TOLENTINO VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE Case Digest

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 1994 Aug 25 G.R. No. 115455 235 SCRA 630 FACTS: The valued-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the gross selling price or gross value in money of goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged or of the gross receipts from the sale or exchange of services. Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.

The Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA) contends that the imposition of VAT on sales and leases by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision of “non-impairment of contracts.”

ISSUE: Whether R.A. No. 7716 is unconstitutional on ground that it violates the contract clause under Art. III, sec 10 of the Bill of Rights.

RULING: No. The Supreme Court the contention of CREBA, that the imposition of the VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision of non-impairment of contracts, is only slightly less abstract but nonetheless hypothetical. It is enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot, through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order. The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and good order of society. In truth, the Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the State's power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration.

Such is not the case of PAL in G.R. No. 115852, and the Court does not understand it to make this claim. Rather, its position, as discussed above, is that the removal of its tax exemption cannot be made by a general, but only by a specific, law.

Further, the Supreme Court held the validity of Republic Act No. 7716 in its formal and substantive aspects as this has been raised in the various cases before it. To sum up, the Court holds:

(1) That the procedural requirements of the Constitution have been complied with by Congress in the enactment of the statute;

(2) That judicial inquiry whether the formal requirements for the enactment of statutes - beyond those prescribed by the Constitution - have been observed is precluded by the principle of separation of powers;

(3) That the law does not abridge freedom of speech, expression or the press, nor interfere with the free exercise of religion, nor deny to any of the parties the right to an education; and

(4) That, in view of the absence of a factual foundation of record, claims that the law is regressive, oppressive and confiscatory and that it violates vested rights protected under the Contract Clause are prematurely raised and do not justify the grant of prospective relief by writ of prohibition.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.

Facts: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are various suits challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds.

One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in theHouse of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. There is also a contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution

Held: The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in theHouse of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution will not bear analysis. To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. To insist that a revenuestatute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only to concur with amendments but also to propose amendments. Indeed,what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filingrevenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from theHouse of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor does the Constitutionprohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.

The next argument of the petitioners was that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by the Constitutionbecause the second and third readings were done on the same day. But this was because the President had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate day

s. That upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of 3 readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative practice.

Case Digest

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005

FACTS:

Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005 questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.

2. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the Constitution.

3. Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

RULING:

1. Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise taxes.

2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward.

3. The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.

ABAKADA v ERmita

Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO enjoining government from implementing the law in response to a slew of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law.

The challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6: “That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to 12%, after any of the following conditions has been satisfied:

(i) 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 (1½%)”

Petitioners allege that the grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is an abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not covered by Section 28 (2), Article VI Consti. They argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services which can’t be included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. They also said that the President has powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make the recommendation.

Issue: Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate, especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue delegation of legislative power? NO

Held: The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power which can never be delegated is the authority to make a complete law- complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable, and to determine the expediency of its enactment. It is the nature of the power and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise which determines the validity of its delegation.

The exceptions are:

(a) delegation of tariff powers to President under Constitution

(b) delegation of emergency powers to President under Constitution

(c) delegation to the people at large

(d) delegation to local governments

(e) delegation to administrative bodies

For the delegation to be valid, it must be complete and it must fix a standard. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.

In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive. No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word SHALL is used in the common proviso. The use of the word SHALL connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty, which cannot be evaded by the President. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present.

Congress just granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact--- whether by December 31, 2005, the VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and 1½%. If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the President.

In making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present.

Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward.

There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law.

ABAKADA, et al. vs. ErmitaFacts:

They argue that the VAT is a tax levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties aswell as on the sale or exchange of services, which cannot be included within the purview of tariffs under the exempted delegation as the latter refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandiseto the government and usually imposed on goods or merchandise imported or exported.Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., further contend that delegating to the President thelegislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility andtransparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass to the President thedecision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the President¶s power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretaryof Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of theSecretary of Finance.

