Balbás Peña v. Tax Court

73 P.R. 235
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedMarch 21, 1952
DocketNo. 265
StatusPublished

This text of 73 P.R. 235 (Balbás Peña v. Tax Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Balbás Peña v. Tax Court, 73 P.R. 235 (prsupreme 1952).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Snyder

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Doña Lorenza Peña Vda. de Balbás died in 1949. Pursuant to § 5 of Act No. 99 of 1925, (Sess. Laws, p. 790) as amended by Act No. 303, Laws of Puerto Rico, 1946, p. 782, the petitioner, the successor in interest of the decedent, notified the Treasurer of the amount, value and description of the estate of the deceased. On May 9, 1950 the Treasurer notified the petitioner of an inheritance tax amounting to $52,016.57 based on a valuation of the estate of $184,161.13. The Treasurer granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, and after a hearing notified the latter on October 24, 1950 of a tax of $49,885.12 based on a valuation of $177,100.35.

On November 24, 1950 the petitioner filed a complaint in the Tax Court alleging in detail that the various items of property in the estate were worth less than the valuation thereof fixed by the Treasurer. The latter moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayer had failed to pay that part of the tax to which the taxpayer agrees as provided in § 2-A (4) of Act No. 235, Laws of Puerto Rico, 1949, p. 732.1 The [237]*237Tax Court granted the motion to dismiss and we issued certiorari to review its decision.

The taxpayer does not contend that no tax is due. It is obvious from the face of his complaint that the only purpose of his suit is to reduce the tax by establishing a valuation of the estate lower than that fixed by the Treasurer. It is therefore incumbent upon him, as required by the clear terms of § 2-A(4), to indicate his view as to what the property in the estate is worth, to make the corresponding mathematical calculation of the tax on that basis, and to pay it as that part of the tax to which he agrees. His failure to do this in the instant case prevented the Tax Court from acquiring jurisdiction. We need only add that ■§ 2-A(4) is merely a restatement of the previously existing law in this respect, Del Toro v. Tax Court, 65 P.R.R. 58.

The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 P.R. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balbas-pena-v-tax-court-prsupreme-1952.