2013 (Taxation) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 5

[Discuss/answer the question below. Or see Taxation Instructions; Taxation Essay Questions: 12, 3, 46, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Taxation Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


Mr. Agustin, 75 years old and suffering from an incurable disease, decided to sell for valuable and sufficient consideration a house and lot to his son He died one year later.

In the statement of Mr. Agustin’s estate, the BIR argued that the house and lot were transferred in contemplation of death and should therefore form part of the gross estate for estate tax purposes.

Is the BIR correct? (7%)


    1. Yes din naisagot ko dito pero di ko tlga alam bakit, jedi may citation ka ba ng sinasabi mo na new rulings? Although yung sabi ni peaceout tlga ang nabasa ko sa codal ngayon.

  1. ako i answered no because there was a bonafide sale for a valuable and sufficient consideration so it would fall under the exception sa transfer in contemplation of death. i just stick with the codal provision. but then again, we are still at the mercy of the bar examiner.

  2. Ano po ang legal basis dito? Sabi ko kasi it was not a transfer in contemplation of death dahil it was sold for valuable and sufficient consideration. It shall be treated as an ordinary sale of real property subject to capital gains tax. Hehe. Hula hula.

  3. the 1 year period or previously the three year period is not anymore prevailing. no restriction na ngayon kahit di pa sya mamatay within the 1 yr.period. according sa tax professor namin na nakabase sa new ruling.hehe

  4. died or survived.in this case.YES. kahit na for valuable and sufficient consideration.hehe.but my answer needs confirmation still.the examiner is the final arbiter

  5. pardon me jedi pero hindi ko nagets. hehe hindi ko na kasi kinonsider yung one year na date precisely because it was supposed to be a transfer in contemplations of death but because there was a sale for a valuable and sufficient consideration that was made, it would fall under the exception. so, hindi siya included sa gross estate nung deceased. if you dont mind, natatandaan mo pa ba yung case title nung ruling? thanks. 🙂

    1. ako din ordinary sale. dahil sa valuable & sufficient consideration. ung “valuable and sufficient consideration” (the amount paid, for example) ang isali sa gross estate, not the house & lot. opinion ko lang, un kasi ang sagot ko haha 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *