Guys, cases nos. 5 and 6 lang to. Wala sa net ang no.

4
CIR vs. ASSURANCE CO., LTD
G.R. NO. L-19727, MAY, 20, 1965

FACTS:
Phoenix Assurance is a foreign insurance corporation licensed to do business
in the Philippines. Pursuant to insurance treaties, respondent Insurance
Corporation ceded portions of the premiums it earned from the business in
the Philippines for year 1952, 1953 and 1954. However, when it filed its
income tax returns, it claimed deduction such as net addition to marine
insurance reserve and as head office expenses allowable to its Philippine
business. It also prayed to exclude from its gross income the amount
representing reinsurance premium ceded to foreign insurers. The Collector
disallowed full deduction prayed for. Upon appeal with the CTA, it ordered
respondent to pay withholding tax for years in questioned but declared that
the right of the CIR to assess deficiency income tax for 1952 has already
prescribed on the basis that the counting of the period is reckoned from the
time of the filing of the original returns..
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not premiums ceded to foreign insurers not doing business
in the Philippines pursuant to reinsurance contract executed abroad
are subject to withholding tax.
2. Whether or not the right of the CIR to assess deficiency income for the
year 1952 has prescribed.
HELD:
1. Yes, although said premiums ceded to foreign insurers were gained
pursuant to reinsurance contracts executed abroad, the same were
income from sources within the Philippines subject to withholding tax
under Section 53 and 54 of the Tax Code.
2. No, the Court ruled that the period of prescription to assess deficiency
income taxes commences from the filing of amended returns which is
substantially different from the original return. Since, Respondent
Corporation filed its amended returns less than five years elapsed,
therefore the same has not prescribed. The reason behind this
imposition is to prevent taxpayers to evade the payment of taxes by
simply reporting in their original returns heavy losses and amending

the same more five years later when the Commissioner has lost his
authority to assess the proper tax.

MISAEL P. VERA vs. JOSE FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. L-31364, March 30, 1979

FACTS:
This petition was filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue against
respondent judge Fernandez seeking the reversal of the latters decision
dismissing its motion claiming for the payment of taxes against the estate of
the late Luis Tongoy. The dismissal was based on the ground that the claim
was already barred under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court which
provides that all claims arising from contracts, express or implied shall be
filed within the limited time stated in the notice, otherwise they are barred
forever.
ISSUE:
W/N the statute of non-claims under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court
bars claims of the government for unpaid taxes.
HELD:
No, since Section 5 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court mentioned only those
claims arising from contracts and it makes no mention of such claims for
monetary obligation of the decedent created by law, such as in this case.
Under the rule of statutory construction, the mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of another thing not mentioned. The claim for taxes against the
decedent estate is a form of exception from the application of the statute of
non-claims.