Facts:

1. RA 9337: VAT Reform Act enacted on May 24, 2005.2. Sec. 4 (sales of goods and properties), Sec. 5 (importation of goods) and Sec. 6 (services and lease of property) of RA 9337, in collective, granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain:a. whether by 12/31/05, the VAT collection as a percentage of the 2004 GDP exceeds 2.8% or b. the nat¶l gov¶t deficit as a percentage of the 2004 GDP exceeds 1.5%3. If either condition is met, the Sec of Finance must inform the President who, in turn, must impose the12% VAT rate (from 10%) effective January 1, 2006.4. ABAKADA maintained that Congress abandoned its exclusive authority to fix taxes and that RA 9337contained a uniform proviso authorizing the President upon recommendation by the DOF Secretary toraise VAT to 12%.5. Sen Pimentel maintained that RA 9337 constituted undue delegation of legislative powers and aviolation of due process since the law was ambiguous and arbitrary. Same with Rep. Escudero.6. Pilipinas Shell dealers argued that the VAT reform was arbitrary, oppressive and confiscatory.7. Respondents countered that the law was complete, that it left no discretion to the President, and that itmerely charged the President with carrying out the rate increase once any of the 2 conditions arise.

Issue:

WON there was undue delegation ±

No.

Ratio:

Constitution allows as under exempted delegation the delegation of tariffs, customs duties, and other tolls, levies on goods imported and exported. VAT is tax levied on sales of goods and services whichcould not fall under this exemption. Hence, its delegation if unqualified is unconstitutional.2. Legislative power is authority to make a complete law. Thus, to be valid, a law must be complete initself, setting forth therein the policy and it must fix a standard, limits of which are sufficiently determinateand determinable.3. No undue delegation when congress describes what job must be done who must do it and the scope of the authority given. (Edu v Ericta)4. Sec of Finance was merely tasked to ascertain the existence of facts. All else was laid out.5. Mainly ministerial for the sec to ascertain the facts and for the president to carry out the implementationfor the vat. They were agents of the legislative dept.6. No delegation but mere implementation of the law.

CIR v. Central Luzon Drug Corp., G.R. No. 159647, April 15, 2005

EMINENT DOMAIN: The concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the public, but held synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience. The discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to which these citizens belong. The discounts given would have entered the coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the private establishments concerned, were it not for RA 7432. The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit.

As a result of the 20 percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just compensation. This term refers not only to the issuance of a tax credit certificate indicating the correct amount of the discounts given, but also to the promptness in its release. Equivalent to the payment of property taken by the State, such issuance -- when not done within a reasonable time from the grant of the discounts -- cannot be considered as just compensation.

… Besides, the taxation power can also be used as an implement for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Tax measures are but “enforced contributions exacted on pain of penal sanctions” and “clearly imposed for a public purpose.” In recent years, the power to tax has indeed become a most effective tool to realize social justice, public welfare, and the equitable distribution of wealth.

CARLOS SUPERDRUG VS. DSWD

Facts: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257, otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003.” Section 4(a) of RA 9257 grants twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the Senior Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of private property.

Issue: Whether or not RA 9257 is unconstitutional

Held: Petition is dismissed. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object.

Accordingly, it has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.”

For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC. VS. ROMULO, ET AL- MINIMUM CORPORATE INCOME

Details

Category: Income Taxation

Congress has the power to condition, limit or deny deductions from gross income in order to arrive at the net that it chooses to tax. This is because deductions are a matter of legislative grace. The assignment of gross income, instead of net income, as the tax base of the MCIT, taken with the reduction of the tax rate from 32% to 2%, is not constitutionally objectionable.

FACTS:

Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations, Inc. (CHAMBER) is questioning the constitutionality of Sec 27 (E) of RA 8424 and the revenue regulations (RRs) issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to implement said provision and those involving creditable withholding taxes (CWT). [CWT issues will not be discussed]

CHAMBER assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary

assets. Chamber argues that the MCIT violates the due process clause because it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain.

