Successions

The Supreme Court (SC) has confirmed that an heir loses the benefit of inventory if, after accepting the inheritance, they carry out dubious sales of assets linked to that inheritance, even if it is through companies. This case revolves around two brothers who accepted their father's inheritance with the benefit of inventory, that is, limiting their liability for debts to the inherited assets. However, soon the Tax Agency demanded payment of a multimillion-dollar debt that far exceeded the value of the inherited estate. The key issue is that a fundamental part of the estate consisted of practically all the shares of a company, which in turn owned real estate in Madrid. What the heirs did was that, from controlling that company, they sold and rented the real estate to another company – linked to the brother's wife – at prices well below market value and very advantageous conditions for the buyer and tenant. With this, the if, after accepting the inheritance, he makes questionable sales of assets linked to that inheritance, even through companies. This case revolves around two brothers who accepted the inheritance from his father with inventory benefit, that is, limiting his liability for debts to the inherited assets. However, soon the Tax Agency claimed payment of a multimillion dollar debt that far exceeded the value of the inherited estate.

The key point is that a fundamental part of the estate were practically all the shares of a company, which in turn had properties in Madrid. What the heirs did was, from the control of that company, sold and rented to another company –linked to the brother's wife– the properties at very below market value and very advantageous conditions for the buyer and tenant. With this, the actual value of the inheritance was significantly deflated, to the clear detriment of the Administration , which had a right to collect on that inheritance.

Although the defense tried to argue that the sale was made by the company and not by him as an heir, and that the law requires that the loss of the inventory benefit be interpreted very restrictively , the Supreme Court disagrees. It explains that a company cannot be emptied and the inherited asset decapitalized by using it as a front, even if formally the heir does not sell, in practice it is the same person who decides and benefits, harming the creditors (in this case, the Tax Office).

For the Supreme Court, the connection between all the implicated companies and the family members is clear, and there is a clear intention of self-benefit , so the penalty must be applied, which is that the heir loses the inventory benefit, and now will respond for the debts not only with what they inherit, but also with their own assets.

In disputes over inheritances, our professionals can advise you on the defense of your claims and rights.