Skip to main content

BIR Ruling [DA-431-00]

BIR Ruling [DA-431-00] • Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Issuances • Rulings (Unnumbered) • Dec 18, 2000

Full text

December 18, 2000 BIR RULING [DA-431-00] 91 (B) Mrs. Naresh S. Naraindas 1844 Ma. Lim Street Pasay City M a d a m : This refers to your letters dated August 21, 2000 and September 24, 2000 requesting for an extension of six (6) months within which to pay the estate tax due on the transmission of the estate of the late Rosario M. Saraza to her heirs pursuant to Section 91(B) of the Tax Code of 1997. SDECAI It is represented that the late Rosario M. Saraza died on February 26, 2000; that in as much as the majority of the heirs wanted to settle the estate tax as early as April, 2000, they were not able to do so because of a very serious dispute brought about by one of the heirs; that said situation created a problem within the family circle and rendered every move of the rest of the heirs at a stand still; and that the heirs are encountering financial setbacks, hence, they now need time to raise the necessary funds to pay for the estate tax. In reply, please be informed that in view of the aforementioned justifiable reasons, your request for an extension of six (6) months within which to pay the estate tax reckoned from August 26, 2000, is hereby granted without the corresponding surcharge and compromise penalties, pursuant to Section 91 of the Tax Code of 1997. However, it is understood that the estate of the late Rosario M. Saraza shall be liable to the corresponding interest that may have accrued up to the time of the payment of the estate tax. Moreover, the executor, or administrator, or beneficiary, as the case may be, is required to furnish a bond in such amount not exceeding double the amount of the tax and with such sureties the Commissioner deems necessary conditioned upon the payment of the estate tax in accordance with the terms of the extension. 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, Commissioner of Internal Revenue By: (SGD.) LILIAN B. HEFTI Deputy Commissioner Legal & Inspection Group

Ask what this means for your situation

The assistant quotes the passage it relies on and links the source, so you can check every figure it gives you.