MCIT scheme: (Section 27 (E). [MCIT] on Domestic Corporations.)A corporation, beginning on its fourth year of operation, is assessed an MCIT of 2% of its gross income when such MCIT is greater than the normal corporate income tax imposed under Section 27(A) (Applying the 30% tax rate to net income).

If the regular income tax is higher than the MCIT, the corporation does not pay the MCIT.

Any excess of the MCIT over the normal tax shall be carried forward and credited against the normal income tax for the three immediately succeeding taxable years.

The Secretary of Finance is hereby authorized to suspend the imposition of the [MCIT] on any corporation which suffers losses on account of prolonged labor dispute, or because of force majeure, or because of legitimate business reverses.

The term ‘gross income’ shall mean gross sales less sales returns, discounts and allowances and cost of goods sold. "Cost of goods sold" shall include all business expenses directly incurred to produce the merchandise to bring them to their present location and use.

CHAMBER claims that the MCIT under Section 27(E) of RA 8424 is unconstitutional because it is highly oppressive, arbitrary and confiscatory which amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law. It explains that gross income as defined under said provision only considers the cost of goods sold and other direct expenses; other major expenditures, such as administrative and interest expenses which are equally necessary to produce gross income, were not taken into account. Thus, pegging the tax base of the MCIT to a corporation’s gross income is tantamount to a confiscation of capital because gross income, unlike net income, is not "realized gain."

ISSUE:

1. WON the imposition of the MCIT on domestic corporations is unconstitutional

2. WON RR 9-98 is a deprivation of property without due process of law because the MCIT is being imposed and collected even when there is actually a loss, or a zero or negative taxable income

HELD:

1. NO. MCIT is not violative of due process. The MCIT is not a tax on capital. The MCIT is imposed on gross income which is arrived at by deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods and other direct expenses from gross sales. Clearly, the capital is not being taxed.

Furthermore, the MCIT is not an additional tax imposition. It is imposed in lieu of the normal net income tax, and only if the normal income tax is suspiciously low.

The MCIT merely approximates the amount of net income tax due from a corporation, pegging the rate at a very much reduced 2% and uses as the base the corporation’s gross income.

CHAMBER failed to support, by any factual or legal basis, its allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory. It does not cite any actual, specific and concrete negative experiences of its members nor does it present empirical data to show that the implementation of the MCIT resulted in the confiscation of their property.

Taxation is necessarily burdensome because, by its nature, it adversely affects property rights. The party alleging the law’s unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate the supposed violations in understandable terms.

2. NO. RR 9-98, in declaring that MCIT should be imposed whenever such corporation has zero or negative taxable income, merely defines the coverage of Section 27(E).

This means that even if a corporation incurs a net loss in its business operations or reports zero income after deducting its expenses, it is still subject to an MCIT of 2% of its gross income. This is consistent with the law which imposes the MCIT on gross income notwithstanding the amount of the net income.

FACTS:

CREBA assails the imposition of the minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) as being violative of the due process clause as it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain. They also question the creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets stating that (1) they ignore the different treatment of ordinary assets and capital assets; (2) the use of gross selling price or fair market value as basis for the CWT and the collection of tax on a per transaction basis (and not on the

net income at the end of the year) are inconsistent with the tax on ordinary real properties; (3) the government collects income tax even when the net income has not yet been determined; and (4) the CWT is being levied upon real estate enterprises but not on other enterprises, more particularly those in the manufacturing sector.

ISSUE:

Are the impositions of the MCIT on domestic corporations and CWT on income from sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets unconstitutional?

HELD:

NO. MCIT does not tax capital but only taxes income as shown by the fact that the MCIT is arrived at by deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods and other direct expenses from gross sales. Besides, there are sufficient safeguards that exist for the MCIT: (1) it is only imposed on the 4th year of operations; (2) the law allows the carry forward of any excess MCIT paid over the normal income tax; and (3) the Secretary of Finance can suspend the imposition of MCIT in justifiable instances.

