The Superior Court of Justice of Asturias has partially estimated the appeal of an heiress that challenged a liquidation of the Inheritance tax in which he was required to pay for 100% of the balance of three bank accounts shared with his deceased mother. Justice has considered it proven that part of the money came from the daughter, so only 50% in the inheritance should be included.
According to the judgment of July 4, 2025, after the death of the mother in 2018, there were several shared accounts between mother and daughter with balances that together reached more than 150,000 euros. The Administration understood that, as the opposite was not demonstrated, the total balance corresponded to the deceased and had to pay entirely as part of the inheritance.
You may be interested
He draws 122,931.67 euros from his sister’s inheritance before he dies not to pay the inheritance tax and justice confirms that he cannot renounce her
A notary makes it clear: the deceased’s grandchildren do not inherit if his parents renounce the inheritance, except exceptions
The daughter, the only heiress, claimed that the money did not belong only to her mother. As he explained, the funds came in part of their own income, from an earlier inheritance of his father and other economic movements that he could justify. But the Regional Economic-Administrative Court of Asturias (Teara), dismissed its allegations, confirming that it would have to pay for 100% of the balance of the accounts.
The heiress contributed sufficient evidence that part of the money from the accounts was his
Exhausted the administrative route, the heiress went to the TSJ of Asturias, who examined whether he should pay for all the money or only on the one hand. The Court recalled that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (STS February 15, 2013, Rec. 1693/2010), the collection of an account does not necessarily imply a shared ownership of the balance, the real origin of the money entered being decisive.
In this case, the Court found that the heiress had submitted sufficient documentation to prove that part of the money came from its own income and the inheritance of its father, previously deceased. Therefore, the presumption that 100% of the balance corresponded to the deceased mother could not apply automatically.
In accordance with article 105.1 of the General Tax Law (LGT), it corresponded to the heiress to demonstrate its right, something that it fulfilled through banking documents, accounting movements and justifying of origin of the money. Likewise, the Court recalled article 217.7 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC), which imposes the probative burden on the most ease of providing the means of evidence, in this case the heiress, which did.
Consequently, having accredited the shared origin of the balance, the court partially annulled the liquidation and determined that only 50% of the money should be part of the hereditary flow. The rest was excluded from the tax base of the tax.
Despite this, the sentence was not firm, and against it it was possible to file a appeal before the Supreme Court or before the Chamber itself.