047 CIR v Pineda

GR No L-22734, September 15, 1967

FACTS: BIR investigated the income tax liability of Anastacio Pineda’s estate for the years 1945, 1946,
1947, and 1948 and it found that the corresponding income tax return were not filed. This resulted to a
P760.28 deficiency income tax for 1945 and 1946 and real estate dealer’s fixed tax for the 4th quarter of
1946 and for the whole year 1947. Manuel Pineda, eldest son of Anastacio, received the assessment. He
contested the same alleging that only a proportionate part should be his liability. CTA ruled that Pineda
is liable only for taxes corresponding to his share in the estate. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether the Government can require Manuel Pineda to pay the full amount of the tax assessed

RULING: Yes. As a holder of property belonging to the estate, Pineda is liable for the tax up to the
amount of the property in his possession. The BIR is given the discretion to avail of the most expeditious
way to collect the tax. This is, of course, without prejudice to Pineda’s right of contribution for his co-
heirs. Put simply, the Supreme Court held that the rule on solidarity applies to taxes because it is not an
ordinary contract. Two persons liable for payment of estate tax:

1) Executor or administrator;
2) Heirs up to the extent of their inheritance.