The regulations on CWT did not shift the tax base of a real estate business’ income tax from net income to GSP or FMV of the property sold since the taxes withheld are in the nature of advance tax payments and they are thus just installments on the annual tax which may be due at the end of the taxable year. As such the tax base for the sale of real property classified as ordinary assets remains to be the net taxable income and the use of the GSP or FMV is because these are the only factors reasonably known to the buyer in connection with the performance of the duties as a withholding agent.Neither is there violation of equal protection even if the CWT is levied only on the real industry as the real estate industry is, by itself, a class on its own and can be validly treated different from other businesses.

1. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc., v. The Hon. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, et al

G.R. No. 160756. March 9, 2010

Facts: Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc. (CREBA), an association of real estate developers and builders in the Philippines, questioned the validity of Section 27(E) of the Tax Code which imposes the minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) on corporations.

Under the Tax Code, a corporation can become subject to the MCIT at the rate of 2% of gross income, beginning on the 4th taxable year immediately following the year in which it commenced its business operations, when such MCIT is greater than the normal corporate income tax. If the regular income tax is higher than the MCIT, the corporation does not pay the MCIT.

CREBA argued, among others, that the use of gross income as MCIT base amounts to a confiscation of capital because gross income, unlike net income, is not realized gain.

CREBA also sought to invalidate the provisions of RR No. 2-98, as amended, otherwise known as the Consolidated Withholding Tax Regulations, which prescribe the rules and procedures for the collection of CWT on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets, on the grounds that these regulations:

Ø Use gross selling price (GSP) or fair market value (FMV) as basis for determining

the income tax on the sale of real estate classified as ordinary assets, instead of the entity’s net taxable income as provided for under the Tax Code;

Ø Mandate the collection of income tax on a per transaction basis, contrary to the Tax Code provision which imposes income tax on net income at the end of the taxable period;

Ø Go against the due process clause because the government collects income tax even when the net income has not yet been determined; gain is never assured by mere receipt of the selling price; and

Ø Contravene the equal protection clause because the CWT is being charged upon real estate enterprises, but not on other business enterprises, more particularly, those in the manufacturing sector, which do business similar to that of a real estate enterprise.

Issues: (1) Is the imposition of MCIT constitutional? (2) Is the imposition of CWT on income from sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets constitutional?

Held: (1) Yes. The imposition of the MCIT is constitutional. An income tax is arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes capital, because it is income, and not capital, which is subject to income tax. However, MCIT is imposed on gross income which is computed by deducting from gross sales the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods and other direct expenses from gross sales. Clearly, the capital is not being taxed.

Various safeguards were incorporated into the law imposing MCIT.

Firstly, recognizing the birth pangs of businesses and the reality of the need to recoup initial major capital expenditures, the MCIT is imposed only on the 4th taxable year immediately following the year in which the corporation commenced its operations.

Secondly, the law allows the carry-forward of any excess of the MCIT paid over the normal income tax which shall be credited against the normal income tax for the three immediately succeeding years.

Thirdly, since certain businesses may be incurring genuine repeated losses, the law authorizes the Secretary of Finance to suspend the imposition of MCIT if a corporation suffers losses due to prolonged labor dispute, force majeure and legitimate business reverses.

(2) Yes. Despite the imposition of CWT on GSP or FMV, the income tax base for sales of real property classified as ordinary assets remains as the entity’s net taxable income as provided in the Tax Code, i.e., gross income less allowable costs and deductions. The seller shall file its income tax return and credit the taxes withheld by the withholding agent-buyer against its tax due. If the tax due is greater than the tax withheld, then the taxpayer shall pay the difference. If, on the other hand, the tax due is less than the tax withheld, the taxpayer will be entitled to a refund or tax credit.

The use of the GSP or FMV as basis to determine the CWT is for purposes of practicality and convenience. The knowledge of the withholding agent-buyer is limited to the particular transaction in which he is a party. Hence, his basis can only be the GSP or FMV which figures are reasonably known to him.

