EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA

EVANGELISTA, petitioners,
vs.
THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, respondents.
FUCKKKS: Herein petitioners seek a review of CTAs decision holding them
liable for income tax, real estate dealers tax and residence tax. As
stipulated, petitioners borrowed from their father a certain sum for the
purpose of buying real properties. Within February 1943 to April 1994, they
have bought parcels of land from different persons, the management of said
properties was charged to their brother Simeon evidenced by a document.
These properties were then leased or rented to various tenants.
On September 1954, CIR demanded the payment of income tax on
corporations, real estate dealers fixed tax, and corporation residence tax
from 1945-1949 to which the petitioners seek to be absolved from such
payment.
Issue: Whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations.
Held: The Court ruled that with respect to the tax on corporations, the issue
hinges on the meaning of the terms corporation and partnership as used
in Section 24 (provides that a tax shall be levied on every corporation no
matter how created or organized except general co-partnerships) and 84
(provides that the term corporation includes among others, partnership) of
the NIRC. Pursuant to Article 1767, NCC (provides for the concept of
partnership), its essential elements are: (a) an agreement to contribute
money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the
profits among the contracting parties.
It is of the opinion of the Court that the first element is undoubtedly present
for petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a
common fund. As to the second element, the Court fully satisfied that their
purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and
then divide the same among themselves as indicated by the following
circumstances:
1.
The common fund was not something they found already in
existence nor a property inherited by them pro indiviso. It was created
purposely, jointly borrowing a substantial portion thereof in order to establish
said common fund;
2.
They invested the same not merely in one transaction, but in a
series of transactions. The number of lots acquired and transactions
undertake is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that
was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the
aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired. In

other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar

to business transactions engaged in the purpose of gain;
3.
Said properties were not devoted to residential purposes, or to
other personal uses, of petitioners but were leased separately to
several persons;
4.
They were under the management of one person where the
affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same
belonged to a corporation or business and enterprise operated for
profit;
5.
Existed for more than ten years, or, to be exact, over fifteen
years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve years,
since Simeon Evangelista became the manager;
6.
Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either
on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the
causes for its continued existence.
The collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for
doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein.
Also, petitioners argument that their being mere co-owners did not
create a separate legal entity was rejected because, according to the Court,
the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly
speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When the NIRC
includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on
"corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are
not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. The
qualifying expression found in Section 24 and 84(b) clearly indicates that a
joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in
conformity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order
that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on
corporations. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that
personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships
therein referred to. For purposes of the tax on corporations, NIRC includes
these partnerships - with the exception only of duly registered general co
partnerships - within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore,
clear that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is
concerned and are subject to the income tax for corporations.
As regards the residence of tax for corporations (Section 2 of CA No.
465), it is analogous to that of section 24 and 84 (b) of the NIRC. It is
apparent that the terms "corporation" and "partnership" are used in both
statutes with substantially the same meaning. Consequently, petitioners are
subject, also, to the residence tax for corporations.
Finally, on the issues of being liable for real estate dealers tax, they
are also liable for the same because the records show that they have
habitually engaged in leasing said properties whose yearly gross rentals
exceeds P3,000.00 a year.
TAXABLE BITCHES!