Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Compania General de Tabacos de - LICENSE FEE and SALES TAX DIFFERENT - LIQUOR SALE
Filipinas (Tabacalera) v. City of Manila - Tabacalera filed an action to recover its alleged overpaid taxes on
the wholesale and retail sale of liquor.
- It alleges that it paid the LICENSE FEE as a wholesale and retail
liquor dealer. It also paid the SALES TAXES as a wholesale and
retail seller of general merchandise.
- It contends that it should not have paid the sales taxes.
- SC - No DT - License fee is different from a sales tax.
- A license fee is essentially for purposes of REGULATION. (liquor
is harmful to public morals and health, its use must be regulated) -
PRIVILEGE of engaging in the sale of liquor - police power.
- Sales tax is mainly for revenue generation by the municipality
imposed to sellers of general merchandise.
Delpher Trades Corp. v. IAC - TAX AVOIDANCE ONLY - SIBLINGS - SHARES OF STOCK
- Pacheco siblings leased their lot to CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS
with a right of first refusal should the siblings decide to sell.
- CC assigned its rights and obligations under the lease to HYDRO PIPES
with consent of the siblings
- After a few years, a deed of exchange was entered into by the siblings
and DELPHER TRADES wherein the Pacheco’s conveyed the property
to the latter for 2,500 shares of stock of the corporation.
- HYDRO filed a complaint for reconveyance since they were not given the
option to buy said property.
- DELPHER contends that there was no sale or transfer of property since
the company is a family corporation owned by the Pachecos. It is a mere
alter ego of the Pachecos done in order to perpetuate control and avoid
taxes. (transfer of lot to corporation - no income tax and inheritance
taxes)
- SC - Deed of exchange was VALID. There was no transfer of actual
ownership interests.
- SC finds nothing wrong about the estate planning scheme. It is the legal
right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of his taxes or avoid
them altogether, as long as it is within the limitations of the law.
Davao Gulf Lumber Corp v. CIR - EQUITY TAX EXEMPTION NOT ALLOWED
- Petitioner is a licensed forest concessionaire. It purchased, from
several oil companies, refined and manufactured mineral oils
which it used exclusively for the exploitation and operation of its
forest concession.
- It paid the specific taxes imposed by the NIRC but they filed a
claim for REFUND, particularly 25% of the SPECIFIC taxes .
- They contend that under RA 1435 (amendment on NIRC) oils
used in operations are subject to 25% refund.
- CTA granted but computed the refund but based on the rates
deemed paid and not on higher rates actually paid.
- SC - Partial REFUND but based on the rates deemed paid.
(Doctrine of strictissimi juris)
- Furthermore, the argument of petitioner on “equity and justice”
cannot stand since there is no tax exemption SOLELY on the
ground of equity.
Philippine Acetylene Co. v. CIR - TAX EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO SELLER
- PAC is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of
oxygen and acetylene gases.
- It made various sales to the NPC (agency of the PH government)
and to the Voice of America (agency of the US government).
- The CIR assessed the sales and demanded deficiency sales tax
from PAC.
- PAC denied liability since both buyers are exempt from taxation.
- SC - PAC is LIABLE.
- NPC - as a tax exempt entity, the buyer is exempted from
absorbing the burden of indirect taxation and it is the seller
that shoulders this burden. (Remedy: The purchaser may pay
the seller more because of the obligation imposed)
- As to VoA - Under the bases agreement, only those specific
goods are exempt (construction/maintenance/operation/defense).
Sale of good to VoA are not free from the payment of tax.
Philippine Airlines v. CIR - Caltex sells jet fuel to PAL for its domestic operations. It paid the
required excise tax to the BIR.
- PAL received the bill of the said fuel, which reflected the amount
of excise tax being paid by Caltex to the BIR. It is stated there
that the said tax is being passed on to PAL.
- PAL sought a refund of the excise tax. It contends that its
franchise gave it certain tax exemption privileges in the purchase
of fuel.
- Trial court held that PAL has no cause of action. Only a statutory
taxpayer (Caltex) can seek a refund. (Silkair case)
- PAL contends that it can file for a refund on account of its tax
exemption privileges under its franchise which covers both direct
and indirect taxes (Maceda case).
- SC - The doctrine on Silkair cannot apply if the law clearly grants
the party to which the economic burden of the tax is shifted an
exemption from both direct and indirect taxes. In this case, they
are allowed to claim a tax refund even if they are not considered
a statutory taxpayer.
- As in the Maceda case, the NPC’s own charter specifically
granted it an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes.
- GR/IMPT DOCTRINE: The propriety of a tax refund depends
on the kind of exemption which forms its basis. If the law
confers exemption from BOTH direct or indirect taxes, a
claimant is entitled to a tax refund even if it only bears the
economic burden of the tax (not statutory taxpayer). On the
other hand, if the exemption applies only to DIRECT taxes,
then it is the statutory taxpayer which is regarded as the
proper party to file a refund.
- In this case, since PAL’s franchise grants it exemption from
BOTH direct and indirect taxes, it can claim a refund for the
excise tax.