5-A was easy, and done normally by comparing the two amounts – the higher amount chosen
For 5-B however why was tax considerations and statutory allowance included why was the amount not found normally like in case of 5-A and then answer divided by 3
Stautuaory allowance is used because that amount of sum is tax deductible.
Children ke case mein after tax sabkuch pucha hai ..and forced hership rules ke hisab se they receive one third.
and there are 3 children, so uska bhi 1/3rd hoga for each child.
5A explicitly asks for before tax values.
5B makes no such mention. Hence, treated as is.
If 5A did not explicitly ask before tax values –
Then what process should have been followed ?
– same as 5B? – deducting statutory allowance – then finding estate tax amount – then deducting the amount to 16000000 in forced heirship – XYZ x 1/3
and (16000000 – 6000000) in community property – XYZ x 1/2
Or some other way?
In community property regime I believe the net amount receivable by the husband i.e., half of 16-6 should be subject to estate tax and an after tax value should be arrived at.
Note: The core does not give a deep dive understanding of these regimes and their specifics. So, it is unlikely that 5A would ask us to consider after-tax view. But if it comes then the above should be the way to treat it.