ENT DEVELOUMESTS IN TAXATION . dustica SAVAK H IISAAKSEAO ation, Court ef Appeae Member, Departnncnt of Sharia Lav, PHILIA, SLIDELL ne ALLOWANCE OF FPURSOMAL ¥ % 7, ws 2 MALL % 2A ETION FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER “There shall be allot «tase pe teenage (250,000) foreach sadividual expayer!n te eae of tarred eos hed Tie et Secert detouy ppoer nae ounting to Fifty Thousan eeenstay Bea. Nan S060] =, only such Sperase shall be allowed the persona Coenen APPITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR DEPENDENTS. There shall be allowed an addi + " Ee an additional exemption of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (241000) for cach depentent not exanting toes (2) Tes nitonalexcmprion for dependents Shall be ciaimed by only one of the spouses in the case of married individuals. In the case of legally separated 5 sp>.8-4, adiiitional exemptions may be claimed only by the spoure who Has custody of the chilo or chisdren: Provided That the total amount of apie that may be claimed ‘yy both shall not exceed the maximum additional A ‘dependent’ means a legitimate, legitimate or legally adopted child chiefly dependent upon and jiving with the taxpayer if such dependent is not more than twenty-one (21) years of age, unmarried and not gainfally employed or if such dependent. regardless of age, incapable of self-support because of mental or physical defect. (See. #(B). RA. No. 9504) SLIDES SLIDE 4s . 3D) F OPTIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE TAXPAYER A. Individual Taxpayers ‘The OSD allowed to individual taxpeyers shall be gross sales or gross receipts during the taxable year. It sho sales” in case of individual seller of gocds, or the “cost of services” scted for purposes of determining the basis of the seller of services, is not allowed to be de . CSD pursuant to this Section inasmuch 2s the law(RA 9504) is specific as to the basis thereof’ which states that for individuals, the basis cf the 40% OSD shall be the “gross sales” or “gross pts” and not “gross income”. [Revenue I'egulstions Na 16-2008] a maximum of forty percent (40%) of, wuld be emphasized that the “cost of in the case of individual re SLIDE 5 . B, Corporate Taxpayers ject Sections 27(A) and 28(A)(1) of in the te taxpayers subject te tax under Section: 27) y ; che Cone EL RRS'SSD alowed shall be fn an amount pot excesiing SFY TS nt cece(40%) of thei grosa income, For purporos of tone Regulations, "Grose Income” shall mea return antoutits ad nlowncen wi Goat OF ace nl “Grows ste ty contributory to Income taxable tnder See, 87(A) of the Code senate . the purchase price or cost to produce the merchandise and all oxen ces, Shall inchde bringing them to their present location and tne, Cltevenue fogululon me ec eeey incurred in Itlons No. 18-8008) gross sales less sales all include only sales NON-SLOCK, NON-PROFIT ERUCATION FOUNDATIONS ARE EAEMEY Wy IN ATI 8. The Foundation shall bo exempt fiom the payment of all miso [— provides: SECTION and other charges imposed by the Government on all income derived from or property, real oF personal, used exclusively for the educational activiti ‘the Foundation. (Angeles University Foundation % Cy of Angeles 873 SCRA 250 (2010) ™ — SLIDEZ LAXE: RUSS! Es LEGAL E OF PUBLIC MO} A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing. to raise a constitutional issue when it is established that public finds from taxation have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or the ‘yur Constitution. Petitioner claims that the issuance of Circular No. 89-299 has led to the dissipation of °Y public funds through numerous irregularities in government financial transactions. These transactions have allegedly been left unchecked by the lifting of the pre-audit performed by COA, which, petitioner argues, is its Constitutional duty. Thus, petitioner has standing, to file this suit as a taxpayer, since he would be adversely aflacted by the illegnl use of public money. [Dela Liana x. The Chal:person, Commission on Audit, 668 SCRA 476 (9019) : ALL MONEY COLLECTED ON ANY TAX LEVIED FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE SHALL BE T ATED AS A SPECIAI *" EUND AND PAID OUT FOR SUCH PURPOSE ONLY Article VI, Section 29 (8) of the 1987 Constitution, restating a general principle on taxation, enjoins the disbursement of a special fund in accordance with the special purpose for which it was collécted, the balance, if there be any, after the purpose has been fulfilled or is no longer forthconfing, to be transferred to the general funds of the government, thus: Section 29(3)... (3) Att money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and: paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or’ abandoned, the balance, if’ any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. Correlatively, Section 2 of PD. No. 755 clearly states that: Section * Financial Assistafice. To enable the cogent Creal i % comply. ith ee cont lee obligations under the aforesaid Agreement, the is hereby directe: raw an Es tre eiections cinder the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund CCCSP3 authorized £0, levied by [PID 282, as amended, to pay for the financial commitments of the covouss 1a, ‘and the Coconut Industry Development P! under the said agreement... ont t dered or construed, under any Jaw or regulation, special and/or fiduciary fonts Wiation of Presidential Decree No. 713. [Philippine Coconut government wien dite (COCOFED) v Republic, 003 SCRA $1# (2018)): ction off tanea Tea, ther oF Inara Hose, waar ny Ik axpaye, (Mal Cerne baring Cape FAGCON IS Now siy172 10 CORPORATE INCOME TAX ‘Taxation is the rule and exery . . , iption is the exception, The burden of proof rests upon the party ming exemption to prove that it la in face covered ty Hee Panel Oe oe Te a rule, tax gail exempt from the payment of corporate income tx, i Code of 1997 by omitting PAGCOR from the re ee ceseaiative intent, shown Ly the discussions in the Bicameral Conference Mestre, cre ttine EAGCOR t0 pay corporate income tax; hence, the omission or removal of PAGCOR fora ‘exemption from the payment of corporate income tax, . the Court holds that the provision subjecting PAGCOR fo 10% VAT is invalid for being contrary to R.A, No. 9387. Nowhere in R.A. No. 9837 is it provided that Pentioner can be subjected to VAT: I). dio. 9837 is clear only as to the removal of petitioners EXmPtion from the payment of corporat intome tax, which was already addressed above by this Court. (Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation PAGCOR) « Bureau of Intemal Revenue 646 SCRA aoe eon Anent the validity of RR No. 19-2005, SLIDE 11 Revenue Regulations No. 52008 issued on.28 April 2608 amended Revenue Regulations No. 10-2000 with respect to “De Minimis Benefits”. Rice subsidy of 1,800 or ot sack of 50 kg. rice per month amounting to not more shan F1.500 and unifgrm sand clothing ‘allowance not exceeding P4000 per annum are considered as “de minimis” benefits, which gre not subject to the fringe benefits tax (Section 2:33(c) of Revenue Regijlations No. 3-98) and Income Tax as well as withholding tax on corporation income of both managerial and rank and file employees (Section 2.78.1 (AXSNe) and (4) of Revenue Regulations No. 298). Monetized unused vacation feave credits of private employees not exceeding ten (10) days during the year. ‘