Also, the collection of income tax via the CWT on a per transaction basis, i.e., upon consummation of the sale, is not contrary to the Tax Code which calls for the payment of the net income at the end of the taxable period. The taxes withheld are in the nature of advance tax payments by a taxpayer in order to cancel its possible future tax obligation. They are installments on the annual tax which may be due at the end of the taxable year. The withholding agent-buyer’s act of collecting the tax at the time of the transaction, by withholding the tax due from the income payable, is the very essence of the withholding tax method of tax collection.

On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the taxing power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for purposes of taxation. Inequalities which result from singling out a particular class for taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation. The real estate industry is, by itself, a class and can be validly treated differently from other business enterprises.

What distinguishes the real estate business from other manufacturing enterprises, for purposes of the imposition of the CWT, is not their production processes but the prices of their goods sold and the number of transactions involved. The income from the sale of a real property is bigger and its frequency of transaction limited, making it less cumbersome for the parties to comply with the withholding tax scheme. On the other hand, each manufacturing enterprise may have tens of thousands of transactions with several thousand customers every month involving both minimal and substantial amounts.

DIAZ VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE- VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

Details

Category: Value Added Tax

DIAZ VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE- VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

May toll fees collected by tollway operators be subject to VAT?

YES.

(1) VAT is imposed on “all kinds of services” and tollway operators who are engaged in constructing, maintaining, and operating expressways are no different from lessors of property, transportation contractors, etc.

(2) Not only do they fall under the broad term under (1) but also come under those described as “all other franchise grantees” which is not confined only to legislative franchise grantees since the law does not distinguish. They are also not a franchise grantee under Section 119 which would have made them subject to percentage tax and not VAT.

(3) Neither are the services part of the enumeration under Section 109 on VAT-exempt transactions.

(4) The toll fee is not a user’s tax and thus it is permissible to impose a VAT on the said fee. The MIAA case does not apply and the Court emphasized that toll fees are not taxes since they are not assessed by the BIR and do not go the general coffers of the government. Toll fees are collected by private operators as reimbursement for their costs and expenses with a view to a profit while taxes are imposed by the government as an attribute of its sovereignty. Even if the toll fees were treated as user’s tax, the VAT can not be deemed as a ‘tax on tax’ since the VAT is imposed on the tollway operator and the fact that it might pass-on the same to the tollway user, it will not make the latter directly liable for VAT since the shifted VAT simply becomes part of the cost to use the tollways.

(5) The assertion that the VAT imposed is not administratively feasible given the manner by which the BIR intends to implement the VAT (i.e., rounding off the toll rates and putting any excess collection in an escrow account) is not enough to invalidate the law. Non-observance of the canon of administrative feasibility will not render a tax imposition invalid “except to the extent that specific constitutional or statutory limitations are impaired”

Lung Center vs. QC

Facts: Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established by virtue of PD No. 1823. It is the registered owner of the land on which the Lung Center of the Philippines Hospital is erected. A big space in the ground floor of the hospital is being leased to private parties, for canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same as theirprivate clinics. Also, a big portion on the right side of the hospital is being leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center.

When the City Assessor of Quezon City assessed both its land and hospital building for real property taxes, the Lung Center of the Philippines filed a claim for exemption on its averment that it is a charitable institution with a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. The claim for exemption was denied, prompting a petition for the reversal of the resolution of the City Assessor with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which denied the same. On appeal, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City affirmed the local board’s decision, finding that Lung Center of the Philippines is not a charitable institution and that its properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. Hence, the present petition for review with averments that the Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution under Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution, notwithstanding that it accepts paying patients and rents out portions of the hospital building to private individualsand enterprises.

Issue: Is the Lung Center of the Philippines a charitable institution within the context of the Constitution, and therefore, exempt from real property tax?

Held: The Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution or not,the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, that character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries and the use and occupation of the properties.

However, under the Constitution, in order to be entitled to exemption from real property tax, there must be clear and unequivocal proof that (1) it is a charitable institution and (2)its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. While portions of the hospital are used for treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased toprivate individuals and enterprises.

Exclusive is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others, debarred from participation or enjoyment. If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.