Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Obillos Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    jessapuerin
    This document discusses the tax liability of four siblings who jointly purchased, owned, and later sold two parcels of land. The Commissioner assessed them for deficiency income taxes and penalties, treating them as an unregistered partnership. The court held that simply co-owning property and later dividing profits from its sale does not make the siblings an unregistered partnership under tax law. To consider them partners would blur the distinction between co-ownership and partnership and result in oppressive taxation. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the land after finding building residences on it was infeasible.

    Copyright:

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

    Obillos Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    jessapuerin
    65 views2 pages
    This document discusses the tax liability of four siblings who jointly purchased, owned, and later sold two parcels of land. The Commissioner assessed them for deficiency income taxes and penalties, treating them as an unregistered partnership. The court held that simply co-owning property and later dividing profits from its sale does not make the siblings an unregistered partnership under tax law. To consider them partners would blur the distinction between co-ownership and partnership and result in oppressive taxation. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the land after finding building residences on it was infeasible.

    Original Description:

    full text

    Original Title

    Obillos vs Cir

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the tax liability of four siblings who jointly purchased, owned, and later sold two parcels of land. The Commissioner assessed them for deficiency income taxes and penalties, treating them as an unregistered partnership. The court held that simply co-owning property and later dividing profits from its sale does not make the siblings an unregistered partnership under tax law. To consider them partners would blur the distinction between co-ownership and partnership and result in oppressive taxation. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the land after finding building residences on it was infeasible.

    Copyright:

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

    Obillos Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    jessapuerin
    This document discusses the tax liability of four siblings who jointly purchased, owned, and later sold two parcels of land. The Commissioner assessed them for deficiency income taxes and penalties, treating them as an unregistered partnership. The court held that simply co-owning property and later dividing profits from its sale does not make the siblings an unregistered partnership under tax law. To consider them partners would blur the distinction between co-ownership and partnership and result in oppressive taxation. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the land after finding building residences on it was infeasible.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-68118 October 29, 1985


    Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency
    JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on
    OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital
    sisters, petitioners gains already paid by them.
    vs.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four
    TAX APPEALS, respondents. petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or
    joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and
    Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners. 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs.
    Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822).

    The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges


    AQUINO, J.: of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin
    dissented. Hence, the instant appeal.
    This case is about the income tax liability of four
    brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as
    they had acquired from their father. having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the
    Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed
    On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and
    to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 divided the profit among themselves.
    and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan,
    Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable
    children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their unregistered partnership would result in oppressive
    residences. The company sold the two lots to taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax
    petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should
    p. 44, Rollo). Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to be obviated.
    them would show that they were co-owners of the two
    lots. As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such
    intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To
    In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than consider them as partners would obliterate the
    a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership.
    Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture
    sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the by reason of that isolated transaction.
    sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of
    them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid Their original purpose was to divide the lots for
    an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792. residential purposes. If later on they found it not
    feasible to build their residences on the lots because of
    In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the the high cost of construction, then they had no choice
    five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The
    Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay division of the profit was merely incidental to the
    corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature
    addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated
    He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 sooner or later. Castan Tobeas says:
    as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42%
    accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56. Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad
    ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad?
    Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of
    each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas
    full (not a mere capital gain of which is taxable) and generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la
    required them to pay deficiency income taxes sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion,
    aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe
    surcharge and the accumulated interest. ordinariamente sin ela; y por razon del fin objecto, en

    1
    que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras 'hacienda') value and to continue the existing
    que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad contractual relations with the Central Azucarera de Bais
    la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion. for milling purposes. Longa vs. Aranas, CTA Case No.
    653, July 31, 1963).
    Reflejo de este criterio es la sentencia de 15 de Octubre
    de 1940, en la que se dice que si en nuestro Derecho All co-ownerships are not deemed unregistered
    positive se ofrecen a veces dificultades al tratar de fijar pratnership.Co-Ownership who own properties which
    la linea divisoria entre comunidad de bienes y contrato produce income should not automatically be considered
    de sociedad, la moderna orientacion de la doctrina partners of an unregistered partnership, or a
    cientifica seala como nota fundamental de corporation, within the purview of the income tax law.
    diferenciacion aparte del origen de fuente de que To hold otherwise, would be to subject the income of all
    surgen, no siempre uniforme, la finalidad perseguida co-ownerships of inherited properties to the tax on
    por los interesados: lucro comun partible en la corporations, inasmuch as if a property does not
    sociedad, y mera conservacion y aprovechamiento en la produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of
    comunidad. (Derecho Civil Espanol, Vol. 2, Part 1, 10 income tax, whether the income tax on individuals or
    Ed., 1971, 328- 329). the income tax on corporation. (De Leon vs. CI R, CTA
    Case No. 738, September 11, 1961, cited in Araas,
    Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the 1977 Tax Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., pp. 77-78).
    sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a
    partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19342, May 25,
    have a joint or common right or interest in any property 1972, 45 SCRA 74, where after an extrajudicial
    from which the returns are derived". There must be an settlement the co-heirs used the inheritance or the
    unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint incomes derived therefrom as a common fund to
    venture.* produce profits for themselves, it was held that they
    were taxable as an unregistered partnership.
    Such intent was present in Gatchalian vs. Collector of
    Internal Revenue, 67 Phil. 666, where 15 persons It is likewise different from Reyes vs. Commissioner of
    contributed small amounts to purchase a two-peso Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198, where father and son
    sweepstakes ticket with the agreement that they would purchased a lot and building, entrusted the
    divide the prize The ticket won the third prize of administration of the building to an administrator and
    P50,000. The 15 persons were held liable for income tax divided equally the net income, and from Evangelista vs.
    as an unregistered partnership. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, where the
    three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real
    The instant case is distinguishable from the cases where property which they leased to various tenants and
    the parties engaged in joint ventures for profit. Thus, in derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in
    Oa vs. these two cases had formed an unregistered
    partnership.
    ** This view is supported by the following rulings of
    respondent Commissioner: In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have
    investigated was whether the father donated the two
    Co-owership distinguished from partnership.We find lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's
    that the case at bar is fundamentally similar to the De tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging
    Leon case. Thus, like the De Leon heirs, the Longa heirs this matter. It might have already prescribed.
    inherited the 'hacienda' in question pro-indiviso from
    their deceased parents; they did not contribute or WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed
    invest additional ' capital to increase or expand the and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No costs.
    inherited properties; they merely continued dedicating
    the property to the use to which it had been put by SO ORDERED.
    their forebears; they individually reported in their tax
    returns their corresponding shares in the income and
    expenses of the 'hacienda', and they continued for
    many years the status of co-ownership in order, as
    conceded by respondent, 'to preserve its (the

    You might also like