Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company vs. Collector of Internal Revenue.
G.R. No. 46720, June 28, 1940.
Birdie Lillian Eye died in Los Angeles, California, the place of her alleged last residence and domicile. Among the properties she left was 35,000 shares of stock in the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a Philippine corporation. Her will was duly admitted to probate in California. Wells Fargo was duly appointed trustee.
The CIR sought to subject the shares of stock to the Philippine inheritance tax.
Wells Fargo protested. It concedes that (a) the Philippine inheritance tax is not a tax on property, but upon transmission by inheritance and (b) intangibles, like the shares of stocks, their situs is in the domicile of the owner thereof, and, therefore, their transmission by death necessarily takes place under his domiciliary laws.
Whether the shares are subject to inheritance tax.
YES. The actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled therein. And besides, the certificates of stock have remained in this country up to the time when the deceased died in California, and they were in possession of one Syrena McKee, secretary of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, to whom they have been delivered and indorsed in blank.
The owner residing in California has extended here her activities with respect to her intangibles so as to avail herself of the protection and benefit of the Philippine laws. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government to tax must be upheld.
In the cases decided by the US Supreme Court sustained the power of each State to impose the tax. When the taxpayer extends his activities with respect to his intangibles, so as to avail himself of the protection and benefit of the laws of another state, in such a way as to bring his person or property within the reach of the tax gatherer there. It supports the constitutional power of each state concerned to tax.
Please check out our tags for more personal case digests!
abuse of rights Administrative Law Agency alteration Article 19 Article 26 of the Family Code article 36 Article 148 of the Family Code Article 153 of the Family Code Bill of Rights capacity to contract marriage Case Digest Chain of Custody Civil Code civil law Civil Procedure commercial law Company Policies Conflicts of Law Constitutional Law Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees Corporate Law court of appeals Credit Card Credit Transactions criminal law criminal procedure Different Kind Of Obligations dismissal divorce Donation Dreamwork easements ec2 Effect of Partial payment ejusdem generis Election Law Eminent Domain Employee’s Rights evidence Expropriation Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation family code family home Federico O Borromeo Inc Foreclosure foreign divorce forgery G.R. No. 107019 G.R. No. 119122 Government Service Insurance System Injunction instagram Insurable Interest Insurance Intellectual Property japan Judicial review Just Compensation L-26002 labor law Law School Local Government Code marriage NAIA Terminal 3 National Labor Relations Commission negotiable instrument Oblicon Obligation and Contracts Payment through Agent Persons and Family Relations Philippine Airlines Philippine Airlines Inc. Philippine Basketball Association Philippine citizenship Police power Political Law Ponente Premium Payment programming property Provisional Remedies Psychological Incapacity public officers R.S. Tomas Inc. Reinsurance Remedial Law Residence Rights to Security of Tenure and Due Process San Miguel Properties security Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers shrines Social justice Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations Succession Taxation Law temple tokyo TYPES of Employees