some cases in tax

2
CIR vs. Algue (GRL-28890, 17 February 1988) Facts: The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) appointed Algue Inc. as its agent,authorizing it to sell its land, factories, and oil manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil InvestmentCorporation (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, Algue received a commission of P125,000 and it was from this commission that it paid Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, P75,000in promotional fees. In 1965, Algue received an assessment from the Commissioner of Internal Revenuein the amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income tax for years 1958 amd 1959. Algue filed a protestor request for reconsideration which was not acted upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Thecounsel for Algue had to accept the warrant of distrant and levy. Algue, however, filed a petition forreview with the Coourt of Tax Appeals. Issue: Whether the assessment was reasonable. Ruling: No. taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is able to pay must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its’ part is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY OF FINANCE ET AL. (GR No. 115455,October 30, 1995) Facts: The Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) was granted its own franchise under P.D. No. 1590.Under its franchise, PAL was exempted from payment of other taxesnow and in the nearfuture including the

Upload: james-wheeler

Post on 21-Jul-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Digest only

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Some Cases in Tax

CIR vs. Algue

(GRL-28890, 17 February 1988)

Facts: The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) appointed Algue Inc. as its agent,authorizing it to sell its land, factories, and oil manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil InvestmentCorporation (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, Algue received a commission of P125,000 and it was from this commission that it paid Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, P75,000in promotional fees. In 1965, Algue received an assessment from the Commissioner of Internal Revenuein the amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income tax for years 1958 amd 1959. Algue filed a protestor request for reconsideration which was not acted upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Thecounsel for Algue had to accept the warrant of distrant and levy. Algue, however, filed a petition forreview with the Coourt of Tax Appeals.

Issue: Whether the assessment was reasonable.

Ruling: No. taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is able to pay must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its’ part is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself.

TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY OF FINANCE ET AL.

(GR No. 115455,October 30, 1995)

Facts: The Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) was granted its own franchise under P.D. No. 1590.Under its franchise, PAL was exempted from payment of other taxesnow and in the nearfuture including the Value Added Tax (VAT) which exemption was provided for under Section103 of the NIRC. Upon the enactment of R.A. 7716 providing for the restructuring of the VATsystem, the aforementioned section was repealed and in effect removed the exemptiongranted to PAL as far as its VAT is concerned.PAL attacked the validity of the amendment on the ground that its franchise may onlybe made by a special law, in view of Section 24 of P.D. 1590 and hence it cannot be amended byR.A. 7716. The VAT is levied on the sale, barter, or exchanged of the goods and properties as well as on the sale of services. RA7116 seeks to wider the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance it administration on by amending the NIRC. CRTBA asserts that R.A. 7116 is unconstitutional as it violate the rule that taxes should be uniform and equitable.

Issue: Whether or not it is meritorious?

Page 2: Some Cases in Tax

Ruling: No. Equity and uniformity in taxation means that all the taxable articles or kinds of properties of the same class be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. To satisfy this requirement, it is enough that the statute or ordinance applies equally to all persons, firms, and corporations placed in a similar situation.