Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

SET-OFF/COMPENSATION

FRANCIA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, et al.


162 SCRA 753

Francia contends that his tax delinquency of P2,400.00 has been extinguished by legal
compensation. He claims that the government owed him P4,116.00 when a portion of his land was
expropriated on October 15, 1977. Hence, his tax obligation had been set-off by operation of law
as October 15, 1977.

There is no legal basis for the contention. We have consistently ruled that there can be no
off-setting of taxes against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that
the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The
collection of a tax cannot await the results of lawsuit against the government.

In the case of Republic v. Mambulao Lumber co. (4 SCRA 622), this Court ruled that
Internal Revenue Taxes can not be the subject of set-off or compensation. We stated that :

"A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is
allowed to be set-off under the statutes of set-off which are construed uniformly, in
the light of public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of
the state or municipality to one who is liable to the state or municipality for taxes.
Neither are they a proper subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the
contract or transaction sued on . . . (80 C.J. 73-74).

"The general rule based on grounds of public policy is well-settled that no


set-off is admissible against demands for taxes levied for general or local
governmental purposes. The reason on which the general rule is based, is that
taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the party but grow out to, and are
the positive acts of the government to the making and enforcing of which, the
personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required. . .""

This rule was reiterated in the case of Cordero v. Gonda (18 SCRA 331) where we stated
that: ". . . internal revenue taxes can not be the subject of compensation.

MELECIO R. DOMINGO v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS


8 SCRA 443

The court having jurisdiction of the estate had found that the claim of the estate against
the Government has been recognized and an amount of P262,200 has already been appropriated
for the purpose by a corresponding law. (R.A. 2700) Under the above circumstances, both the
claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered
have already become overdue and demandable as well as fully liquidated. Compensation,
therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and
1290 of the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount.

PHILEX MINING CORP. v. CIR


294 SCRA 687

There is a material distinction between a tax and a debt. Debts are due to the Government
in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity.

xxx

In the instant case, the claim of Philex for VAT refund is still pending litigation, and still
has to be determined by the CTA. A fortiori, the liquidated debt of Philex to the government
cannot, therefore, be set-off against the unliquidated claim which Philex conceived to exist in its
favor.

Похожие интересы