[Direct answer]Generally, inheritance shares are equal, but there are exceptions. According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the inheritance shares of heirs in the same order shall generally be equal; for heirs who have special difficulties in living and lack working capacity, they shall be given preferential treatment in the distribution of inheritance; for heirs who have fulfilled their main support obligations to the decedent or lived with him/her, they may receive a larger share in the distribution; for heirs who have the ability and conditions to provide support but fail to fulfill their support obligations, they shall not receive any share or a smaller share in the distribution; if the heirs agree by negotiation, the distribution may also be unequal. Therefore, whether the inheritance shares are equal depends on the support situation, living conditions, and the results of the negotiation. The court will make a judgment based on the evidence as appropriate.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In the distribution of inheritance, the most common dispute is "why he gets more and I get less". Typical situations include: an heir who has lived with and cared for his parents for a long time, claiming a larger share; another heir who has the ability but has not paid attention to the family for many years, being claimed a smaller share or no share at all; heirs with vastly different living conditions, with the weaker party requesting care; and heirs who agree to distribute the inheritance according to different proportions. When courts in Beijing handle such cases, they usually first determine the basic share on an equal basis, and then adjust it according to the situation of support, living conditions, and negotiation.

II. Key points of dispute

First, the relationship between the principle of equality and the application of exceptions. Second, the standards and evidentiary requirements for determining whether the obligation of primary support has been fulfilled. Third, how to prove that a person with the ability to fulfill their obligations has failed to do so. Fourth, the determination of individuals who face exceptional difficulties in life and lack the ability to work. Fifth, the effectiveness and formal requirements of negotiating unequal arrangements. Sixth, the issue of offsetting the value of assets transferred by the decedent during their lifetime.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

In a will inheritance dispute handled by Henglue Lawyers, the decedent had previously drafted a self-written will, stipulating that the property be inherited by his spouse with the condition that the latter pay an agreed sum to his relatives. The parties disputed over the manner and deadline for executing the will. After accepting the case, the lawyer first provided evidence to prove that the self-written will was complete and legally valid, then submitted income certificates and property valuation reports to argue for a reasonable deadline for execution and proposed a "transfer of ownership first, deferred payment" scheme. Ultimately, the court ruled that the will was valid and adopted the phased execution arrangement. This case highlights that the implementation of inheritance arrangements requires evidence and solutions, and disputes over shares and execution methods often arise simultaneously. Regarding the shares of co-heirs in the same order of succession, Henglue Lawyers' practical experience is as follows: First, the basic rule is equality, and the party claiming a larger share or no share at all bears the burden of proof; Second, to prove "having fulfilled the main obligation of support", evidence can be organized from perspectives such as long-term cohabitation, daily care, medical accompaniment, and expense sharing, such as medical records, payment receipts, and testimonies from neighbors or the community; Third, to prove "having the ability but failing to fulfill obligations", materials on the other party's income and living conditions can be submitted, combined with the fact that they have been absent for a long time; Fourth, agreements reached through negotiation should be handled in accordance with the agreed terms, and it is recommended to form a written agreement and sign it to avoid regrets later; Fifth, if the decedent had already given away property before his death, the party claiming a deduction needs to provide evidence to prove that the nature of the transfer was an advance distribution of inheritance rather than a gift. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Yuan HangThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202110286151, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: First, sort out the scope of the inheritance and the number of heirs, and clarify the basic share; Second, gather evidence around the facts of support to form a timeline; Third, if you claim that the other party should receive a smaller share, collect evidence showing that they are capable but fail to fulfill their obligations; Fourth, if an unequal division is agreed upon, sign a written agreement and have it signed by both parties; Fifth, if offsetting is involved, fix the nature and purpose of the funds. For more details, please refer to the platform's services.Inheritance of property and division of family assets、Divorce litigation and family disputes、Property transactions and construction projects、Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementAndSpecial servicesLegal basis: Articles 1127, 1130, and 1132 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (all of which came into effect on January 1, 2021). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Firstly, equality is the principle. Both awarding more and awarding less require evidence to support them. It's hard to gain support just by talking about contributions. Secondly, fulfilling the main obligation of supporting and having the ability to support but failing to fulfill the obligation are the two key points for adjusting the share. Thirdly, negotiating unequal shares has legal effect, but it should be in writing and signed by all parties. Fourthly, the nature of the property given by the decedent before his death directly affects the calculation of the share. Fifthly, when it comes to indivisible property such as real estate, the dispute over the share needs to be designed together with the plan of discounting, joint ownership or forced sale to avoid difficulties in execution.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Do co-heirs in the same order of succession necessarily have to divide the inheritance equally?

In principle, the inheritance is divided equally, but there are legal exceptions. According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, those who have special difficulties in life and lack the ability to work may be taken care of. Those who fulfill the main obligation of supporting or living together with the deceased may receive a larger share, while those who have the ability but fail to fulfill their obligations should receive no or a smaller share. If the heirs agree by consensus, the inheritance may also be unequally divided.

Q2: Do those who live with their parents for a long time get more points?

This can be claimed. The heir who lives with the decedent and fulfills the main obligation of supporting him/her can receive a larger share of the inheritance when the estate is distributed. It is recommended to submit proof of cohabitation, records of daily care and medical accompaniment, proof of expense payment, and testimonies from neighbors and the community, in order to form a complete chain of evidence of support.

Q3: If the other party has money but doesn't support their parents, can we not give them any inheritance?

It can be claimed that the inheritance share should be reduced or not distributed at all. According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if an heir who has the ability and conditions to provide support fails to fulfill his or her obligation to provide support, the inheritance share should not be distributed or should be reduced when the inheritance is distributed. It is necessary to submit evidence that the other party has the ability to provide support and the factual materials showing that he or she has been absent and failed to fulfill his or her obligations for a long time. The court will make a comprehensive judgment based on these materials.

Q4: Is it valid for the heirs to negotiate and distribute the inheritance unequally among themselves?

It's effective. According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the heirs shall negotiate and handle the inheritance matters in the spirit of mutual understanding and harmony. If they agree on the distribution of the inheritance, it doesn't have to be equal. It is recommended to form a written agreement and sign it to avoid regrets and disputes in the future.

Q5: Should the money my parents gave me before they passed away be included in the share of inheritance?

It depends on the nature of the payment. If it is a gift from the decedent to the heir before the decedent's death, it is usually not subject to tax deduction. However, if it is deemed as an advance distribution of inheritance, it may be included in the calculation. The party claiming tax deduction should provide evidence of the nature and purpose of the payment, and it is recommended to keep materials such as transfer records and written explanations.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Inheritance legal services·Attorney Yuan Hang·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.