Tax Digest 1

JOSE NIKKO M.
MENCIDOR
TAXATION 1
BL 3
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v CIR

GR No. L-26911, Jan. 27, 1981
FACTS:
Atlas is a corporation engaged in the mining industry. On August 1962, CIR assessed against Atlas for
deficiency income taxes for the years 1957 and 1958. For the year 1957, it was the opinion of the CIR that
Atlas is not entitled to exemption from the income tax under RA 909 because same covers only gold mines.
For the year 1958, the deficiency income tax covers the disallowance of items claimed by Atlas as deductible
from gross income. Atlas protested for reconsideration and cancellation, thus the CIR conducted a
reinvestigation of the case.
On October 1962, the Secretary of Finance ruled that the exemption provided in RA 909 embraces all new
mines and old mines whether gold or other minerals. Accordingly, the CIR recomputed Atlas deficiency income
tax liabilities in the light of said ruling. On June 1964, the CIR issued a revised assessment entirely eliminating
the assessment for the year 1957. The assessment for 1958 was reduced from which Atlas appealed to the
CTA, assailing the disallowance of the following items claimed as deductible from its gross income for 1958:
Transfer agent's fee, Stockholders relation service fee, U.S. stock listing expenses, Suit expenses, and
Provision for contingencies. The CTA allowed said items as deduction except those denominated by Atlas as
stockholders relation service fee and suit expenses.
Both parties appealed the CTA decision to the SC by way of two (2) separate petitions for review. Atlas
appealed only the disallowance of the deduction from gross income of the so-called stockholders relation
service fee.
ISSUE/HELD: W/N the annual public relations expense (aka stockholders relation service fee) paid to a public
relations consultant is a deductible expense from gross income
RATIO: Section 30 (a) (1) of the Tax Code allows a deduction of "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid
or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business." An item of expenditure, in order to be
deductible under this section of the statute, must fall squarely within its language. To be deductible as a
business expense, three conditions are imposed, namely: (1) the expense must be ordinary and necessary, (2)
it must be paid or incurred within the taxable year, and (3) it must be paid or incurred in carrying in a trade or
business. In addition, not only must the taxpayer meet the business test, he must substantially prove by
evidence or records the deductions claimed under the law, otherwise, the same will be disallowed. The mere
allegation of the taxpayer that an item of expense is ordinary and necessary does not justify its deduction.
The SC has never attempted to define with precision the terms "ordinary and necessary." As a guiding
principle, ordinarily, an expense will be considered "necessary" where the expenditure is appropriate and
helpful in the development of the taxpayer's business. It is "ordinary" when it connotes a payment which is
normal in relation to the business of the taxpayer and the surrounding circumstances. The term "ordinary" does
not require that the payments be habitual or normal in the sense that the same taxpayer will have to make
them often; the payment may be unique or non-recurring to the particular taxpayer affected.
There is thus no hard and fast rule on the matter. The right to a deduction depends in each case on the
particular facts and the relation of the payment to the type of business in which the taxpayer is engaged. The
intention of the taxpayer often may be the controlling fact in making the determination. Assuming that the
expenditure is ordinary and necessary in the operation of the taxpayer's business, the answer to the question
as to whether the expenditure is an allowable deduction as a business expense must be determined from the
nature of the expenditure itself, which in turn depends on the extent and permanency of the work accomplished
by the expenditure.
It appears that on December 1957, Atlas increased its capital stock. It claimed that its shares of stock were
sold in the United States because of the services rendered by the public relations firm. The information about
Atlas given out and played up in the mass communication media resulted in full subscription of the additional
shares issued by Atlas; consequently, the stockholders relation service fee, the compensation for services
carrying on the selling campaign, was in effect spent for the acquisition of additional capital, ergo, a
capital expenditure, and not an ordinary expense. It is not deductible from Atlas gross income in 1958
because expenses relating to recapitalization and reorganization of the corporation, the cost of
obtaining stock subscription, promotion expenses, and commission or fees paid for the sale of stock
reorganization are capital expenditures. That the expense in question was incurred to create a favorable
image of the corporation in order to gain or maintain the public's and its stockholders' patronage, does not
make it deductible as business expense. As held in a US case, efforts to establish reputation are akin to
acquisition of capital assets and, therefore, expenses related thereto are not business expense but capital
expenditures.
Note: The burden of proof that the expenses incurred are ordinary and necessary is on the taxpayer and does
not rest upon the Government. To avail of the claimed deduction, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to adduce
substantial evidence to establish a reasonably proximate relation petition between the expenses to the ordinary
conduct of the business of the taxpayer. A logical link or nexus between the expense and the taxpayer's
business must be established by the taxpayer.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
On the second assignment of error, aside from alleging lack of proof of payment of the expense deducted, the
Commissioner contended that such expense should be disallowed for not being ordinary and necessary and
not incurred in trade or business, as required under Section 30 (a) (1) of the National Internal Revenue Code.
He asserted that said fees were therefore incurred not for the production of income but for the acquisition
petition of capital in view of the definition that an expense is deemed to be incurred in trade or business if it
was incurred for the production of income, or in the expectation of producing income for the business. In
support of his contention, the Commissioner cited the ruling in Dome Mines, Ltd vs. Commisioner of Internal
Revenue involving the same issue as in the case at bar where the U.S. Board of Tax Appeal ruled that
expenses for listing capital stock in the stock exchange are not ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
carrying on the taxpayer's business which was gold mining and selling, which business is strikingly similar to
Atlas.
On the other hand, the Court of Tax Appeal relied on the ruling in the case of Chesapeake Corporation of
Virginia vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue where the Tax Court allowed the deduction of stock exchange
fee in dispute, which is an annually recurring cost for the annual maintenance of the listing.
We find the Chesapeake decision controlling with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In Dome
Mines, Ltd case the stock listing fee was disallowed as a deduction not only because the expenditure did not
meet the statutory test but also because the same was paid only once, and the benefit acquired thereby
continued indefinitely, whereas, in the Chesapeake Corporation case, fee paid to the stock exchange was
annual and recurring. In the instant case, we deal with the stock listing fee paid annually to a stock exchange
for the privilege of having its stock listed. It must be noted that the Court of Tax Appeal rejected the Dome
Mines case because it involves a payment made only once, hence, it was held therein that the single payment
made to the stock exchange was a capital expenditure, as distinguished from the instant case, where
payments were made annually. For this reason, we hold that said listing fee is an ordinary and necessary
business expense

Tax Digest 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Digest 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Digest 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOSE NIKKO M.

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v CIR

You might also like