Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 311 views

    CIR Vs Bisaya Transport

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    The petitioner, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., was assessed taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue totaling 4,949.91 pesos for various taxes from 1946 to 1952. This included compensating tax, common carrier's percentage tax, documentary stamp tax, and additional residence tax. The Court of Tax Appeals upheld some of the assessments but found the collection of others to be barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the compensating and residence taxes had prescribed and that the other taxes were not applicable. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, finding that the income tax returns did not provide sufficient information to determine tax liability and that the equipment purchases from 1945 to 1947 appeared to be for business purposes rather than war

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CIR Vs Bisaya Transport

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    311 views2 pages
    The petitioner, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., was assessed taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue totaling 4,949.91 pesos for various taxes from 1946 to 1952. This included compensating tax, common carrier's percentage tax, documentary stamp tax, and additional residence tax. The Court of Tax Appeals upheld some of the assessments but found the collection of others to be barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the compensating and residence taxes had prescribed and that the other taxes were not applicable. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, finding that the income tax returns did not provide sufficient information to determine tax liability and that the equipment purchases from 1945 to 1947 appeared to be for business purposes rather than war

    Original Description:

    ethics

    Original Title

    CIR vs Bisaya Transport

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., was assessed taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue totaling 4,949.91 pesos for various taxes from 1946 to 1952. This included compensating tax, common carrier's percentage tax, documentary stamp tax, and additional residence tax. The Court of Tax Appeals upheld some of the assessments but found the collection of others to be barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the compensating and residence taxes had prescribed and that the other taxes were not applicable. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, finding that the income tax returns did not provide sufficient information to determine tax liability and that the equipment purchases from 1945 to 1947 appeared to be for business purposes rather than war

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    311 views2 pages

    CIR Vs Bisaya Transport

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    The petitioner, Bisaya Land Transportation Co., was assessed taxes by the Collector of Internal Revenue totaling 4,949.91 pesos for various taxes from 1946 to 1952. This included compensating tax, common carrier's percentage tax, documentary stamp tax, and additional residence tax. The Court of Tax Appeals upheld some of the assessments but found the collection of others to be barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the compensating and residence taxes had prescribed and that the other taxes were not applicable. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, finding that the income tax returns did not provide sufficient information to determine tax liability and that the equipment purchases from 1945 to 1947 appeared to be for business purposes rather than war

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    [Nos. L-12100 and L-11812.

    May 29, 1959]


    BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE, respondent. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. BlSAYA
    LAND TRANSPORTATION Co., INC., respondent.
    Petitions for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.
    The facts of this case as found by the court a quo are as follows:
    Between June 1945 and January 15, 1957, petitioner Bisaya Land Transportation Co. acquired
    equipment from the United States Commercial Co. which it used in the operation of its buses,
    without paying the corresponding compensating and specific taxes. On investigation of its books
    by revenue agents, it was discovered that its gross receipts of the transportation business from
    1946 to 1951 were not declared for taxation. It was also found that from 1945 to 1952, the
    petitioner issued freight receipts but the corresponding documentary stamps were not affixed
    thereto. A deficiency additional residence tax was also determined.
    After a series of exchange of communications between the petitioner and the respondent
    Collector of Internal Revenue, the latter assessed the petitioner and demanded the total amount
    of P4,949.91, consisting of (1) compensating tax; (2) common carrier's percentage tax; (3)
    documentary stamp tax; and (4) additional residence tax.
    On January 11, 1955, the present petition for review was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals,
    which rendered a decision upholding the assessment, as to the deficiency common carrier's
    percentage tax for 1946 and the first quarter of 1947 and the additional residence tax for 1947,
    the collection of which was held to be barred by the statute of limitations.
    In its brief, the petitioner company alleged that the Court of Tax Appeals erred (1) in not holding
    that the claim for compensating tax and residence tax has already prescribed and (2) that the
    Compensating tax, documentary stamp tax and common carrier's percentage tax are not
    chargeable. The Government has also appealed.
    Held:
    Petitioner's pretense that the period of prescription, in relation to the first assignment of error,
    should be computed from the filing of its income tax returns, is without merit. To begin with,
    said income tax returns have not been introduced in evidence and therefore, there was no means
    to determine what data were included in said return to apprise the Bureau of Internal Revenue
    that the company should pay the compensating tax.
    Secondly, income tax returns contain a statement of the taxpayer's income for a given year. The
    taxpayer is not supposed to declare in said returns that he has purchased or received "from
    without the Philippines", commodities or merchandise that are subject to the compensating tax.
    Generally, such purchases are not "income," and, hence, have no place in income tax returns.

    (2) Under its second assignment of error, the company maintains that the equipment and
    materials it purchased from agencies of the U. S. Government are not subject to compensating
    tax because they were acquired, not for business purposes but "in furtherance of the war efforts".
    Suffice it to note that the acquisition of said effects took place between June, 1945 and January,
    1947 while the hostilities in Japan and Europe ended in 1945.

    You might also like