The Superior Court of Justice of Asturias has confirmed the liquidation of the Inheritance tax practiced to an heiress for an amount of 3,006 euros, considering that the funds of a bank account shared with the deceased’s sister came exclusively from the latter. In this way, the heiress will have to pay for 100% of the money in the bank account and not for 50% as they intended.
According to the April 2024 ruling, the deceased had a Cotitularity counts With his sister. At the time of his death, this account had a balance of 20,564.15 euros. After his death, the tax services of the Principality of Asturias initiated a limited verification procedure to determine the hereditary heritage
You may be interested
María Cristina Clemente, notary: “If you do not do testament, your in -laws will inherit part of your home even if you pay it between the two”
It is official: the new tax drop in the Community of Madrid that almost nobody knows and will save thousands of euros
The administration understood that, although the account was with two holders, the funds came exclusively from the deceased, since it had been proven that in the last year the only income corresponded to their pension.
Not in accordance with the liquidation, the heiress filed an economic-administrative claim before the Teara (Regional Economic-Administrative Court of Asturias), which also confirmed the liquidation.
That the account has two holders does not mean that the income corresponds to both
Exhausted the administrative route, the heiress went to the TSJ of Asturias that ruled out its arguments of co -cutterity, justifying that, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (STS February 15, 2013, Rec. 1693/2010), the mere co -cutterity of a bank account does not imply that the funds are distributed in equal parts, since the decisive origin is the real origin of the money.
In this case, tax services had proved that in the year prior to death, all income came from the deceased’s pension.
Therefore, it corresponded to the heiress to demonstrate the opposite in accordance with article 105.1 of the General Tax Law (LGT), which imposes on those who claim a right to prove the constitutive facts of the same.
In addition, the Court cited article 217.7 of the Civil Procedure Law (LEC), which forces the part that has more ease to obtain the evidence to present it. In this case, the heiress could have asked the bank for extracts or other documents to demonstrate income from the other holder, but did not.
Consequently, since no evidence was provided, the court confirmed that 100 % of the funds corresponded to the deceased and dismissed the appeal, confirming the liquidation of the tax services of the Principality. Despite this, the sentence was not signed, and against it it was possible to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.