Sukat Evangelical Church

February 20, 2009 BIR RULING [DA-(DT-010) 115-09] DA 141-07 Sukat Evangelical Church Cor. Banawe, Banahaw Street Justina Village, Dr. A. Santos Avenue (Sucat Road), Paraaque City Attention: Mr. Ruben G. Bayhon Chairman Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated August 26, 2008 requesting for an opinion that the transfer of a parcel of land together with the improvements thereon by Spouses Victor C. Risma, Jr. and Luz L. Risma (Spouses Risma) in favor of the Sukat Evangelical Church is exempt from donor's tax pursuant to Section 101 (A) (3) of the Tax Code of 1997. DHIETc It is represented that the Sukat Evangelical Church is a non-stock, non-profit religious organization duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); that on the other hand, Spouses Risma are the absolute owner of a parcel of land together with the improvements thereon located at Barangay Paowin, Cavinti, Laguna under Tax Declaration No. 397; and that on June 4, 2008, a Deed of Donation was executed by Spouses Risma in favor of Sukat Evangelical Church involving the aforesaid property. In reply thereto, please be informed that inasmuch as the donee is a religious institution, the aforementioned donation is exempt from the payment of donor's tax pursuant to Section 101 (A) (3) of the Tax Code of 1997, subject to the condition that not more than 30% of the said gift shall be used for administration purposes. The Register of Deeds shall, however, annotate this condition at the back of the Transfer Certificate of Title because failure to comply with the said condition shall be a ground for the revocation of the donation pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the aforesaid Deed of Donation is not subject to the documentary stamp tax under Section 196, supra, but only to the documentary stamp tax of P15.00 imposed under Section 188 of the said Code. 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.) JAMES H. ROLDAN Assistant Commissioner Legal Service