Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts:
On May 23, 1945, Anastasio Pineda
died, survived by his wife and 15 children, the
eldest of whom is Atty. Manuel Pineda. Estate
proceedings were had in the CFI of Manila
resulting to the estate being divided among and
awarded to the heirs. Manuels share amounted
to about P 2,500.00.
After the estate proceedings were
closed, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
investigated the income tax liability of the estate
for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 and it
found that the corresponding income tax returns
were not filed. Thereupon, the representative of
the CIR issued the following assessments:
I. Deficiency Income Tax (1945, 1946,
1947) P 2,707.44
II. Additional Residence Tax for 1945 P
14.50
III. Real estate dealers tax for 4th qtr of
1946 and whole year 1947 P207.50
The assessment was contested by
Manuel Pineda. Thereafter, he appealed to the
CTA alleging that he was appealing only that
proportionate part or portion pertaining to him as
one of the heirs. Subsequently, the CTA
rendered judgment reversing the decision of the
CIR on the ground of prescription of his right to
assess and collect the aforementioned tax. On
appeal to the SC, the SC affirmed the ruling of
the CTA with respect to the assessment for the
year 1947 (income tax) but held that for the
years 1945 and 1946, the action for assessment
and collection has not yet prescribed.
Accordingly, the SC remanded the case to the
CTA for further appropriate proceedings.
Facts:
Algue, Inc., a domestic corporation
engaged in engineering, construction and other
allied activities, received a letter from petitioner
that it has delinquency taxes for the years 1958
and 1959. Algue filed a letter of protest, through
its counsel Atty. Guevara, Jr.. A warrant of
distraint and levy was issued by CIR, however
counsel refused to receive it on the ground of
pending protest. The letter of protest being
missing, BIR did not take any action on the
protest, only then that counsel received the
warrant. Petition for review of the decision of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue was brought
to the Court of Tax Appeals and it ruled in favor
of Algue. Thus, CIR brought the case to the SC.
Issue:
WON the Collector of Internal Revenue
correctly disallowed the P75, 000.00 deduction
claimed by Algue as legitimate business
expenses in its income tax returns.
Held:
Petition WITHOUT merit. The claimed
deduction by the private respondent was
permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and
should therefore not have been disallowed by
the petitioner.
Taxation; nature of taxes; purpose of
taxation; collection of taxes should be made
in accordance with law
3.
THE
YOUNG
MEN'S
CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION
OF
MANILA vs.
THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Facts:
The city of Manila, contending that the property
of Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) is
taxable, assessed it and levied a tax thereon. It
was paid under protest and this action begun to
recover it on the ground that the property was
exempt from taxation under the charter of the
city of Manila. The decision was for the city and
the association appealed.
Issue:
Whether or not the building and grounds of the
Young Men's Christian Association of Manila are
subject to taxation (property tax), under section
48 of the charter of the city of Manila
Held:
Yes.
YMCA as an educational department is not
denied. It is undisputed that the aim of this
department is to furnish, at much less than cost,
instruction in subjects that will greatly increase
the mental efficiency and wage-earning capacity
of young men, prepare them in special lines of
business and offer them special lines of study. It
offers various courses to its students.
YMCA is preeminently religious; and the
fundamental basis and groundwork is the
Christian religion. All of the officials of the
association are devoted Christians, members of
a church, and have dedicated their lives to the
spread of the Christian principles and building of
Christian character.
The institution also has charitable features. It
makes no profit on any of its activities. The
professors and instructors in all departments
serve without pay and freely give of their time
and ability to further the purposes of the
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
(h)
Club organized and
operated
exclusively
for
pleasure, recreation, and other
non-profitable purposes, no part
of the net income of which
inures to the benefit of any
private stockholder or member;
Notwithstanding the provision in the preceding
paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and
character of the foregoing organization from any
of their properties, real or personal, or from any
of their activities conducted for profit, regardless
of the disposition made of such income, shall be
subject to the tax imposed under this Code. (as
amended by Pres. Decree No. 1457)
Respondent Court of Appeals committed
reversible error when
it
allowed,
on
reconsideration, the tax exemption claimed by
YMCA on income it derived from renting out its
real property, on the solitary but unconvincing
ground that the said income is not collected for
profit but is merely incidental to its operation.
The law does not make a distinction. The rental
income is taxable regardless of whence such
income is derived and how it used or disposed
of.
Private respondent submits that Article VI,
Section 28 of par. 3 of the 1987 Constitution,
exempts charitable institutions from the
payment not only of property taxes but also of
income tax from any source. However, what is
exempted is not the institution itself; the
exemption pertains only to property taxes.Thus,
YMCA is exempt from the paymentof property
tax, but not income tax on the rentals from its
property.
Private respondent also invokes Article XIV, Section 4,
par. 3 of the Charter, claiming that the YMCA is a
non-stock, non-profit educational institution whose
revenues and assets are used actually, directly and
exclusively for educational purposes so it is exempt
from taxes on its properties and income. However, the
Court founds nothing in them that even hints that it is
a school or an educational institution
Petition is GRANTED.
Issue:
WON insurance companies required to withhold
tax on reinsurance premiums ceded to foreign
insurance companies
Held:
Yes. The reinsurance contracts however show
that the transactions or activities that constituted
the undertaking to reinsure Philippine Guaranty
Co., Inc. against losses arising from the original
insurances in the Philippines were performed in
the Philippines. The reinsurance premiums were
income created from the undertaking of the
5. MCCULLOCH vs MARYLAND
7. CHAVEZ vs ONGPIN
As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the
requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform. A tax is
considered uniform when it operates with the
same force and effect in every place where the
subject may be found." The sales tax adopted in
EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and
services sold to the public, which are not
exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%.
The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is
imposed only on sales of goods or services by
persons engage in business with an aggregate
gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00.
Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently
exempt from its application. Likewise exempt
from the tax are sales of farm and marine
products, spared as they are from the incidence
of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower
and within the reach of the general public.
The Court likewise finds no merit in the
contention of the petitioner Integrated Customs
Brokers Association of the Philippines that EO
273, more particularly the new Sec. 103 (r) of
the National Internal Revenue Code, unduly
discriminates against customs brokers.
At any rate, the distinction of the customs
brokers from the other professionals who are
subject to occupation tax under the Local Tax
Code is based upon material differences, in that
the activities of customs brokers (like those of
stock, real estate and immigration brokers)
partake more of a business, rather than a
profession and were thus subjected to the
percentage tax under Sec. 174 of the
National Internal Revenue Code prior to its
amendment by EO 273. EO 273 abolished the
percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT.
Issue:
Whether or not the sum of PhP9,127.50 paid by
the Company to the Republic as reforestation
charges may be set off or applied to the
payment of the PhP4,802.37 as forest charges
due and owing from the company to the
Republic.
Ruling:
NO. Internal revenue taxes such as forest
charges cannot be subject of set off or
compensation. It is because taxes are not in the
nature of contracts between the parties but grow
out of duty to, and are positive acts of the
government to the making and enforcing of
which the personal consent of individual
taxpayer is not required. The amount paid by a
licensee as reforestation charges is in the nature
of a tax which form part of the Reforestation
fund, payable by him irrespective of whether the
area covered by the license is reforested or not.
Moreover, the company and the government are
not mutually creditors and debtors of each other,
hence, the law on compensation is inapplicable.
Petition is DISMISSED.
(ii)
Value-added
tax
collection
as
a percentage of
Gross
Domestic
Product (GDP) of the previous year
exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2
4/5%); or
(ii) National government deficit as
a percentage of GDP of the previous
year exceeds one and one-half percent
(1%)