BIR Ruling [DA-048-98]

February 10, 1998 BIR RULING [DA-048-98] Mr. Pacifico V. Santiago 1469 V.E. Fugoso St. Sta. Cruz, Manila S i r : This refers to your letter dated December 1, 1997, requesting in behalf of the estate of your father, the late Jose D. Santiago, Sr., for extension of time within which to pay the estate tax due thereon. cdt It is represented that Jose D. Santiago, Sr. died on May 27, 1997; that you filed the estate tax return of the said decedent on November 24, 1997 but pressing financial difficulties and problems being experienced by the heirs prevent you and your co-heirs from paying the estate tax which has now become due and payable. In reply, please be informed that the payment of estate tax may be extended pursuant to Section 91 (B) of the Tax Code of 1997, which provides: " Extension of time . When the Commissioner finds that the payment on the due date of the estate tax or of any part thereof would impose undue hardship upon the estate or any of the heirs, he may extend the time for payment of such tax or any part thereof not to exceed five (5) years, in case the estate is settled through the courts, or two (2) years in case the estate is settled extrajudicially. In such case, the amount in respect of which the extension is granted shall be paid on or before the date of the expiration of the period of the extension, and the running of the Statute of Limitations for assessment as provided in Section 203 of this Code shall be suspended for the period of any such extension." In view of the above justifiable reasons, we hereby extend the payment of the estate tax of the deceased Jose D. Santiago Sr. up to six (6) months from date of this letter. It should be understood, however, that the estate shall be liable to the corresponding interest that have accrued thereon from the time when the tax became due up to the time when actual payment is made. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered null and void. Very truly yours, (SGD.) LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO Commissioner of Internal Revenue