LUIS W. DISON vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR., COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Facts:
Luis W. Dison, the plaintiff and appellant, instituted a legal action against Juan Posadas, Jr., the then Collector of Internal Revenue, seeking the recovery of an inheritance tax payment amounting to P2,808.73 which he paid under protest. Dison claimed that the tax imposed was illegal because he acquired the property in question from his father, Felix Dison, through a deed of gift inter vivos (a gift between living persons) before Felix’s death, which was duly accepted and registered.
The Collector of Internal Revenue responded with a general denial and a counterclaim for an unpaid balance of P1,254.56 related to the tax. Dison denied the counterclaim. At trial, the lower court dismissed the government’s counterclaim for lack of evidence. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, but the case regarding the counterclaim was dismissed upon a motion from the Attorney-General.
The evidence presented during the trial primarily consisted of the tax payment and the deed of gift executed on April 9, 1928, by Felix Dison, which transferred twenty-two tracts of land to his son, Luis W. Dison, reserving life usufruct on three of the tracts for Felix. The acceptance of this gift took place just days before Felix Dison passed away on April 21, 1928.
Issues:
The central issue revolves around whether section 1540 of the Administrative Code subjects Luis W. Dison to an inheritance tax for the property he received through a gift inter vivos from his father. Key questions included whether the gift was genuinely inter vivos or a means to evade inheritance tax, and whether the contention that no tax was due because the property was not received as an “inheritance” had merit.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, rejecting the appellant’s view that the conveyance was a pure gift unrelated to inheritance. It held that the facts warranted the inference that the transfer was an advancement on the inheritance the donee would be entitled to upon the donor’s death. The tax assessment by the Collector of Internal Revenue was deemed proper under section 1540 of the Administrative Code.
Doctrine:
The doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court in this case clarifies that under section 1540 of the Administrative Code, property transfers that are essentially advances on an expected inheritance are subject to inheritance tax.
Class Notes:
– A deed of gift inter vivos is considered an advancement on an inheritance if the recipient is a forced heir.
– Section 1540 of the Administrative Code does not tax gifts per se, but when those gifts are to those who shall prove to be heirs, devisees, legatees, or donees mortis causa of the donor.
Historical Background:
This case is historically significant as it provides judicial interpretation of the inheritance tax laws during the American colonial period in the Philippines. The resolution of this case has become a pertinent reference for the application of inheritance tax to transactions strategically executed to resemble gifts but, in reality, serve as advancements on an inheritance to circumvent tax obligations. The incorporation of tax law principles and the Court’s assessment of the parties’ intentions during such transactions have continued relevance in tax jurisprudence.
Leave a Reply