Exclusions from estate13. Tax credit for estate taxes paid in a foreign country 14. Exemption of certain acquisitions and transmissions 15. Filing of notice of death
16. Estate tax return
C. Donor’s tax