Powered by Blogger.

About this blog

These are all original case digests or case briefs done while the author was studying law school in the Philippines.

Hopefully these digested cases will help you get a good grasp of the salient facts and rulings of the Supreme Court in order to have a better understanding of Philippine Jurisprudence.

Please forgive any typo/grammatical errors as these were done while trying to keep up with the hectic demands brought about by the study of law.

God bless!

UPDATE:
Since the author is now a lawyer, this blog will now include templates of Philippine legal forms for your easy reference. This blog will be updated daily.

Thank you for the almost 500k views :)

Translate to your language

P.S.

If this blog post as helped you in any way, kindly click on any of the blog sponsors' advertisements. It won't cost you a thing. This would help tremendously.

Thank you for your time.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Wells Fargo Union & Trust Company v CIR (1940)


Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company v CIR GR No L-46720, June 28, 1940

FACTS:
Birdie Lillian Eye died on September 16, 1932 at Los Angeles, California, the place of her alleged last residence and domicile. Among the properties she left was her
1⁄2 conjugal shares of stock in the Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., an anonymous partnership, organized under the laws of the Philippines. She left a will duly admitted to probate in California where her estate was administered and settled. Wells Fargo was the duly appointed trustee. The Federal and California State’s inheritance taxes due thereon have been duly paid. The Collector of Internal Revenue in the Philippines, however, sought to subject the shares of stock to inheritance tax, to which Wells Fargo objected.

ISSUE:
Whether the shares of stock are subject to Philippine inheritance tax


RULING:
Yes. Originally, the settled law in the United States is that intangibles have only one situs for the purpose of inheritance tax, and such situs is in the domicile of the decedent at the time of his or her death. But the rule has been relaxed.

The maxim “mobilia sequuntur personam” up which the rule rests, has been decried as a mere fiction of law having its origin in considerations of general convenience and public policy and cannot be applied to limit or control the right of the state to tax properly within its jurisdiction and must yield to established fact of legal ownership, actual presence and control elsewhere, and cannot be applied if to do so would result in inescapable and patent injustice.
This rests on either of two fundamental considerations:
  1. (1)  Upon the recognition of the inherent power of each government to tax persons, properties and rights within its jurisdiction
    and enjoying, thus, the protect of its laws; and
  2. (2)  Upon the principle that as to intangibles, a single location in space is hardly possible, considering the multiple, distinct
    relationships which may be entered into with respect thereto.
Herein, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled therein. Accordingly the jurisdiction of the Philippine government to tax must be upheld. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Treat yourself