Introducing the new identity of NSS.
One of the rarely discussed highlights of the “reconstruction law” is the temporary reduction—and simplification of the process—of inheritance and gift tax.
At NSS, we explain how it works and how much you can save, with figures, so you can start planning the intergenerational transfer of your wealth to your children, grandchildren, and other heirs.
The measure is contained in the First Transitional Article of the Bill for National Reconstruction, submitted on April 22, 2026.
Amidst dozens of tax, labor, and regulatory changes, this reduction goes almost unnoticed, yet it is one of the few that has a direct, quantifiable, and time-limited effect on family wealth.
If you own a business, real estate, or company shares that will one day pass to your children, it's worth understanding it now.
The bill allows for donations by paying only half of the tax stipulated by Law N° 16.271, on a one-time basis, without the judicial approval process, and within a period of one year counted from the first day of the month following the law's publication.
The benefit is reserved for donations to direct family members, and the process is now carried out by public deed before a notary.
In other words: the State opens a window to expedite the transfer of wealth that many families postpone for years, by cutting the cost in half and eliminating the slowest step in the process.
It is not a tax pardon or an amnesty; it is a time-limited incentive with demanding conditions that must be met collectively.
In Chile, gifting assets of a certain value during one's lifetime is subject to the same tax as the inheritance left upon death.
Both are governed by Law N° 16.271 on Inheritance, Bequest, and Gift Tax, and are administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
The logic is one of continuity: the system seeks to tax the gratuitous transfer of wealth, whether it occurs due to death or during one's lifetime.
That is why gifts and inheritances share the same progressive scale.
If gifts were not taxed, it would be enough to gift everything during one's lifetime to deplete the inheritance and avoid the tax; the law closes that loophole by treating both equally.
The tax is calculated on the net value received by each legatee or donee, valued according to articles 46, 46 bis, and 47 of the law.
From that value, the exempt amount corresponding to the relationship is first deducted, and the progressive scale is applied to the remainder.
It's worth clarifying a distinction that often causes confusion:
• For inheritances, allocations to spouses, ascendants, children, and their descendants are exempt up to 600 UTM, which is 50 UTA (approximately $42 million based on the May 2026 UTM).
• For donations, the exemption for these same relatives is only 60 UTM, equivalent to 5 UTA (approximately $4.2 million). This is a significant difference when planning: donating during one's lifetime does not benefit from the high inheritance exemption.
The following scale applies to the taxable value:
The “fixed deduction” is subtracted from the already calculated tax, so that the jump between tax brackets is gradual and not sudden.
Formula:
(taxable base in UTM × bracket rate) − fixed deduction
A surcharge is also applied to the result, depending on the relationship:
There's a cost to the current system that rarely comes up in conversation, and which in practice is what most discourages families: judicial authorization.
Donating valuable assets currently requires prior court authorization, as mandated by Article 1,401 of the Civil Code (and Articles 889 and 890 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
It's a voluntary proceeding that, depending on the court and its workload, typically takes between 6 and 12 months.
Added to this are fees, administrative procedures, and the uncertainty of a judicial process.
For many families, the mere fact of having to “go before a judge” to donate to a child ends up postponing the decision indefinitely.
The bill eliminates that step.
Donations eligible for the reduction are exempt from judicial authorization and are formalized through a public deed before a notary.
The process changes from being judicial, slow, and unpredictable, to being notarial, fast, and with known timelines.
That simplification, on its own, already changes the equation for those who were hesitant.
The first condition of the benefit is better understood by knowing how Chilean law distributes an inheritance.
The Civil Code does not leave a person's estate entirely to their will: it reserves a portion for certain relatives, known as forced heirship portions.
The estate is broadly divided into three parts.
The legitimate half belongs to the forced heirs—children, ascendants, and spouse—and is distributed among them according to legal rules.
The quarter of betterment can be allocated, with some discretion, among descendants, ascendants, and the spouse: it serves to favor one over another within that group.
The freely disposable quarter is the only portion that the deceased can leave to anyone, within or outside the family.
The project's condition mirrors that structure.
By requiring that 50% go to the forced heirs and 25% to beneficiaries of the quarter of betterment, the reduction is reserved for donations that respect the forced heirship portions.
In practice, the State says:
I'm helping you expedite what would have remained in your family anyway, not to divert assets elsewhere.
That's why a donation to the freely disposable quarter—to a third party—is excluded from the benefit.
The benefit is not universal.
The project stipulates four requirements that apply together:
if one is not met, the donation is taxed at the full rate.
At least 50% of the donated value must go to the donor's forced heirs—children, spouse, ascendants—in the proportions specified in Title V of Book Three of the Civil Code.
At least an additional 25% must go to one or more beneficiaries of the quarter of betterment.
The remaining 25% is distributed freely, but only among those same individuals.
The consequence is clear:
a donation to a third party outside that circle—a friend, an unmarried partner, a foundation—does not entitle one to the reduction.
The incentive is designed for family transfers, not for general gratuitous transfers.
The total amount donated under this scheme cannot exceed 50% of the donor's assets, valued according to articles 46 and 46 bis of Law No. 16,271, considering their value as of the tax declaration date.
The limit protects the donor from losing capital and safeguards their creditors.
You cannot give away your entire estate at a discount and be left without assets.
The amount of the assets, the existence of forced heirs and beneficiaries of the fourth of improvements, and the proportion of each are attested to by a sworn declaration from the donor.
It can be included in the same deed of donation and must be submitted to the SII.
The donation is granted by public deed signed within one year, counted from the first day of the month following the publication of the law.
Subsequent registry registrations—such as a property in the Land Registry or company shares in the Commercial Registry—can be carried out after the deadline has passed.
What's important for the benefit is the date of the deed.
Not the registration.
If the donee sells the asset within 3 years following the deed, their tax cost will be the same as the donor's.
Not that of the donation.
This rule prevents using this reduction to artificially inflate an asset's tax cost and then sell it paying less tax.
The valuation is not a minor detail.
It defines:
The law establishes specific rules in articles 46 and 46 bis of Law No. 16,271.
Not just any value can be declared.
Real estate is generally valued according to its current tax appraisal.
Often, that value is below market value.
That works in the donor's favor.
Shares and social rights are valued according to rules that consider current value or book value.
In companies with retained earnings or revalued assets, that number can be high.
Cash and financial instruments are valued at nominal or market value.
Two practical consequences:
First: a company stake may require financial statements or technical reports.
Second: the SII may review the declared valuation.
Undervaluing to pay less is exactly what the Service will seek to audit.
The process is notarized and much faster than a traditional donation.
Compared to the 6 to 12 months for a judicial insinuation, this path can be completed in weeks.
When shares or partnership interests are donated, a practical problem arises:
the donee receives an asset, not cash.
And often, they don't have the liquidity to pay the tax.
The bill allows this payment to be financed through:
The financing can come from the donated company itself or its related entities.
The key:
normally, this could activate Article 21 of the Income Tax Law.
That is:
the famous 40% penalty tax.
But the bill expressly excludes that taxation.
This makes it viable to donate company shares without additional tax penalty.
There's a point that's often overlooked and can change the entire operation:
the donor's marital property regime.
It's not the same to donate while married under:
Under community property, many assets form part of a common estate whose administration has its own rules.
Donating community assets may require the other spouse's consent.
Under separate property, each spouse disposes of their assets with greater freedom.
Under participation in gains, the donation can affect future calculations of the regime.
Furthermore, the proposal adds a unique feature:
the donation to the spouse under this provision is irrevocable.
Under common law, donations between spouses can usually be revoked.
Not here.
Once made, it is definitive.
This requires it to be seen as a permanent financial decision.
This is one of the most technical points.
And one of the most important.
Law No. 16,271 has an accumulation rule:
Lifetime gifts made to legal heirs are added to the estate upon the donor's death.
This prevents someone from depleting their assets during their lifetime and leaving an artificially tax-free inheritance.
So:
what happens if that gift only paid half the tax?
The bill addresses this.
For future inheritance purposes, the full tax is considered paid.
Not the reduced amount.
Example:
For the future inheritance:
the system recognizes $20 million as credit.
It does not recalculate from scratch.
It does not charge double.
The real savings are captured today.
Let's take a specific case.
A father wants to transfer a company stake valued at:
$500,000,000
To two children.
In equal parts.
Each receives:
$250,000,000
The kinship is direct.
Therefore:
0% surcharge.
Each child is taxed separately.
The corresponding exemption is deducted.
And the result is:
The figure is surprising.
On $500 million, the effective tax is not brutal because the scale is progressive.
Furthermore, distributing among several legitimate heirs further reduces the burden.
The effective rate:
Where the reduction becomes truly powerful is with large and concentrated assets.
Example:
a family business valued at:
$2,000,000,000
donated to a single child.
In that case, the savings are no longer measured in mere millions.
It is measured in:
hundreds of millions of pesos.
And furthermore:
Another important example.
Let's assume a property:
The tax is calculated based on the appraisal.
Not based on the commercial price.
The difference isn't a gimmick.
It's simply the legal valuation rule.
That's why the correct appraisal can significantly impact the outcome.
The analysis isn't just tax-related.
It also involves assets and family.
Expediting the transfer can:
But it's not always advisable.
Gifting means parting with assets.
And the 50% limit exists precisely to prevent capital depletion.
The window is an opportunity.
Not an obligation.
The sworn statement is binding.
The SII may review:
Additionally:
It's not a tax pardon.
It's an early collection tool.
According to DIPRES:
The objective:
to accelerate donations that would likely happen anyway.
In return:
the State collects earlier.
And families get a real reduction.
That's why the window only lasts one year.
It's advisable to prepare:
The main risk lies in improvising.
Not in the signing.
Chile does not usually offer benefits of this magnitude for donations.
This is not a sign of permanent easing.
It is a temporary regulation.
One-time.
Conditional.
And likely unrepeatable.
Waiting for a "better time" could mean missing out.
The project was submitted on:
April 22, 2026
It has already moved from the House to the Senate.
Once published:
the one-year period begins.
But preparing:
can take weeks.
Planning should start sooner.
From the first day of the month following the official publication.
No.
Only to forced heirs and beneficiaries of the fourth of improvements.
60 UTM.
Not 600 UTM.
No.
Only a public deed.
Yes.
However, within 3 years, the original tax basis is maintained.
With:
Without triggering a penalty tax.
Not doubly.
Savings materialize today.
On its tax appraisal value.
Not market value.
No.
Up to 50%.
It depends on the case.
Examples from the post: