G.R. No. 78133 October 18, 1988 MARIANO P. PASCUAL and RENATO P. DRAGON, petitioners, vs.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. De la Cuesta, De las Alas and Callanta Law Offices for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents GANCAYCO, J.: The distinction between co-ownership and an unregistered partnership or joint venture for income tax purposes is the issue in this petition. On June 22, 1965, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land from Santiago Bernardino, et al. and on May 28, 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from Juan Roque. The first two parcels of land were sold by petitioners in 1968 toMarenir Development Corporation, while the three parcels of land were sold by petitioners to Erlinda Reyes and Maria Samson on March 19,1970. Petitioners realized a net profit in the sale made in 1968 in the amount of P165,224.70, while they realized a net profit of P60,000.00 in the sale made in 1970. The corresponding capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 by availing of the tax amnesties granted in the said years. However, in a letter dated March 31, 1979 of then Acting BIR Commissioner Efren I. Plana, petitioners were assessed and required to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970. Petitioners protested the said assessment in a letter of June 26, 1979 asserting that they had availed of tax amnesties way back in 1974. In a reply of August 22, 1979, respondent Commissioner informed petitioners that in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under Section 20(b) and its income was subject to the taxes prescribed under Section 24, both of the National Internal Revenue Code 1 that the unregistered partnership was subject to corporate income tax as distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to individual income tax; and that the availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 23, as amended, by petitioners relieved petitioners of their individual income tax liabilities but did not relieve them from the tax liability of the unregistered partnership. Hence, the petitioners were required to pay the deficiency income tax assessed. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals docketed as CTA Case No. 3045. In due course, the respondent court by a majority decision of March 30, 1987, 2 affirmed the decision and action taken by respondent commissioner with costs against petitioners. It ruled that on the basis of the principle enunciated in Evangelista 3 an unregistered partnership was in fact formed by petitioners which like a corporation was subject to corporate income tax distinct from that imposed on the partners. In a separate dissenting opinion, Associate Judge Constante Roaquin stated that considering the circumstances of this case, although there might in fact be a co-ownership between the petitioners, there was no adequate basis for the conclusion that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership which made "hem liable for corporate income tax under the Tax Code. Hence, this petition wherein petitioners invoke as basis thereof the following alleged errors of the respondent court: A. IN HOLDING AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER, TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP SUBJECT TO CORPORATE INCOME TAX, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF OFFERING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION THERETO RESTS UPON THE PETITIONERS. B. IN MAKING A FINDING, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ISOLATED SALE TRANSACTIONS, THAT AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP EXISTED THUS IGNORING THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY LAW THAT WOULD WARRANT THE PRESUMPTION/CONCLUSION THAT A PARTNERSHIP EXISTS. C. IN FINDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE EVANGELISTA CASE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DECIDED ALONGSIDE THE EVANGELISTA CASE.

D. IN RULING THAT THE TAX AMNESTY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PETITIONERS FROM PAYMENT OF OTHER TAXES FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY SUCH AMNESTY. (pp. 12-13, Rollo.) The petition is meritorious. The basis of the subject decision of the respondent court is the ruling of this Court in Evangelista. 4 In the said case, petitioners borrowed a sum of money from their father which together with their own personal funds they used in buying several real properties. They appointed their brother to manage their properties with full power to lease, collect, rent, issue receipts, etc. They had the real properties rented or leased to various tenants for several years and they gained net profits from the rental income. Thus, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on a corporation, among others, from them. In resolving the issue, this Court held as follows: The issue in this case is whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers' fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms corporation and partnership as used in sections 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read: Sec. 24. Rate of the tax on corporations.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (companies collectives), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: ... Sec. 84(b). The term "corporation" includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participation), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general co-partnerships (companies colectivas). Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Pursuant to this article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because: 1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence . It was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed 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. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed, on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transcations undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, 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 by petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain.

3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof. 4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely, Simeon Evangelists, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged to a corporation or business enterprise operated for profit. 5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years , or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelists 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. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. 5 In the present case, there is no evidence that petitioners entered into an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, and that they intended to divide the profits among themselves. Respondent commissioner and/ or his representative just assumed these conditions to be present on the basis of the fact that petitioners purchased certain parcels of land and became coowners thereof. In Evangelists, there was a series of transactions where petitioners purchased twenty-four (24) lots showing that the purpose was not limited to the conservation or preservation of the common fund or even the properties acquired by them. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions engaged in for the purpose of gain was present. In the instant case, petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land in 1965. They did not sell the same nor make any improvements thereon. In 1966, they bought another three (3) parcels of land from one seller. It was only 1968 when they sold the two (2) parcels of land after which they did not make any additional or new purchase. The remaining three (3) parcels were sold by them in 1970. The transactions were isolated. The character of habituality peculiar to business transactions for the purpose of gain was not present. In Evangelista, the properties were leased out to tenants for several years. The business was under the management of one of the partners. Such condition existed for over fifteen (15) years. None of the circumstances are present in the case at bar. The co-ownership started only in 1965 and ended in 1970. Thus, in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Angelo Bautista in Evangelista he said: I wish however to make the following observation Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a coownership share or do not share any profits made by the use of the property held in common does not convert their venture into a partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only

means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635-636) It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership. Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, but who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners. They have no common stock or capital, and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived. (Elements of the Law of Partnership by Flord D. Mechem 2nd Ed., section 83, p. 74.) A joint purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a co-partnership in respect thereto; nor does an agreement to share the profits and losses on the sale of land create a partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682,12 Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.) Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of realty, holding as tenants in common, and to divide the profits of disposing of it, the brother and the other not being entitled to share in plaintiffs commission, no partnership existed as between the three parties, whatever their relation may have been as to third parties. (Magee vs. Magee 123 N.E. 673, 233 Mass. 341.) In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property.Municipal Paving Co. vs. Herring 150 P. 1067, 50 III 470.) The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for the purpose of making gains; and they may, without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management, and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom. (Spurlock vs. Wilson, 142 S.W. 363,160 No. App. 14.) 6 The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must be a clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from the individual partners, and the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property. In the present case, there is clear evidence of co-ownership between the petitioners. There is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactions whereby they purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make them partners. They shared in the gross profits as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the tax amnesty thereby. Under the circumstances, they cannot be considered to have formed an unregistered partnership which is thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondent commissioner proposes. And even assuming for the sake of argument that such unregistered partnership appears to have been formed, since there is no such existing unregistered partnership with a distinct personality nor with assets that can be held liable for said deficiency corporate income tax, then petitioners can be held individually liable as partners for this unpaid obligation of the partnership p. 7 However, as petitioners have availed of the benefits of tax amnesty as individual taxpayers in these transactions, they are thereby relieved of any further tax liability arising therefrom. WHEREFROM, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals of March 30, 1987 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another decision is hereby rendered relieving petitioners of the corporate income tax liability in this case, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-9996 October 15, 1957 EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Santiago F. Alidio and Angel S. Dakila, Jr., for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Respondents. CONCEPCION, J.: This is a petition filed by Eufemia Evangelista, Manuela Evangelista and Francisca Evangelista, for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dispositive part of which reads: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, we hold that the petitioners are liable for the income tax, real estate dealer's tax and the residence tax for the years 1945 to 1949, inclusive, in accordance with the respondent's assessment for the same in the total amount of P6,878.34, which is hereby affirmed and the petition for review filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed with costs against petitioners. It appears from the stipulation submitted by the parties: 1. That the petitioners borrowed from their father the sum of P59,1400.00 which amount together with their personal monies was used by them for the purpose of buying real properties,. 2. That on February 2, 1943, they bought from Mrs. Josefina Florentino a lot with an area of 3,713.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon from the sum of P100,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P57,517.00 as of 1948; 3. That on April 3, 1944 they purchased from Mrs. Josefa Oppus 21 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 3,718.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P130,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P82,255.00 as of 1948; 4. That on April 28, 1944 they purchased from the Insular Investments Inc., a lot of 4,353 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P108,825.00. This property has an assessed value of P4,983.00 as of 1948; 5. That on April 28, 1944 they bought form Mrs. Valentina Afable a lot of 8,371 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P237,234.34. This property has an assessed value of P59,140.00 as of 1948; 6. That in a document dated August 16, 1945, they appointed their brother Simeon Evangelista to 'manage their properties with full power to lease; to collect and receive rents; to issue receipts therefor; in default of such payment, to bring suits against the defaulting tenants; to sign all letters, contracts, etc., for and in their behalf, and to endorse and deposit all notes and checks for them; 7. That after having bought the above-mentioned real properties the petitioners had the same rented or leases to various tenants; 8. That from the month of March, 1945 up to an including December, 1945, the total amount collected as rents on their real properties was P9,599.00 while the expenses amounted to P3,650.00 thereby leaving them a net rental income of P5,948.33; 9. That on 1946, they realized a gross rental income of in the sum of P24,786.30, out of which amount was deducted in the sum of P16,288.27 for expenses thereby leaving them a net rental income of P7,498.13; 10. That in 1948, they realized a gross rental income of P17,453.00 out of the which amount was deducted the sum of P4,837.65 as expenses, thereby leaving them a net rental income of P12,615.35. It further appears that on September 24, 1954 respondent Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on corporations, real estate dealer's fixed tax and corporation residence tax for the years 1945-1949, computed, according to assessment made by said officer, as follows: INCOME TAXES 1945 14.84

1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including surcharge and compromise REAL ESTATE DEALER'S FIXED TAX 1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including penalty RESIDENCE TAXES OF CORPORATION 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Total including surcharge TOTAL TAXES DUE

1,144.71 10.34 1,912.30 1,575.90 P6,157.09

P37.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 P527.00

P38.75 38.75 38.75 38.75 38.75 P193.75 P6,878.34.

Said letter of demand and corresponding assessments were delivered to petitioners on December 3, 1954, whereupon they instituted the present case in the Court of Tax Appeals, with a prayer that "the decision of the respondent contained in his letter of demand dated September 24, 1954" be reversed, and that they be absolved from the payment of the taxes in question, with costs against the respondent. After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Tax Appeals the above-mentioned decision for the respondent, and a petition for reconsideration and new trial having been subsequently denied, the case is now before Us for review at the instance of the petitioners.

The issue in this case whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms "corporation" and "partnership," as used in section 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read: SEC. 24. Rate of tax on corporations.There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (compaias colectivas), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: . . . SEC. 84 (b). The term 'corporation' includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general copartnerships. (compaias colectivas). Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, properly, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Pursuant to the article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because: 1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund. 2. They invested the same, not merely not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, 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 by the petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in the purpose of gain. 3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes, or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof. 4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely Simeon Evangelista, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, 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. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) 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. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the

existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point. Petitioners insist, however, that they are mere co-owners, not copartners, for, in consequence of the acts performed by them, a legal entity, with a personality independent of that of its members, did not come into existence, and some of the characteristics of partnerships are lacking in the case at bar. This pretense was correctly rejected by the Court of Tax Appeals. To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code 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. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression 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. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b), the term "corporation" includes, among other, joint accounts, (cuentas en participation)" and "associations," none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general copartnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84 [b] from the connotation of the term "corporation" It may not be amiss to add that petitioners' allegation to the effect that their liability in connection with the leasing of the lots above referred to, under the management of one person even if true, on which we express no opinion tends to increase the similarity between the nature of their venture and that corporations, and is, therefore, an additional argument in favor of the imposition of said tax on corporations. Under the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, "corporations" are taxed differently from "partnerships". By specific provisions of said laws, such "corporations" include "associations, joint-stock companies and insurance companies." However, the term "association" is not used in the aforementioned laws. . . . in any narrow or technical sense. It includes any organization, created for the transaction of designed affairs, or the attainment of some object, which like a corporation, continues notwithstanding that its members or participants change, and the affairs of which, like corporate affairs, are conducted by a single individual, a committee, a board, or some other group, acting in a representative capacity. It is immaterial whether such organization is created by an agreement, a declaration of trust, a statute, or otherwise. It includes a voluntary association, a joint-stock corporation or company, a 'business' trusts a 'Massachusetts' trust, a 'common law' trust, and 'investment' trust (whether of the fixed or the management type), an interinsuarance exchange operating through an attorney in fact, a partnership association, and any other type of organization (by whatever name known) which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust or an estate, or a partnership. (7A Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 788; emphasis supplied.). Similarly, the American Law. . . . provides its own concept of a partnership, under the term 'partnership 'it includes not only a partnership as known at common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organizations which carries on any business financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. . . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income taxation, p. 789; emphasis supplied.) The term 'partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, . . .. ( 8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis supplied.) . For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview

of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind 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 Commonwealth Act No. 465 provides in part: Entities liable to residence tax.-Every corporation, no matter how created or organized, whether domestic or resident foreign, engaged in or doing business in the Philippines shall pay an annual residence tax of five pesos and an annual additional tax which in no case, shall exceed one thousand pesos, in accordance with the following schedule: . . . The term 'corporation' as used in this Act includes joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuentas en participacion), association or insurance company, no matter how created or organized. (emphasis supplied.) Considering that the pertinent part of this provision is analogous to that of section 24 and 84 (b) of our National Internal Revenue Code (commonwealth Act No. 466), and that the latter was approved on June 15, 1939, the day immediately after the approval of said Commonwealth Act No. 465 (June 14, 1939), 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. Lastly, the records show that petitioners have habitually engaged in leasing the properties above mentioned for a period of over twelve years, and that the yearly gross rentals of said properties from June 1945 to 1948 ranged from P9,599 to P17,453. Thus, they are subject to the tax provided in section 193 (q) of our National Internal Revenue Code, for "real estate dealers," inasmuch as, pursuant to section 194 (s) thereof: 'Real estate dealer' includes any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, or renting property or his own account as principal and holding himself out as a full or part time dealer in real estate or as an owner of rental property or properties rented or offered to rent for an aggregate amount of three thousand pesos or more a year. . . (emphasis supplied.) Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax appeals is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioners herein. It is so ordered. Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring: I agree with the opinion that petitioners have actually contributed money to a common fund with express purpose of engaging in real estate business for profit. The series of transactions which they had undertaken attest to this. This appears in the following portion of the decision: 2. They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000. On April 3, 1944, they purchase 21 lots for P18,000. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real state for P108,825. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, 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 by the petitioner in February, 1943, In other words, we cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain. I wish however to make to make the following observation: Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides: (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish partnership, whether or not the person sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co-ownership shared or do not share any profits made by the use of property held in common does not convert their venture into a

partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a judicial personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635- 636). It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership. Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, but who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners. They have no common stock or capital, and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived. (Elements of the law of Partnership by Floyd R. Mechem, 2n Ed., section 83, p. 74.) A joint venture purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a copartnership in respect thereto; nor does not agreement to share the profits and loses on the sale of land create a partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682, 12 S Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.) Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of reality, holding as tenants in common, and to divide the profits of disposing of it, the brother and the other not being entitled to share in plaintiff's commissions, no partnership existed as between the parties, whatever relation may have been as to third parties. (Magee vs. Magee, 123 N. E. 6763, 233 Mass. 341.) In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally a participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property. (Municipal Paving Co. vs Herring, 150 P. 1067, 50 Ill. 470.) The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for purpose of making gains; and they may, without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom. (Spurlock vs. Wilson, 142 S. W. 363, 160 No. App. 14.) This is impliedly recognized in the following portion of the decision: "Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances (referring to the series of transactions) such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein."

G.R. No. 168118 August 28, 2006 THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: 1 2 Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 11, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 77177, entitled "The Manila Banking Corporation, petitioner, versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent." The Manila Banking Corporation, petitioner, was incorporated in 1961 and since then had engaged in the commercial banking industry until 1987. On May 22, 1987, the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(BSP) issued Resolution No. 505, pursuant to 3 Section 29 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 265 (the Central Bank Act), prohibiting petitioner from engaging in business by reason of insolvency. Thus, petitioner ceased operations that year and its assets and liabilities were placed under the charge of a government-appointed receiver. 4 Meanwhile, R.A. No. 8424, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Tax Reform Act of 1997, became effective on January 1, 1998. One of the changes introduced by this law is the imposition of the minimum corporate income tax on domestic and resident foreign corporations. Implementing this law is Revenue Regulations No. 9-98 stating that the law allows a four (4) year period from the time the corporations were registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) during which the minimum corporate income tax should not be imposed. On June 23, 1999, after 12 years since petitioner stopped its business operations, the BSP authorized it to operate as a thrift bank. The following year, specifically on April 7, 2000, it filed with the BIR its annual corporate income tax return and paid P33,816,164.00 for taxable year 1999. Prior to the filing of its income tax return, or on December 28, 1999, petitioner sent a letter to the BIR requesting a ruling on whether it is entitled to the four (4)-year grace period reckoned from 1999. In other words, petitioners position is that since it resumed operations in 1999, it will pay its minimum corporate income tax only after four (4) years thereafter. 5 On February 22, 2001, the BIR issued BIR Ruling No. 007-2001 stating that petitioner is entitled to the four (4)-year grace period. Since it reopened in 1999, the minimum corporate income tax may be imposed "not earlier than 2002, i.e. the fourth taxable year beginning 1999." The relevant portions of the BIR Ruling state: In reply, we hereby confirm that the law and regulations allow new corporations as well as existing corporations a leeway or adjustment period of four years counted from the year of commencement of business operations (reckoned at the time of registration by the corporation with the BIR) during which the MCIT (minimum corporate income tax) does not apply. If new corporations, as well as existing corporations such as those registered with the BIR in 1994 or earlier, are granted a 4-year grace period, we see no reason why TMBC, a corporation that has ceased business activities due to involuntary closure for more than a decade and is now only starting again to place its business back in order, may not be given the same opportunity. It should be stressed that although TMBC had been registered with the BIR before 1994, yet it did not have any business from 1987 to June 1999 due to its involuntary closure. This Office is therefore of an opinion, that for purposes of justice, equity and consistent with the intent of the law, TMBC's reopening last July 1999 is akin to the commencement of business operations of a new corporation, in consideration of which the law allows a 4-year period during which MCIT is not to be applied. Hence, MCIT may be

imposed upon TMBC not earlier than 2002, i.e., the fourth taxable year beginning 1999 which is the year when TMBC reopened. Likewise, we find merit in your position that for having just come out of receivership proceedings, which not only resulted in substantial losses but actually brought about a complete cessation of all businesses, TMBC may be qualified to ask for suspension of the MCIT. The law provides that the Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, may suspend the imposition of the MCIT on any corporation which suffers losses on account of prolonged labor dispute, or because of force majeure, or because of legitimate business reverses. [NIRC, Sec. 27(E)(3)] Revenue Regulations 9-98 defines the term "legitimate business reverses" to include substantial losses sustained due to fire, robbery, theft or embezzlement, or for other economic reasons as determined by the Secretary of Finance. Cessation of business activities as a result of being placed under involuntary receivership may be one such economic reason. But to be a basis for the recognition of the suspension of MCIT, such a situation should be properly defined and included in the regulations, which this Office intends to do. Pending such inclusion, the same cannot yet be invoked. Nevertheless, it is the position of this Office that the counting of the fourth taxable year, insofar as TMBC is concerned, begins in the year 1999 when TMBC reopened such that it will be only subject to MCIT beginning the year 2002. Pursuant to the above Ruling, petitioner filed with the BIR a claim for refund of the sum of P33,816,164.00 erroneously paid as minimum corporate income tax for taxable year 1999. Due to the inaction of the BIR on its claim, petitioner filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) a petition for review. On April 21, 2003, the CTA denied the petition, finding that petitioners payment of the amount of P33,816,164.00 corresponding to its minimum corporate income tax for taxable year 1999 is in order. The CTA held that petitioner is not entitled to the four (4)-year grace period because it is not a new corporation. It has continued to be the same corporation, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the BIR, despite being placed under receivership, thus: Moreover, it must be emphasized that when herein petitioner was placed under receivership, there was merely an interruption of its business operations. However, its corporate existence was never affected. The general rule is that the appointment of the receiver does not terminate the charter or work a dissolution of the corporation, even though the receivership is a permanent one. In other words, the corporation continues to exist as a legal entity, clothed with its franchises (65 Am. Jur. 2d, pp. 973-974). Petitioner, for all intents and purposes, remained to be the same corporation, registered with the SEC and with the BIR. While it may continue to perform its corporate functions, all its properties and assets were under the control and custody of a receiver, and its dealings with the public is somehow limited, if not momentarily suspended. x x x On June 11, 2003, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. On May 11, 2005, the appellate court rendered a Decision affirming the assailed judgment of the CTA. Thus, this petition for review on certiorari. The main issue for our resolution is whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of its minimum corporate income tax paid to the BIR for taxable year 1999. Petitioner contends that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding that it is not entitled to the four (4)-year grace period provided by law suspending the payment of its minimum corporate income tax since it is not a newly created corporation, having been registered as early as 1961.

For his part, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), respondent, maintains that pursuant to R.A. No. 8424, petitioner should pay its minimum corporate income tax beginning January 1, 1998 as it did not close its business operations in 1987 but merely suspended the same. Even if placed under receivership, its corporate existence was never affected. Thus, it falls under the category of an existing corporation recommencing its banking business operations. Section 27(E) of the Tax Code provides: Sec. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. x x x (E) Minimum Corporate Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. (1) Imposition of Tax. - A minimum corporate income tax of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year, as defined herein, is hereby imposed on a corporation taxable under this Title, beginning on the fourth taxable year immediately following the year in which such corporation commenced its business operations, when the minimum corporate income tax is greater than the tax computed under Subsection (A) of this Section for the taxable year. (2) Carry Forward of Excess Minimum Tax. - Any excess of the minimum corporate income tax over the normal income tax as computed under Subsection (A) of this Section shall be carried forward and credited against the normal income tax for the three (3) immediately succeeding taxable years. xxx Upon the other hand, Revenue Regulation No. 9-98 specifies the period when a corporation becomes subject to the minimum corporate income tax, thus: (5) Specific Rules for Determining the Period When a Corporation Becomes Subject to the MCIT (minimum corporate income tax) For purposes of the MCIT, the taxable year in which business operations commenced shall be the year in which the domestic corporation registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Firms which were registered with BIR in 1994 and earlier years shall be covered by the MCIT beginning January 1, 1998. xxx The intent of Congress relative to the minimum corporate income tax is to grant a four (4)year suspension of tax payment to newly formed corporations. Corporations still starting their business operations have to stabilize their venture in order to obtain a stronghold in the industry. It does not come as a surprise then when many companies reported losses in their initial years of operations. The following are excerpts from the Senate deliberations: Senator Romulo: x x x Let me go now to the minimum corporate income tax, which is on page 45 of the Journal, which is to minimize tax evasion on those corporations which have been declaring losses year in and year out. Here, the tax rate is three-fourths, three quarter of a percent or .75% applied to corporations that do not report any taxable income on the fourth year of their business operation. Therefore, those that do not report income on the first, second and third year are not included here. Senator Enrile: We assume that this is the period of stabilization of new company that is starting in business. Senator Romulo: That is right. Thus, in order to allow new corporations to grow and develop at the initial stages of their operations, the lawmaking body saw the need to provide a grace period of four years from their registration before they pay their minimum corporate income tax. Significantly, on February 23, 1995, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7906, otherwise known as the "Thrift Banks Act of 1995." It took effect on March 18, 1995. This law provides for the regulation of the organization and operations of thrift banks. Under Section 3, thrift banks

include savings and mortgage banks, private development banks, and stock savings and loans associations organized under existing laws. On June 15, 1999, the BIR issued Revenue Regulation No. 4-95 implementing certain provisions of the said R.A. No. 7906. Section 6 provides: Sec. 6. Period of exemption. All thrift banks created and organized under the provisions of the Act shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, fees, and charges of whatever nature and description, except the corporate income tax imposed under Title II of the NIRC and as specified in Section 2(A) of these regulations, for a period of five (5) years from the date of commencement of operations; while for thrift banks which are already existing and operating as of the date of effectivity of the Act ( March 18, 1995), the tax exemption shall be for a period of five (5) years reckoned from the date of such effectivity. For purposes of these regulations, "date of commencement of operations" shall be understood to mean the date when the thrift bank was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the date when the Certificate of Authority to Operate was issued by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, whichever comes later. xxx As mentioned earlier, petitioner bank was registered with the BIR in 1961. However, in 1987, it was found insolvent by the Monetary Board of the BSP and was placed under receivership. After twelve (12) years, or on June 23, 1999, the BSP issued to it a Certificate of Authority to Operate as a thrift bank. Earlier, or on January 21, 1999, it registered with the BIR. Then it filed with the SEC its Articles of Incorporation which was approved on June 22, 1999. It is clear from the above-quoted provision of Revenue Regulations No. 4-95 that the date of commencement of operations of a thrift bank is the date it was registered with the SEC or the date when the Certificate of Authority to Operate was issued to it by the Monetary Board of the BSP, whichever comes later. Let it be stressed that Revenue Regulations No. 9-98, implementing R.A. No. 8424 imposing the minimum corporate income tax on corporations, provides that for purposes of this tax, the date when business operations commence is the year in which the domestic corporation registered with the BIR. However, under Revenue Regulations No. 4-95, the date of commencement of operations of thrift banks, such as herein petitioner, is the date the particular thrift bank was registered with the SEC or the date when the Certificate of Authority to Operate was issued to it by the Monetary Board of the BSP, whichever comes later. Clearly then, Revenue Regulations No. 4-95, not Revenue Regulations No. 9-98, applies to petitioner, being athrift bank. It is, therefore, entitled to a grace period of four (4) years counted from June 23, 1999 when it was authorized by the BSP to operate as a thrift bank. Consequently, it should only pay its minimum corporate income tax after four (4) years from 1999. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77177 is hereby REVERSED. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is directed to refund to petitioner bank the sum of P33,816,164.00 prematurely paid as minimum corporate income tax. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 180066 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision 1 dated 9 August 2007 and Resolution2 dated 11 October 2007 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in CTA E.B. No. 246. The CTA en banc affirmed the Decision3 dated 31 July 2006 of the CTA Second Division in C.T.A. Case No. 7010, ordering the cancellation and withdrawal of Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 dated 3 September 2003 and Formal Letter of Demand dated 12 January 2004, issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), for the payment of Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT) in the amount of P272,421,886.58. There is no dispute as to the antecedent facts of this case. PAL is a domestic corporation organized under the corporate laws of the Republic of the Philippines; declared the national flag carrier of the country; and the grantee under Presidential Decree No. 15904 of a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain transport services for the carriage of passengers, mail, and property by air, in and between any and all points and places throughout the Philippines, and between the Philippines and other countries. 5 For its fiscal year ending 31 March 2001 (FY 2000-2001), PAL allegedly incurred zero taxable income,6 which left it with unapplied creditable withholding tax7 in the amount of P2,334,377.95. PAL did not pay any MCIT for the period. In a letter dated 12 July 2002, addressed to petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), PAL requested for the refund of its unapplied creditable withholding tax for FY 2000-2001. PAL attached to its letter the following: (1) Schedule of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source for FY 2000-2001; (2) Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld; and (3) Audited Financial Statements.1avvphi1 Acting on the aforementioned letter of PAL, the Large Taxpayers Audit and Investigation Division 1 (LTAID 1) of the BIR Large Taxpayers Service (LTS), issued on 16 August 2002, Tax Verification Notice No. 00201448, authorizing Revenue Officer Jacinto Cueto, Jr. (Cueto) to verify the supporting documents and pertinent records relative to the claim of PAL for refund of its unapplied creditable withholding tax for FY 2000-20001. In a letter dated 19 August 2003, LTAID 1 Chief Armit S. Linsangan invited PAL to an informal conference at the BIR National Office in Diliman, Quezon City, on 27 August 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss the results of the investigation conducted by Revenue Officer Cueto, supervised by Revenue Officer Madelyn T. Sacluti. BIR officers and PAL representatives attended the scheduled informal conference, during which the former relayed to the latter that the BIR was denying the claim for refund of PAL and, instead, was assessing PAL for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001. The PAL representatives argued that PAL was not liable for MCIT under its franchise. The BIR officers then informed the PAL representatives that the matter would be referred to the BIR Legal Service for opinion. The LTAID 1 issued, on 3 September 2003, PAN No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094, which was received by PAL on 23 October 2003. LTAID 1 assessed PAL for P262,474,732.54, representing deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001, plus interest and compromise penalty, computed as follows: Sales/Revenues from Operation Less: Cost of Services Gross Income from Operation P 38,798,721,685.00 30,316,679,013.00 8,482,042,672.00

Add: Non-operating income Total Gross Income for MCIT purposes Rate of Tax Tax Due Add: 20% interest (8-16-00 to 10-31-03) Compromise Penalty Total Amount Due

465,111,368.00 9,947,154,040.008 2% 178,943,080.80 83,506,651.74 25,000.00 P 262,474,732.549

PAL protested PAN No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 through a letter dated 4 November 2003 to the BIR LTS. On 12 January 2004, the LTAID 1 sent PAL a Formal Letter of Demand for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001 in the amount of P271,421,88658, based on the following calculation: Sales/Revenues from Operation Less: Cost of Services Direct Costs Less: Non-deductible interest expense Gross Income from Operation Add: Non-operating Income 433,082,004.00 P 8,482,042,672.00 465,111,368.00 P 9,947,154,040.00 P 178,943,080.80 92,453,805.78 25,000.00 P 271,421,886.5810 30,316,679,013.00 P 30,749,761,017.00 P 38,798,721,685.00

Total Gross Income for MCIT purposes MCIT tax due Interest 20% per annum 7/16/01 to 02/15/04 Compromise Penalty Total MCIT due and demandable

PAL received the foregoing Formal Letter of Demand on 12 February 2004, prompting it to file with the BIR LTS a formal written protest dated 13 February 2004. The BIR LTS rendered on 7 May 2004 its Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, which was received by PAL on 26 May 2004. Invoking Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 66-2003, the BIR LTS denied with finality the protest of PAL and reiterated the request that PAL immediately pay its deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency.1avvphi1 PAL filed a Petition for Review with the CTA, which was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 7010 and raffled to the CTA Second Division. The CTA Second Division promulgated its Decision on 31 July 2006, ruling in favor of PAL. The dispositive portion of the judgment of the CTA Second Division reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Assessment Notice No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 and Formal Letter of Demand for the payment of deficiency Minimum Corporate Income Tax in the amount of P272,421,886.58 are hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN.11 In a Resolution dated 2 January 2007, the CTA Second Division denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR. It was then the turn of the CIR to file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, docketed as C.T.A. E.B. No. 246. The CTA en banc found that "the cited legal provisions and jurisprudence are teeming with life with respect to the grant of tax exemption too vivid to pass unnoticed," and that "the Court in Division correctly ruled in favor of the respondent [PAL] granting its petition for the cancellation of Assessment Notice No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 and Formal Letter of Demand for the deficiency MCIT in the amount of P272,421,886.58."12 Consequently, the CTA en banc denied the Petition of the CIR for lack of merit. The CTA en banc likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR in a Resolution dated 11 October 2007. Hence, the CIR comes before this Court via the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, based on the grounds stated hereunder: THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN ITS ASSAILED DECISION BECAUSE: (1) [PAL] CLEARLY OPTED TO BE COVERED BY THE INCOME TAX PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997 (NIRC OF 1997). (sic) AS AMENDED; HENCE, IT IS COVERED BY THE MCIT PROVISION OF THE SAME CODE. (2) THE MCIT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF "OTHER TAXES" WHICH WOULD ENABLE RESPONDENT TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE "IN LIEU" (sic) OF ALL OTHER TAXES" CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 13 OF P.D. NO. 1590 ("CHARTER"). (3) THE MCIT PROVISION OF THE NIRC OF 1997 IS NOT AN AMENDMENT OF [PALS] CHARTER. (4) PAL IS NOT ONLY GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WHAT WILL GIVE IT THE BENEFIT OF A LOWER TAX, BUT ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING ITS SHARE OF THE TAX BURDEN, AS IS EVIDENT IN SECTION 22 OF RA NO. 9337. (5) A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION IS NEVER PRESUMED; [PAL] IS LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY MCIT.13 There is only one vital issue that the Court must resolve in the Petition at bar, i.e., whether PAL is liable for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001. The Court answers in the negative. Presidential Decree No. 1590, the franchise of PAL, contains provisions specifically governing the taxation of said corporation, to wit: Section 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax: (a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or (b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the grantee from all sources, without distinction as to transport or nontransport operations; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only the gross passenger, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax. The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city,

provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following: 1. All taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on local purchases by the grantee of aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form, and whether such taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees are directly due from or imposable upon the purchaser or the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of said petroleum products but are billed or passed on to the grantee either as part of the price or cost thereof or by mutual agreement or other arrangement; provided, that all such purchases by, sales or deliveries of aviation gas, fuel, and oil to the grantee shall be for exclusive use in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto; 2. All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price; 3. All taxes on lease rentals, interest, fees, and other charges payable to lessors, whether foreign or domestic, of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, and other property rented, leased, or chartered by the grantee where the payment of such taxes is assumed by the grantee; 4. All taxes on interest, fees, and other charges on foreign loans obtained and other obligations incurred by the grantee where the payment of such taxes is assumed by the grantee; 5. All taxes, fees, and other charges on the registration, licensing, acquisition, and transfer of aircraft, equipment, motor vehicles, and all other personal and real property of the grantee; and 6. The corporate development tax under Presidential Decree No. 1158-A. The grantee, shall, however, pay the tax on its real property in conformity with existing law. For purposes of computing the basic corporate income tax as provided herein, the grantee is authorized: (a) To depreciate its assets to the extent of not more than twice as fast the normal rate of depreciation; and (b) To carry over as a deduction from taxable income any net loss incurred in any year up to five years following the year of such loss. Section 14. The grantee shall pay either the franchise tax or the basic corporate income tax on quarterly basis to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Within sixty (60) days after the end of each of the first three quarters of the taxable calendar or fiscal year, the quarterly franchise or income-tax return shall be filed and payment of either the franchise or income tax shall be made by the grantee. A final or an adjustment return covering the operation of the grantee for the preceding calendar or fiscal year shall be filed on or before the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year. The amount of the final franchise or income tax to be paid by the grantee shall be the balance of the total franchise or income tax shown in the final or adjustment return after deducting therefrom the total quarterly franchise or income taxes already paid during the preceding first three quarters of the same taxable year. Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual annual franchise of income tax due as shown in the final or adjustment franchise or income-tax return shall either be refunded to the grantee or credited against the grantee's quarterly franchise or income-tax liability for the succeeding taxable year or years at the option of the grantee. The term "gross revenues" is herein defined as the total gross income earned by the grantee from; (a) transport, nontransport, and other services; (b) earnings realized from investments in money-market placements, bank deposits, investments in shares of stock and other securities,

and other investments; (c) total gains net of total losses realized from the disposition of assets and foreign-exchange transactions; and (d) gross income from other sources. (Emphases ours.) According to the afore-quoted provisions, the taxation of PAL, during the lifetime of its franchise, shall be governed by two fundamental rules, particularly: (1) PAL shall pay the Government either basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower; and (2) the tax paid by PAL, under either of these alternatives, shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges, except only real property tax. The basic corporate income tax of PAL shall be based on its annual net taxable income, computed in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Presidential Decree No. 1590 also explicitly authorizes PAL, in the computation of its basic corporate income tax, to (1) depreciate its assets twice as fast the normal rate of depreciation; 14 and (2) carry over as a deduction from taxable income any net loss incurred in any year up to five years following the year of such loss.15 Franchise tax, on the other hand, shall be two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by PAL from all sources, whether transport or nontransport operations. However, with respect to international air-transport service, the franchise tax shall only be imposed on the gross passenger, mail, and freight revenues of PAL from its outgoing flights. In its income tax return for FY 2000-2001, filed with the BIR, PAL reported no net taxable income for the period, resulting in zero basic corporate income tax, which would necessarily be lower than any franchise tax due from PAL for the same period. The CIR, though, assessed PAL for MCIT for FY 2000-2001. It is the position of the CIR that the MCIT is income tax for which PAL is liable. The CIR reasons that Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 provides that the corporate income tax of PAL shall be computed in accordance with the NIRC. And, since the NIRC of 1997 imposes MCIT, and PAL has not applied for relief from the said tax, then PAL is subject to the same. The Court is not persuaded. The arguments of the CIR are contrary to the plain meaning and obvious intent of Presidential Decree No. 1590, the franchise of PAL. Income tax on domestic corporations is covered by Section 27 of the NIRC of 1997, 16 pertinent provisions of which are reproduced below for easy reference: SEC. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. (A) In General Except as otherwise provided in this Code, an income tax of thirty-five percent (35%) is hereby imposed upon the taxable income derived during each taxable year from all sources within and without the Philippines by every corporation, as defined in Section 22(B) of this Code and taxable under this Title as a corporation, organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines: Provided, That effective January 1, 1998, the rate of income tax shall be thirtyfour percent (34%); effective January 1, 1999, the rate shall be thirty-three percent (33%); and effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, the rate shall be thirty-two percent (32%). xxxx (E) Minimum Corporate Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. (1) Imposition of Tax. A minimum corporate income tax of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year, as defined herein, is hereby imposed on a corporation taxable under this Title, beginning on the fourth taxable year immediately following the year in which such corporation commenced its business operations, when the minimum income tax is greater than the tax computed under Subsection (A) of this Section for the taxable year. Hence, a domestic corporation must pay whichever is higher of: (1) the income tax under Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, computed by applying the tax rate therein to the taxable income of the corporation; or (2) the MCIT under Section 27(E), also of the NIRC of 1997, equivalent to 2% of the gross income of the corporation. Although this may be the general rule in determining the income tax due from a domestic corporation under the NIRC of 1997, it can only be applied to PAL to the extent allowed by the provisions in the franchise of PAL specifically governing its taxation.

After a conscientious study of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, in relation to Sections 27(A) and 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997, the Court, like the CTA en banc and Second Division, concludes that PAL cannot be subjected to MCIT for FY 2000-2001. First, Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 refers to "basic corporate income tax." In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 17 the Court already settled that the "basic corporate income tax," under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, relates to the general rate of 35% (reduced to 32% by the year 2000) as stipulated in Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997. Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 requires that the basic corporate income tax be computed in accordance with the NIRC. This means that PAL shall compute its basic corporate income tax using the rate and basis prescribed by the NIRC of 1997 for the said tax. There is nothing in Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 to support the contention of the CIR that PAL is subject to the entire Title II of the NIRC of 1997, entitled "Tax on Income." Second, Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 further provides that the basic corporate income tax of PAL shall be based on its annual net taxable income. This is consistent with Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, which provides that the rate of basic corporate income tax, which is 32% beginning 1 January 2000, shall be imposed on the taxable income of the domestic corporation. Taxable income is defined under Section 31 of the NIRC of 1997 as the pertinent items of gross income specified in the said Code, less the deductions and/or personal and additional exemptions, if any, authorized for such types of income by the same Code or other special laws. The gross income, referred to in Section 31, is described in Section 32 of the NIRC of 1997 as income from whatever source, including compensation for services; the conduct of trade or business or the exercise of profession; dealings in property; interests; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; prizes and winnings; pensions; and a partners distributive share in the net income of a general professional partnership. Pursuant to the NIRC of 1997, the taxable income of a domestic corporation may be arrived at by subtracting from gross income deductions authorized, not just by the NIRC of 1997, 18 but also by special laws. Presidential Decree No. 1590 may be considered as one of such special laws authorizing PAL, in computing its annual net taxable income, on which its basic corporate income tax shall be based, to deduct from its gross income the following: (1) depreciation of assets at twice the normal rate; and (2) net loss carry-over up to five years following the year of such loss. In comparison, the 2% MCIT under Section 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997 shall be based on the gross income of the domestic corporation. The Court notes that gross income, as the basis for MCIT, is given a special definition under Section 27(E)(4) of the NIRC of 1997, different from the general one under Section 34 of the same Code. According to the last paragraph of Section 27(E)(4) of the NIRC of 1997, gross income of a domestic corporation engaged in the sale of service means gross receipts, less sales returns, allowances, discounts and cost of services. "Cost of services" refers to all direct costs and expenses necessarily incurred to provide the services required by the customers and clients including (a) salaries and employee benefits of personnel, consultants, and specialists directly rendering the service; and (b) cost of facilities directly utilized in providing the service, such as depreciation or rental of equipment used and cost of supplies. 19 Noticeably, inclusions in and exclusions/deductions from gross income for MCIT purposes are limited to those directly arising from the conduct of the taxpayers business. It is, thus, more limited than the gross income used in the computation of basic corporate income tax. In light of the foregoing, there is an apparent distinction under the NIRC of 1997 between taxable income, which is the basis for basic corporate income tax under Section 27(A); and gross income, which is the basis for the MCIT under Section 27(E). The two terms have their respective technical meanings, and cannot be used interchangeably. The same reasons prevent this Court from declaring that the basic corporate income tax, for which PAL is liable under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, also covers MCIT under Section 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997, since

the basis for the first is the annual net taxable income, while the basis for the second is gross income. Third, even if the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT are both income taxes under Section 27 of the NIRC of 1997, and one is paid in place of the other, the two are distinct and separate taxes. The Court again cites Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 20 wherein it held that income tax on the passive income21 of a domestic corporation, under Section 27(D) of the NIRC of 1997, is different from the basic corporate income tax on the taxable income of a domestic corporation, imposed by Section 27(A), also of the NIRC of 1997. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 gives PAL the option to pay basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower; and the tax so paid shall be in lieu of all other taxes, except real property tax. The income tax on the passive income of PAL falls within the category of "all other taxes" from which PAL is exempted, and which, if already collected, should be refunded to PAL. The Court herein treats MCIT in much the same way. Although both are income taxes, the MCIT is different from the basic corporate income tax, not just in the rates, but also in the bases for their computation. Not being covered by Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, which makes PAL liable only for basic corporate income tax, then MCIT is included in "all other taxes" from which PAL is exempted. That, under general circumstances, the MCIT is paid in place of the basic corporate income tax, when the former is higher than the latter, does not mean that these two income taxes are one and the same. The said taxes are merely paid in the alternative, giving the Government the opportunity to collect the higher amount between the two. The situation is not much different from Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, which reversely allows PAL to pay, whichever is lower of the basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax. It does not make the basic corporate income tax indistinguishable from the franchise tax. Given the fundamental differences between the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT, presented in the preceding discussion, it is not baseless for this Court to rule that, pursuant to the franchise of PAL, said corporation is subject to the first tax, yet exempted from the second. Fourth, the evident intent of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520 is to extend to PAL tax concessions not ordinarily available to other domestic corporations. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520 permits PAL to pay whichever is lower of the basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax; and the tax so paid shall be in lieu of all other taxes, except only real property tax. Hence, under its franchise, PAL is to pay the least amount of tax possible. Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520 is not unusual. A public utility is granted special tax treatment (including tax exceptions/exemptions) under its franchise, as an inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the said public utility. 22 In this case, in addition to being a public utility providing air-transport service, PAL is also the official flag carrier of the country. The imposition of MCIT on PAL, as the CIR insists, would result in a situation that contravenes the objective of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. In effect, PAL would not just have two, but three tax alternatives, namely, the basic corporate income tax, MCIT, or franchise tax. More troublesome is the fact that, as between the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT, PAL shall be made to pay whichever is higher, irrefragably, in violation of the avowed intention of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 to make PAL pay for the lower amount of tax. Fifth, the CIR posits that PAL may not invoke in the instant case the "in lieu of all other taxes" clause in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520, if it did not pay anything at all as basic corporate income tax or franchise tax. As a result, PAL should be made liable for "other taxes" such as MCIT. This line of reasoning has been dubbed as the Substitution Theory, and this is not the first time the CIR raised the same. The Court already rejected the Substitution Theory in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,23 to wit: "Substitution Theory" of the CIR Untenable

A careful reading of Section 13 rebuts the argument of the CIR that the "in lieu of all other taxes" proviso is a mere incentive that applies only when PAL actually pays something. It is clear that PD 1590 intended to give respondent the option to avail itself of Subsection (a) or (b) as consideration for its franchise. Either option excludes the payment of other taxes and dues imposed or collected by the national or the local government. PAL has the option to choose the alternative that results in lower taxes. It is not the fact of tax payment that exempts it, but the exercise of its option. Under Subsection (a), the basis for the tax rate is respondents annual net taxable income, which (as earlier discussed) is computed by subtracting allowable deductions and exemptions from gross income. By basing the tax rate on the annual net taxable income, PD 1590 necessarily recognized the situation in which taxable income may result in a negative amount and thus translate into a zero tax liability. Notably, PAL was owned and operated by the government at the time the franchise was last amended. It can reasonably be contemplated that PD 1590 sought to assist the finances of the government corporation in the form of lower taxes. When respondent operates at a loss (as in the instant case), no taxes are due; in this instances, it has a lower tax liability than that provided by Subsection (b). The fallacy of the CIRs argument is evident from the fact that the payment of a measly sum of one peso would suffice to exempt PAL from other taxes, whereas a zero liability arising from its losses would not. There is no substantial distinction between a zero tax and a one-peso tax liability. (Emphasis ours.) Based on the same ratiocination, the Court finds the Substitution Theory unacceptable in the present Petition. The CIR alludes as well to Republic Act No. 9337, for reasons similar to those behind the Substitution Theory. Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9337, more popularly known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (E-VAT) Law, abolished the franchise tax imposed by the charters of particularly identified public utilities, including Presidential Decree No. 1590 of PAL. PAL may no longer exercise its options or alternatives under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, and is now liable for both corporate income tax and the 12% VAT on its sale of services. The CIR alleges that Republic Act No. 9337 reveals the intention of the Legislature to make PAL share the tax burden of other domestic corporations. The CIR seems to lose sight of the fact that the Petition at bar involves the liability of PAL for MCIT for the fiscal year ending 31 March 2001. Republic Act No. 9337, which took effect on 1 July 2005, cannot be applied retroactively24 and any amendment introduced by said statute affecting the taxation of PAL is immaterial in the present case. And sixth, Presidential Decree No. 1590 explicitly allows PAL, in computing its basic corporate income tax, to carry over as deduction any net loss incurred in any year, up to five years following the year of such loss. Therefore, Presidential Decree No. 1590 does not only consider the possibility that, at the end of a taxable period, PAL shall end up with zero annual net taxable income (when its deductions exactly equal its gross income), as what happened in the case at bar, but also the likelihood that PAL shall incur net loss (when its deductions exceed its gross income). If PAL is subjected to MCIT, the provision in Presidential Decree No. 1590 on net loss carry-over will be rendered nugatory. Net loss carry-over is material only in computing the annual net taxable income to be used as basis for the basic corporate income tax of PAL; but PAL will never be able to avail itself of the basic corporate income tax option when it is in a net loss position, because it will always then be compelled to pay the necessarily higher MCIT. Consequently, the insistence of the CIR to subject PAL to MCIT cannot be done without contravening Presidential Decree No. 1520. Between Presidential Decree No. 1520, on one hand, which is a special law specifically governing the franchise of PAL, issued on 11 June 1978; and the NIRC of 1997, on the other, which is a general law on national internal revenue taxes, that took effect on 1 January 1998, the former prevails. The rule is that on a specific matter, the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former. In addition, where there

are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case. It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.25 Neither can it be said that the NIRC of 1997 repealed or amended Presidential Decree No. 1590. While Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 provides that the franchise is granted to PAL with the understanding that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by competent authority when the public interest so requires, Section 24 of the same Decree also states that the franchise or any portion thereof may only be modified, amended, or repealed expressly by a special law or decree that shall specifically modify, amend, or repeal said franchise or any portion thereof. No such special law or decree exists herein. The CIR cannot rely on Section 7(B) of Republic Act No. 8424, which amended the NIRC in 1997 and reads as follows: Section 7. Repealing Clauses. xxxx (B) The provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all other laws, including charters of government-owned or controlled corporations, decrees, orders, or regulations or parts thereof, that are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. The CIR reasons that PAL was a government-owned and controlled corporation when Presidential Decree No. 1590, its franchise or charter, was issued in 1978. Since PAL was still operating under the very same charter when Republic Act No. 8424 took effect in 1998, then the latter can repeal or amend the former by virtue of Section 7(B). The Court disagrees. A brief recount of the history of PAL is in order. PAL was established as a private corporation under the general law of the Republic of the Philippines in February 1941. In November 1977, the government, through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), acquired the majority shares in PAL. PAL was privatized in January 1992 when the local consortium PR Holdings acquired a 67% stake therein.26 It is true that when Presidential Decree No. 1590 was issued on 11 June 1978, PAL was then a government-owned and controlled corporation; but when Republic Act No. 8424, amending the NIRC, took effect on 1 January 1998, PAL was already a private corporation for six years. The repealing clause under Section 7(B) of Republic Act No. 8424 simply refers to charters of government-owned and controlled corporations, which would simply and plainly mean corporations under the ownership and control of the government at the time of effectivity of said statute. It is already a stretch for the Court to read into said provision charters, issued to what were then government-owned and controlled corporations that are now private, but still operating under the same charters. That the Legislature chose not to amend or repeal Presidential Decree No. 1590, even after PAL was privatized, reveals the intent of the Legislature to let PAL continue enjoying, as a private corporation, the very same rights and privileges under the terms and conditions stated in said charter. From the moment PAL was privatized, it had to be treated as a private corporation, and its charter became that of a private corporation. It would be completely illogical to say that PAL is a private corporation still operating under a charter of a government-owned and controlled corporation. The alternative argument of the CIR that the imposition of the MCIT is pursuant to the amendment of the NIRC, and not of Presidential Decree No. 1590 is just as specious. As has already been settled by this Court, the basic corporate income tax under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 relates to the general tax rate under Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, which is 32% by the year 2000, imposed on taxable income. Thus, only provisions of the

NIRC of 1997 necessary for the computation of the basic corporate income tax apply to PAL. And even though Republic Act No. 8424 amended the NIRC by introducing the MCIT, in what is now Section 27(E) of the said Code, this amendment is actually irrelevant and should not affect the taxation of PAL, since the MCIT is clearly distinct from the basic corporate income tax referred to in Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, and from which PAL is consequently exempt under the "in lieu of all other taxes" clause of its charter. The CIR calls the attention of the Court to RMC No. 66-2003, on "Clarifying the Taxability of Philippine Airlines (PAL) for Income Tax Purposes As Well As Other Franchise Grantees Similarly Situated." According to RMC No. 66-2003: Section 27(E) of the Code, as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 9-98, provides that MCIT of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year (whether calendar or fiscal year, depending on the accounting period employed) is imposed upon any domestic corporation beginning the 4th taxable year immediately following the taxable year in which such corporation commenced its business operations. The MCIT shall be imposed whenever such corporation has zero or negative taxable income or whenever the amount of MCIT is greater than the normal income tax due from such corporation. With the advent of such provision beginning January 1, 1998, it is certain that domestic corporations subject to normal income tax as well as those choose to be subject thereto, such as PAL, are bound to pay income tax regardless of whether they are operating at a profit or loss. Thus, in case of operating loss, PAL may either opt to subject itself to minimum corporate income tax or to the 2% franchise tax, whichever is lower. On the other hand, if PAL is operating at a profit, the income tax liability shall be the lower amount between: (1) normal income tax or MCIT whichever is higher; and (2) 2% franchise tax. The CIR attempts to sway this Court to adopt RMC No. 66-2003 since the "[c]onstruction by an executive branch of government of a particular law although not binding upon the courts must be given weight as the construction comes from the branch of the government called upon to implement the law."27 But the Court is unconvinced. It is significant to note that RMC No. 66-2003 was issued only on 14 October 2003, more than two years after FY 2000-2001 of PAL ended on 31 March 2001. This violates the well-entrenched principle that statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively only, unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication.28 Moreover, despite the claims of the CIR that RMC No. 66-2003 is just a clarificatory and internal issuance, the Court observes that RMC No. 66-2003 does more than just clarify a previous regulation and goes beyond mere internal administration. It effectively increases the tax burden of PAL and other taxpayers who are similarly situated, making them liable for a tax for which they were not liable before. Therefore, RMC No. 66-2003 cannot be given effect without previous notice or publication to those who will be affected thereby. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,29 the Court ratiocinated that: It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. A reading of RMC 37-93, particularly considering the circumstances under which it has been issued, convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a corrective measure (revoking in the process the previous holdings of past Commissioners) or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in fact and most importantly, been made in order to

place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654. Specifically, the new law would have its amendatory provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as bearing foreign brands. Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of locally manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to 45% ad valorem tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654, would have had no new tax rate consequence on private respondent's products. Evidently, in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate, the now disputed RMC 37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not simply interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasilegislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then ignored. Indeed, the BIR itself, in its RMC 10-86, has observed and provided: "RMC NO. 10-86 Effectivity of Internal Revenue Rules and Regulations "It has been observed that one of the problem areas bearing on compliance with Internal Revenue Tax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional provision on 'due process of law' and the essence of the Civil Code provision concerning effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution; Art. 2, New Civil Code). "In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules and regulations, in conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are hereby prescribed for the drafting, issuance and implementation of the said Revenue Tax Issuances: "(1). This Circular shall apply only to (a) Revenue Regulations; (b) Revenue Audit Memorandum Orders; and (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and Revenue Memorandum Orders bearing on internal revenue tax rules and regulations. "(2). Except when the law otherwise expressly provides, the aforesaid internal revenue tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof may be fairly presumed. "Due notice of the said issuances may be fairly presumed only after the following procedures have been taken: "xxx xxx xxx "(5). Strict compliance with the foregoing procedures is enjoined.13 Nothing on record could tell us that it was either impossible or impracticable for the BIR to observe and comply with the above requirements before giving effect to its questioned circular. (Emphases ours.) The Court, however, stops short of ruling on the validity of RMC No. 66-2003, for it is not among the issues raised in the instant Petition. It only wishes to stress the requirement of prior notice to PAL before RMC No. 66-2003 could have become effective. Only after RMC No. 66-2003 was issued on 14 October 2003 could PAL have been given notice of said circular, and only following such notice to PAL would RMC No. 66-2003 have taken effect. Given this sequence, it is not possible to say that RMC No. 66-2003 was already in effect and should have been strictly complied with by PAL for its fiscal year which ended on 31 March 2001. Even conceding that the construction of a statute by the CIR is to be given great weight, the courts, which include the CTA, are not bound thereby if such construction is erroneous or is clearly shown to be in conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution or other laws. "It is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary, correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government." 30 It is furthermore the rule of long standing that this Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems and has, accordingly, developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. 31 In the Petition at bar, the CTA en

banc and in division both adjudged that PAL is not liable for MCIT under Presidential Decree No. 1590, and this Court has no sufficient basis to reverse them. As to the assertions of the CIR that exemption from tax is not presumed, and the one claiming it must be able to show that it indubitably exists, the Court recalls its pronouncements in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals 32: We disagree. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue erred in applying the principles of tax exemption without first applying the well-settled doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes. It is obviously both illogical and impractical to determine who are exempted without first determining who are covered by the aforesaid provision. The Commissioner should have determined first if private respondent was covered by Section 205, applying the rule of strict interpretation of laws imposing taxes and other burdens on the populace, before asking Ateneo to prove its exemption therefrom. The Court takes this occasion to reiterate the hornbook doctrine in the interpretation of tax laws that "(a) statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. x x x (A) tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication." Parenthetically, in answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it is basic that "in case of doubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor presumed to be imposed beyond what statutes expressly and clearly import." (Emphases ours.) For two decades following the grant of its franchise by Presidential Decree No. 1590 in 1978, PAL was only being held liable for the basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever was lower; and its payment of either tax was in lieu of all other taxes, except real property tax, in accordance with the plain language of Section 13 of the charter of PAL. Therefore, the exemption of PAL from "all other taxes" was not just a presumption, but a previously established, accepted, and respected fact, even for the BIR. The MCIT was a new tax introduced by Republic Act No. 8424. Under the doctrine of strict interpretation, the burden is upon the CIR to primarily prove that the new MCIT provisions of the NIRC of 1997, clearly, expressly, and unambiguously extend and apply to PAL, despite the latters existing tax exemption. To do this, the CIR must convince the Court that the MCIT is a basic corporate income tax,33 and is not covered by the "in lieu of all other taxes" clause of Presidential Decree No. 1590. Since the CIR failed in this regard, the Court is left with no choice but to consider the MCIT as one of "all other taxes," from which PAL is exempt under the explicit provisions of its charter. Not being liable for MCIT in FY 2000-2001, it necessarily follows that PAL need not apply for relief from said tax as the CIR maintains. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED, and the Decision dated 9 August 2007 and Resolution dated 11 October 2007 of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc in CTA E.B. No. 246 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-65773-74 April 30, 1987 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Pea, Valmonte & Marcos for respondent British Airways. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) seeks a review on certiorari of the joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, which set aside petitioner's assessment of deficiency income taxes against respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) for the fiscal years 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively, as well as its Resolution of 18 November, 1983 denying reconsideration. BOAC is a 100% British Government-owned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom It is engaged in the international airline business and is a member-signatory of the Interline Air Transport Association (IATA). As such it operates air transportation service and sells transportation tickets over the routes of the other airline members. During the periods covered by the disputed assessments, it is admitted that BOAC had no landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines, and was not granted a Certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate in the Philippines by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), except for a ninemonth period, partly in 1961 and partly in 1962, when it was granted a temporary landing permit by the CAB. Consequently, it did not carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines, although during the period covered by the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines Wamer Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways which was responsible for selling BOAC tickets covering passengers and cargoes. 1 G.R. No. 65773 (CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case) On 7 May 1968, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR, for brevity) assessed BOAC the aggregate amount of P2,498,358.56 for deficiency income taxes covering the years 1959 to 1963. This was protested by BOAC. Subsequent investigation resulted in the issuance of a new assessment, dated 16 January 1970 for the years 1959 to 1967 in the amount of P858,307.79. BOAC paid this new assessment under protest. On 7 October 1970, BOAC filed a claim for refund of the amount of P858,307.79, which claim was denied by the CIR on 16 February 1972. But before said denial, BOAC had already filed a petition for review with the Tax Court on 27 January 1972, assailing the assessment and praying for the refund of the amount paid. G.R. No. 65774 (CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case) On 17 November 1971, BOAC was assessed deficiency income taxes, interests, and penalty for the fiscal years 1968-1969 to 1970-1971 in the aggregate amount of P549,327.43, and the additional amounts of P1,000.00 and P1,800.00 as compromise penalties for violation of Section 46 (requiring the filing of corporation returns) penalized under Section 74 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). On 25 November 1971, BOAC requested that the assessment be countermanded and set aside. In a letter, dated 16 February 1972, however, the CIR not only denied the BOAC request for refund in the First Case but also re-issued in the Second Case the deficiency income tax assessment for P534,132.08 for the years 1969 to 1970-71 plus P1,000.00 as compromise penalty under Section 74 of the Tax Code. BOAC's request for reconsideration was denied by the CIR on 24 August 1973. This prompted BOAC to file the Second Case before the Tax Court praying that it be absolved of liability for deficiency income tax for the years 1969 to 1971. This case was subsequently tried jointly with the First Case. On 26 January 1983, the Tax Court rendered the assailed joint Decision reversing the CIR. The Tax Court held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage tickets in the Philippines by Warner Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later by Qantas Airways, during the period in question, do not

constitute BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed by BOAC within the Philippines" and, therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax. The CTA position was that income from transportation is income from services so that the place where services are rendered determines the source. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the Tax Court ordered petitioner to credit BOAC with the sum of P858,307.79, and to cancel the deficiency income tax assessments against BOAC in the amount of P534,132.08 for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71. Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Tax Court. The Solicitor General, in representation of the CIR, has aptly defined the issues, thus: 1. Whether or not the revenue derived by private respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air transportation, while having no landing rights here, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable. 2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question BOAC s a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines or has an office or place of business in the Philippines. 3. In the alternative that private respondent may not be considered a resident foreign corporation but a non-resident foreign corporation, then it is liable to Philippine income tax at the rate of thirty-five per cent (35%) of its gross income received from all sources within the Philippines. Under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code: (h) the term resident foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein. (i) The term "non-resident foreign corporation" applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines and not having any office or place of business therein It is our considered opinion that BOAC is a resident foreign corporation. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. 2 "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character. 3 BOAC, during the periods covered by the subject - assessments, maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines, That general sales agent, from 1959 to 1971, "was engaged in (1) selling and issuing tickets; (2) breaking down the whole trip into series of trips each trip in the series corresponding to a different airline company; (3) receiving the fare from the whole trip; and (4) consequently allocating to the various airline companies on the basis of their participation in the services rendered through the mode of interline settlement as prescribed by Article VI of the Resolution No. 850 of the IATA Agreement." 4 Those activities were in exercise of the functions which are normally incident to, and are in progressive pursuit of, the purpose and object of its organization as an international air carrier. In fact, the regular sale of tickets, its main activity, is the very lifeblood of the airline business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective. There should be no doubt then that BOAC was "engaged in" business in the Philippines through a local agent during the period covered by the assessments. Accordingly, it is a resident foreign corporation subject to tax upon its total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. 5 Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. ... (b) Tax on foreign corporations. ... (2) Resident corporations. A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, except a foreign fife insurance

company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) Next, we address ourselves to the issue of whether or not the revenue from sales of tickets by BOAC in the Philippines constitutes income from Philippine sources and, accordingly, taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Code defines "gross income" thus: "Gross income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from profession, vocations, trades, business, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interests, rents, dividends, securities, or the transactions of any business carried on for gain or profile, or gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever (Sec. 29[3]; Emphasis supplied) The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. "The words 'income from any source whatever' disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws." Income means "cash received or its equivalent"; it is the amount of money coming to a person within a specific time ...; it means something distinct from principal or capital. For, while capital is a fund, income is a flow. As used in our income tax law, "income" refers to the flow of wealth. 6 The records show that the Philippine gross income of BOAC for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 197071 amounted to P10,428,368 .00. 7 Did such "flow of wealth" come from "sources within the Philippines", The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. 8 For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The site of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government. A transportation ticket is not a mere piece of paper. When issued by a common carrier, it constitutes the contract between the ticket-holder and the carrier. It gives rise to the obligation of the purchaser of the ticket to pay the fare and the corresponding obligation of the carrier to transport the passenger upon the terms and conditions set forth thereon. The ordinary ticket issued to members of the traveling public in general embraces within its terms all the elements to constitute it a valid contract, binding upon the parties entering into the relationship. 9 True, Section 37(a) of the Tax Code, which enumerates items of gross income from sources within the Philippines, namely: (1) interest, (21) dividends, (3) service, (4) rentals and royalties, (5) sale of real property, and (6) sale of personal property, does not mention income from the sale of tickets for international transportation. However, that does not render it less an income from sources within the Philippines. Section 37, by its language, does not intend the enumeration to be exclusive. It merely directs that the types of income listed therein be treated as income from sources within the Philippines. A cursory reading of the section will show that it does not state that it is an all-inclusive enumeration, and that no other kind of income may be so considered. " 10 BOAC, however, would impress upon this Court that income derived from transportation is income for services, with the result that the place where the services are rendered determines the source; and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines, the income derived is from sources without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Court upholds that stand in the joint Decision under review.

The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the site of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at the time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source"; and the source of an income is that activity ... which produced the income. 11Unquestionably, the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. business a And even if the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities", 12 it cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source" conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines. 13 It should be pointed out, however, that the assessments upheld herein apply only to the fiscal years covered by the questioned deficiency income tax assessments in these cases, or, from 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71. For, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November, 1972, international carriers are now taxed as follows: ... Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of 2- per cent on their cross Philippine billings. (Sec. 24[b] [21, Tax Code). Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April, 1978, provided a statutory definition of the term "gross Philippine billings," thus: ... "Gross Philippine billings" includes gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggage or mail provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. ... The foregoing provision ensures that international airlines are taxed on their income from Philippine sources. The 2- % tax on gross Philippine billings is an income tax. If it had been intended as an excise or percentage tax it would have been place under Title V of the Tax Code covering Taxes on Business. Lastly, we find as untenable the BOAC argument that the dismissal for lack of merit by this Court of the appeal inJAL vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. L-30041) on February 3, 1969, is res judicata to the present case. The ruling by the Tax Court in that case was to the effect that the mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, does not render the taxpayer therein subject to the common carrier's tax. As elucidated by the Tax Court, however, the common carrier's tax is an excise tax, being a tax on the activity of transporting, conveying or removing passengers and cargo from one place to another. It purports to tax the business of transportation. 14 Being an excise tax, the same can be levied by the State only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The subject matter of the case under consideration is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in one cannot be res judicata to the other. WHEREFORE, the appealed joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P534,132.08 as deficiency income tax for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 plus 5% surcharge, and 1% monthly interest from April 16, 1972 for a period not to exceed three (3) years in accordance with the Tax Code. The BOAC claim for refund in the amount of P858,307.79 is hereby denied. Without costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 180356 February 16, 2010 SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the July 19, 2007 Decision1 and October 30, 2007 Resolution2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA E.B. Case No. 210, entitled South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The assailed decision affirmed the Decision dated May 10, 20063 and Resolution dated August 11, 20064 rendered by the CTA First Division. The Facts Petitioner South African Airways is a foreign corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Its principal office is located at Airways Park, Jones Road, Johannesburg International Airport, South Africa. In the Philippines, it is an internal air carrier having no landing rights in the country. Petitioner has a general sales agent in the Philippines, Aerotel Limited Corporation (Aerotel). Aerotel sells passage documents for compensation or commission for petitioners off-line flights for the carriage of passengers and cargo between ports or points outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Petitioner is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a corporation, branch office, or partnership. It is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. For the taxable year 2000, petitioner filed separate quarterly and annual income tax returns for its offline flights, summarized as follows: Period 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Date Filed May 30, August 29, November 29, April 16, 2000 2000 2000 2000 2.5% Gross Phil. Billings 222,531.25 424,046.95 422,466.00 453,182.91 1,522,227.11 81,531.00 50,169.65 36,383.74 37,454.88 205,539.27 1,727,766.38

For Passenger

PhP

Sub-total 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter May 30, August 29, November 29, April 16, 2000 2000 2000 2000

PhP

For Cargo

PhP

Sub-total TOTAL

PhP

Thereafter, on February 5, 2003, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Revenue District Office No. 47, a claim for the refund of the amount of PhP 1,727,766.38 as erroneously paid tax on Gross Philippine Billings (GPB) for the taxable year 2000. Such claim was unheeded. Thus, on April 14, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the refund of the abovementioned amount. The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 6656. On May 10, 2006, the CTA First Division issued a Decision denying the petition for lack of merit. The CTA ruled that petitioner is a resident foreign corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. It further ruled that petitioner was not liable to pay tax on its GPB under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997. The CTA, however, stated that petitioner is liable to pay a tax of 32% on its income derived from the sales of passage documents in the Philippines. On this ground, the CTA denied petitioners claim for a refund. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision was denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution dated August 11, 2006.

Thus, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc, reiterating its claim for a refund of its tax payment on its GPB. This was denied by the CTA in its assailed decision. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner was also denied in the assailed resolution of the CTA En Banc. Hence, petitioner went to us. The Issues Whether or not petitioner, as an off-line international carrier selling passage documents through an independent sales agent in the Philippines, is engaged in trade or business in the Philippines subject to the 32% income tax imposed by Section 28 (A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. Whether or not the income derived by petitioner from the sale of passage documents covering petitioners off-line flights is Philippine-source income subject to Philippine income tax. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund or a tax credit of erroneously paid tax on Gross Philippine Billings for the taxable year 2000 in the amount of P1,727,766.38.5 The Courts Ruling This petition must be denied. Petitioner Is Subject to Income Tax at the Rate of 32% of Its Taxable Income Preliminarily, we emphasize that petitioner is claiming that it is exempted from being taxed for its sale of passage documents in the Philippines. Petitioner, however, failed to sufficiently prove such contention. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines) Hotel Corporation, 6 we held, "Since an action for a tax refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, which cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language, it is strictly construed against the claimant who must discharge such burden convincingly." Petitioner has failed to overcome such burden. In essence, petitioner calls upon this Court to determine the legal implication of the amendment to Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC defining GPB. It is petitioners contention that, with the new definition of GPB, it is no longer liable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a). Further, petitioner argues that because the 2 1/2% tax on GPB is inapplicable to it, it is thereby excluded from the imposition of any income tax. Sec. 28(b)(2) of the 1939 NIRC provided: (2) Resident Corporations. A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of a foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: Provided, however, that international carriers shall pay a tax of two and one-half percent on their gross Philippine billings. This provision was later amended by Sec. 24(B)(2) of the 1977 NIRC, which defined GPB as follows: "Gross Philippine billings" include gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggage or mail, provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. In the 1986 and 1993 NIRCs, the definition of GPB was further changed to read: "Gross Philippine Billings" means gross revenue realized from uplifts of passengers anywhere in the world and excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines, covered by passage documents sold in the Philippines. Essentially, prior to the 1997 NIRC, GPB referred to revenues from uplifts anywhere in the world, provided that the passage documents were sold in the Philippines. Legislature departed from such concept in the 1997 NIRC where GPB is now defined under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a): "Gross Philippine Billings" refers to the amount of gross revenue derived from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines in a continuous and uninterrupted flight, irrespective of the place of sale or issue and the place of payment of the ticket or passage document. Now, it is the place of sale that is irrelevant; as long as the uplifts of passengers and cargo occur to or from the Philippines, income is included in GPB. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, inasmuch as it does not maintain flights to or from the Philippines, it is not taxable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC. This much was also found by the CTA. But petitioner further posits the view that due to the non-applicability of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) to it, it is precluded from paying any other income tax for its sale of passage documents in the Philippines. Such position is untenable. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation (British Overseas Airways),7 which was decided under similar factual circumstances, this Court ruled that off-line air

carriers having general sales agents in the Philippines are engaged in or doing business in the Philippines and that their income from sales of passage documents here is income from within the Philippines. Thus, in that case, we held the off-line air carrier liable for the 32% tax on its taxable income. Petitioner argues, however, that because British Overseas Airways was decided under the 1939 NIRC, it does not apply to the instant case, which must be decided under the 1997 NIRC. Petitioner alleges that the 1939 NIRC taxes resident foreign corporations, such as itself, on all income from sources within the Philippines. Petitioners interpretation of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC is that, since it is an international carrier that does not maintain flights to or from the Philippines, thereby having no GPB as defined, it is exempt from paying any income tax at all. In other words, the existence of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) according to petitioner precludes the application of Sec. 28(A)(1) to it. Its argument has no merit. First, the difference cited by petitioner between the 1939 and 1997 NIRCs with regard to the taxation of off-line air carriers is more apparent than real. We point out that Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC does not, in any categorical term, exempt all international air carriers from the coverage of Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. Certainly, had legislatures intentions been to completely exclude all international air carriers from the application of the general rule under Sec. 28(A)(1), it would have used the appropriate language to do so; but the legislature did not. Thus, the logical interpretation of such provisions is that, if Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) is applicable to a taxpayer, then the general rule under Sec. 28(A)(1) would not apply. If, however, Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) does not apply, a resident foreign corporation, whether an international air carrier or not, would be liable for the tax under Sec. 28(A)(1). Clearly, no difference exists between British Overseas Airways and the instant case, wherein petitioner claims that the former case does not apply. Thus, British Overseas Airways applies to the instant case. The findings therein that an off-line air carrier is doing business in the Philippines and that income from the sale of passage documents here is Philippine-source income must be upheld. Petitioner further reiterates its argument that the intention of Congress in amending the definition of GPB is to exempt off-line air carriers from income tax by citing the pronouncements made by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile during the deliberations on the provisions of the 1997 NIRC. Such pronouncements, however, are not controlling on this Court. We said in Espino v. Cleofe:8 A cardinal rule in the interpretation of statutes is that the meaning and intention of the law-making body must be sought, first of all, in the words of the statute itself, read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly-accepted and most obvious significations, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction. Courts, therefore, as a rule, cannot presume that the law-making body does not know the meaning of words and rules of grammar. Consequently, the grammatical reading of a statute must be presumed to yield its correct sense. x x x It is also a wellsettled doctrine in this jurisdiction that statements made by individual members of Congress in the consideration of a bill do not necessarily reflect the sense of that body and are, consequently, not controlling in the interpretation of law. (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover, an examination of the subject provisions of the law would show that petitioners interpretation of those provisions is erroneous. Sec. 28(A)(1) and (A)(3)(a) provides: SEC. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations. (A) Tax on Resident Foreign Corporations. (1) In General. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, a corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be subject to an income tax equivalent to thirty-five percent (35%) of the taxable income derived in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: provided, That effective January 1, 1998, the rate of income tax shall be thirtyfour percent (34%); effective January 1, 1999, the rate shall be thirty-three percent (33%), and effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, the rate shall be thirty-two percent (32%). xxxx (3) International Carrier. - An international carrier doing business in the Philippines shall pay a tax of two and one-half percent (2 1/2%) on its Gross Philippine Billings as defined hereunder:

(a) International Air Carrier. Gross Philippine Billings refers to the amount of gross revenue derived from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines in a continuous and uninterrupted flight, irrespective of the place of sale or issue and the place of payment of the ticket or passage document: Provided, That tickets revalidated, exchanged and/or indorsed to another international airline form part of the Gross Philippine Billings if the passenger boards a plane in a port or point in the Philippines: Provided, further, That for a flight which originates from the Philippines, but transshipment of passenger takes place at any port outside the Philippines on another airline, only the aliquot portion of the cost of the ticket corresponding to the leg flown from the Philippines to the point of transshipment shall form part of Gross Philippine Billings. Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC is a general rule that resident foreign corporations are liable for 32% tax on all income from sources within the Philippines. Sec. 28(A)(3) is an exception to this general rule. An exception is defined as "that which would otherwise be included in the provision from which it is excepted. It is a clause which exempts something from the operation of a statue by express words."9 Further, "an exception need not be introduced by the words except or unless. An exception will be construed as such if it removes something from the operation of a provision of law."10 In the instant case, the general rule is that resident foreign corporations shall be liable for a 32% income tax on their income from within the Philippines, except for resident foreign corporations that are international carriers that derive income "from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines" which shall be taxed at 2 1/2% of their Gross Philippine Billings. Petitioner, being an international carrier with no flights originating from the Philippines, does not fall under the exception. As such, petitioner must fall under the general rule. This principle is embodied in the Latin maxim, exception firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means, a thing not being excepted must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general rule. 11 To reiterate, the correct interpretation of the above provisions is that, if an international air carrier maintains flights to and from the Philippines, it shall be taxed at the rate of 2 1/2% of its Gross Philippine Billings, while international air carriers that do not have flights to and from the Philippines but nonetheless earn income from other activities in the country will be taxed at the rate of 32% of such income. As to the denial of petitioners claim for refund, the CTA denied the claim on the basis that petitione r is liable for income tax under Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. Thus, petitioner raises the issue of whether the existence of such liability would preclude their claim for a refund of tax paid on the basis of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a). In answer to petitioners motion for reconsideration, the CTA First Division ruled in its Resolution dated August 11, 2006, thus: On the fourth argument, petitioner avers that a deficiency tax assessment does not, in any way, disqualify a taxpayer from claiming a tax refund since a refund claim can proceed independently of a tax assessment and that the assessment cannot be offset by its claim for refund. Petitioners argument is erroneous. Petitioner premises its argument on the existence of an assessment. In the assailed Decision, this Court did not, in any way, assess petitioner of any deficiency corporate income tax. The power to make assessments against taxpayers is lodged with the respondent. For an assessment to be made, respondent must observe the formalities provided in Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. This Court merely pointed out that petitioner is liable for the regular corporate income tax by virtue of Section 28(A)(3) of the Tax Code. Thus, there is no assessment to speak of.12 Precisely, petitioner questions the offsetting of its payment of the tax under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) with their liability under Sec. 28(A)(1), considering that there has not yet been any assessment of their obligation under the latter provision. Petitioner argues that such offsetting is in the nature of legal compensation, which cannot be applied under the circumstances present in this case. Article 1279 of the Civil Code contains the elements of legal compensation, to wit: Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable;

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. And we ruled in Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 thus: In several instances prior to the instant case, we have already made the pronouncement that taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the aforementioned distinction. Prescinding from this premise, in Francia v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we categorically held that taxes cannot be subject to set-off or compensation, thus: We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the government. The ruling in Francia has been applied to the subsequent case of Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, which reiterated that: . . . a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government. Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off. Verily, petitioners argument is correct that the offsetting of its tax refund with its alleged tax deficiency is unavailing under Art. 1279 of the Civil Code. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, 14 however, granted the offsetting of a tax refund with a tax deficiency in this wise: Further, it is also worth noting that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioners supplemental motion for reconsideration alleging bringing to said courts attention the existence of the deficiency income and business tax assessment against Citytrust. The fact of such deficiency assessment is intimately related to and inextricably intertwined with the right of respondent bank to claim for a tax refund for the same year. To award such refund despite the existence of that deficiency assessment is an absurdity and a polarity in conceptual effects. Herein private respondent cannot be entitled to refund and at the same time be liable for a tax deficiency assessment for the same year. The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, that is, the facts stated therein are true and correct. The deficiency assessment, although not yet final, created a doubt as to and constitutes a challenge against the truth and accuracy of the facts stated in said return which, by itself and without unquestionable evidence, cannot be the basis for the grant of the refund. Section 82, Chapter IX of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which was the applicable law when the claim of Citytrust was filed, provides that "(w)hen an assessment is made in case of any list, statement, or return, which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was false or fraudulent or contained any understatement or undervaluation, no tax collected under such assessment shall be recovered by any suits unless it is proved that the said list, statement, or return was not false nor fraudulent and did not contain any understatement or undervaluation; but this provision shall not apply to statements or returns made or to be made in good faith regarding annual depreciation of oil or gas wells and mines." Moreover, to grant the refund without determination of the proper assessment and the tax due would inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings or suits. If the deficiency assessment should subsequently be upheld, the Government will be forced to institute anew a proceeding for the recovery of erroneously refunded taxes which recourse must be filed within the prescriptive period of ten years after discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission in the false or fraudulent return involved.This would necessarily require and entail additional efforts and expenses on the part of the Government, impose a burden on and a drain of government funds, and impede or delay the collection of much-needed revenue for governmental operations.1avvphi1 Thus, to avoid multiplicity of suits and unnecessary difficulties or expenses, it is both logically necessary and legally appropriate that the issue of the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust be resolved jointly with its claim for tax refund, to determine once and for all in a single proceeding the true and correct amount of tax due or refundable.

In fact, as the Court of Tax Appeals itself has heretofore conceded,it would be only just and fair that the taxpayer and the Government alike be given equal opportunities to avail of remedies under the law to defeat each others claim and to determine all matters of dispute between t hem in one single case. It is important to note that in determining whether or not petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount paid, it would [be] necessary to determine how much the Government is entitled to collect as taxes. This would necessarily include the determination of the correct liability of the taxpayer and, certainly, a determination of this case would constitute res judicata on both parties as to all the matters subject thereof or necessarily involved therein. (Emphasis supplied.) Sec. 82, Chapter IX of the 1977 Tax Code is now Sec. 72, Chapter XI of the 1997 NIRC. The above pronouncements are, therefore, still applicable today. Here, petitioners similar tax refund claim assumes that the tax return that it filed was correct. Given, however, the finding of the CTA that petitioner, although not liable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC, is liable under Sec. 28(A)(1), the correctness of the return filed by petitioner is now put in doubt. As such, we cannot grant the prayer for a refund. Be that as it may, this Court is unable to affirm the assailed decision and resolution of the CTA En Banc on the outright denial of petitioners claim for a refund. Even though petitioner is not entitled to a refund due to the question on the propriety of petitioners tax return subject of the instant controversy, it would not be proper to deny such claim without making a determination of petitioners liability under Sec. 28(A)(1). It must be remembered that the tax under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) is based on GPB, while Sec. 28(A)(1) is based on taxable income, that is, gross income less deductions and exemptions, if any. It cannot be assumed that petitioners liabilities under the two provisions would be the same. There is a need to make a determination of petitioners liability under Sec. 28(A)(1) to establish whether a tax refund is forthcoming or that a tax deficiency exists. The assailed decision fails to mention having computed for the tax due under Sec. 28(A)(1) and the records are bereft of any evidence sufficient to establish petitioners taxable income. There is a necessity to receive evidence to establish such amount vis --vis the claim for refund. It is only after such amount is established that a tax refund or deficiency may be correctly pronounced. WHEREFORE, the assailed July 19, 2007 Decision and October 30, 2007 Resolution of the CTA En Banc in CTA E.B. Case No. 210 are SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the CTA En Banc for further proceedings and appropriate action, more particularly, the reception of evidence for both parties and the corresponding disposition of CTA E.B. Case No. 210 not otherwise inconsistent with our judgment in this Decision. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 119286 October 13, 2004 PASEO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: The changes in the reportorial requirements and payment schedules of corporate income taxes from annual to quarterly have created problems, especially on the matter of tax refunds. 1 In this case, the Court is called to resolve the question of whether alleged excess taxes paid by a corporation during a taxable year should be refunded or credited against its tax liabilities for the succeeding year. Paseo Realty and Development Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the lease of two (2) parcels of land at Paseo de Roxas in Makati City, seeks a review of the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dismissing its petition for review of the resolution3 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which, in turn, denied its claim for refund. The factual antecedents4 are as follows: On April 16, 1990, petitioner filed its Income Tax Return for the calendar year 1989 declaring a gross income of P1,855,000.00, deductions of P1,775,991.00, net income of P79,009.00, an income tax due thereon in the amount of P27,653.00, prior years excess credit of P146,026.00, and creditable taxes withheld in 1989 of P54,104.00 or a total tax credit of P200,130.00 and credit balance of P172,477.00. On November 14, 1991, petitioner filed with respondent a claim for "the refund of excess creditable withholding and income taxes for the years 1989 and 1990 in the aggregate amount of P147,036.15." On December 27, 1991 alleging that the prescriptive period for refunds for 1989 would expire on December 30, 1991 and that it was necessary to interrupt the prescriptive period, petitioner filed with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review praying for the refund of "P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld from income payments of petitioner for the calendar year ending December 31, 1989." On February 25, 1992, respondent Commissioner filed an Answer and by way of special and/or affirmative defenses averred the following: a) the petition states no cause of action for failure to allege the dates when the taxes sought to be refunded were paid; b) petitioners claim for refund is still under investigation by respondent Commissioner; c) the taxes claimed are deemed to have been paid and collected in accordance with law and existing pertinent rules and regulations; d) petitioner failed to allege that it is entitled to the refund or deductions claimed; e) petitioners contention that it has available tax credit for the current and prior year is gratuitous and does not ipso facto warrant the refund; f) petitioner failed to show that it has complied with the provision of Section 230 in relation to Section 204 of the Tax Code. After trial, the respondent Court rendered a decision ordering respondent Commissioner "to refund in favor of petitioner the amount of P54,104.00, representing excess creditable withholding taxes paid for January to July1989." Respondent Commissioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, alleging that the P54,104.00 ordered to be refunded "has already been included and is part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990." In a resolution dated October 21, 1993 Respondent Court reconsidered its decision of July 29, 1993 and dismissed the petition for review, stating that it has "overlooked the fact that the petitioners 1989 Corporate Income Tax Return (Exh. "A") indicated that the amo unt of P54,104.00 subject of petitioners claim for refund has already been included as part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which the petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990." Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Court on March 10, 1994.5 Petitioner filed a Petition for Review6 dated April 3, 1994 with the Court of Appeals. Resolving the twin issues of whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld in 1989 and whether petitioner applied such creditable taxes withheld to its 1990 income tax liability, the

appellate court held that petitioner is not entitled to a refund because it had already elected to apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the P54,104.00 refund claimed, against its income tax liability for 1990. The appellate court elucidated on the reason for its dismissal of petitioners claim for refund, thus: In the instant case, it appears that when petitioner filed its income tax return for the year 1989, it filled up the box stating that the total amount of P172,477.00 shall be applied against its income tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year. Petitioner did not specify in its return the amount to be refunded and the amount to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year, but merely marked an "x" to the box indicating "to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year." Unlike what petitioner had done when it filed its income tax return for the year 1988, it specifically stated that out of the P146,026.00 the entire refundable amount, only P64,623.00 will be made available as tax credit, while the amount of P81,403.00 will be refunded. In its 1989 income tax return, petitioner filled up the box "to be applied as tax credit to succeeding taxable year," which signified that instead of refund, petitioner will apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the amount of P54,104.00 sought to be refunded, as tax credit for its tax liabilities in 1990. Thus, there is really nothing left to be refunded to petitioner for the year 1989. To grant petitioners claim for refund is tantamount to granting twice the refund herein sought to be refunded, to the prejudice of the Government. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration7 dated November 8, 1994 in its Resolution8dated February 21, 1995 because the motion merely restated the grounds which have already been considered and passed upon in its Decision.9 Petitioner thus filed the instant Petition for Review10 dated April 14, 1995 arguing that the evidence presented before the lower courts conclusively shows that it did not apply the P54,104.00 to its 1990 income tax liability; that the Decision subject of the instant petition is inconsistent with a final decision11 of the Sixteenth Division of the appellate court in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 involving the same parties and subject matter; and that the affirmation of the questioned Decision would lead to absurd results in the manner of claiming refunds or in the application of prior years excess tax credits. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment12 dated May 16, 1996 on behalf of respondents asserting that the claimed refund of P54,104.00 was, by petitioners election in its Corporate Annual Income Tax Return for 1989, to be applied against its tax liability for 1990. Not having submitted its tax return for 1990 to show whether the said amount was indeed applied against its tax liability for 1990, petitioners election in its tax return stands. The OSG also contends that petitioners election to apply its overpaid income tax as tax credit against its tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year is mandatory and irrevocable. On September 2, 1997, petitioner filed a Reply13 dated August 31, 1996 insisting that the issue in this case is not whether the amount of P54,104.00 was included as tax credit to be applied against its 1990 income tax liability but whether the same amount was actually applied as tax credit for 1990. Petitioner claims that there is no need to show that the amount of P54,104.00 had not been automatically applied against its 1990 income tax liability because the appellate courts decision in C.A. -G.R. Sp. No. 32890 clearly held that petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability against its tax credit for 1988 and not 1989. Petitioner also disputes the OSGs assertion that the taxpayers election as to the application of excess taxes is irrevocable averring that there is nothing in the law that prohibits a taxpayer from changing its mind especially if subsequent events leave the latter no choice but to change its election. The OSG filed a Rejoinder14 dated March 5, 1997 stating that petitioners 1988 tax return shows a pri or years excess credit of P81,403.00, creditable tax withheld of P92,750.00 and tax due of P27,127.00. Petitioner indicated that the prior years excess credit of P81,403.00 was to be refunded, while the remaining amount of P64,623.00 (P92,750.00 - P27,127.00) shall be considered as tax credit for 1989. However, in its 1989 tax return, petitioner included the P81,403.00 which had already been segregated for refund in the computation of its excess credit, and specified that the full amount of P172,479.00* (P81,403.00 + P64,623.00 + P54,104.00** - P27,653.00***) be considered as its tax credit for 1990. Considering that it had obtained a favorable ruling for the refund of its excess credit for 1988 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 32890, its remaining tax credit for 1989 should be the excess credit to be applied against its 1990 tax liability. In fine, the OSG argues that by its own election, petitioner can no longer ask for a refund of its creditable taxes withheld in 1989 as the same had been applied against its 1990 tax due.

In its Resolution15 dated July 16, 1997, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously file their respective memoranda within 30 days from notice. In compliance with this directive, petitioner submitted its Memorandum16 dated September 18, 1997 in due time, while the OSG filed itsMemorandum17 dated April 27, 1998 only on April 29, 1998 after several extensions. The petition must be denied. As a matter of principle, it is not advisable for this Court to set aside the conclusion reached by an agency such as the CTA which is, by the very nature of its functions, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of its authority.18 This interdiction finds particular application in this case since the CTA, after careful consideration of the merits of the Commissioner of Internal Revenues motion for reconsideration, reconsidered its earlier decision which ordered the latter to refund the amount of P54,104.00 to petitioner. Its resolution cannot be successfully assailed based, as it is, on the pertinent laws as applied to the facts. Petitioners 1989 tax return indicates an aggregate creditable tax of P172,477.00, representing its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 and 1989 creditable tax of P54,104.00 less tax due for 1989, which it elected to apply as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year. 19 According to petitioner, it successively utilized this amount when it obtained refunds in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300) and CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890), and applied its 1990 tax liability, leaving a balance of P54,104.00, the amount subject of the instant claim for refund.20 Represented mathematically, petitioner accounts for its claim in this wise:

That the present claim for refund already consolidates its claims for refund for 1988, 1989, and 1990, when it filed a claim for refund of P59,510.00 in this case (CTA Case No. 4528). Hence, the present claim should be resolved together with the previous claims. 23 The confusion as to petitioners entitlement to a refund could altogether have been avoided had it presented its tax return for 1990. Such return would have shown whether petitioner actually applied its 1989 tax credit ofP172,477.00, which includes the P54,104.00 creditable taxes withheld for 1989 subject of the instant claim for refund, against its 1990 tax liability as it had elected in its 1989 return, or at least, whether petitioners tax credit ofP172,477.00 was applied to its approved refunds as it claims. The return would also have shown whether there remained an excess credit refundable to petitioner after deducting its tax liability for 1990. As it is, we only have petitioners allegation that its tax due for 1990 wasP33,240.00 and that this was applied against its remaining tax credits using its own "first in, first out" method of computation. It would have been different had petitioner not included the P54,104.00 creditable taxes for 1989 in the total amount it elected to apply against its 1990 tax liabilities. Then, all that would have been required of petitioner are: proof that it filed a claim for refund within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 230 of the NIRC; evidence that the income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in its return; and to establish the fact of withholding by a copy of the statement (BIR Form No. 1743.1) issued by the payor24 to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. However, since petitioner opted to apply its aggregate excess credits as tax credit for 1990, it was incumbent upon it to present its tax return for 1990 to show that the claimed refund had not been P172,477.00 Amount indicated in petitioners 1989 tax return to be applied as tax credit for theautomatically credited and applied to its 1990 tax liabilities. The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, i.e., that the facts stated succeeding taxable year therein are true and correct.25 Without the tax return, it is error to grant a refund since it would be virtually impossible to determine whether the proper taxes have been assessed and paid. - 25,623.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300) Why petitioner failed to present such a vital piece of evidence confounds the Court. Petitioner could very well have attached a copy of its final adjustment return for 1990 when it filed its claim for refund on P146,854.00 Balance as of April 16, 1990 November 13, 1991. Annex "B" of its Petition for Review26 dated December 26, 1991 filed with the CTA, - 59,510.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890) in fact, states that its annual tax return for 1990 was submitted in support of its claim. Yet, petitioners tax return for 1990 is nowhere to be found in the records of this case. P87,344.00 Balance as of January 2, 1991 Had petitioner presented its 1990 tax return in refutation of respondent Commissioners allegation that it did not present evidence to prove that its claimed refund had already been automatically credited - 33,240.00 Income tax liability for calendar year 1990 applied as of April 15, 1991 against its 1990 tax liability, the CTA would not have reconsidered its earlier Decision. As it is, the absence of petitioners 1990 tax return was the principal basis of the CTAs Resolution reconsidering its P54,104.00 Balance as of April 15, 1991 now subject of the instant claim for refund21 earlier Decision to grant petitioners claim for refund. Other than its own bare allegations, however, petitioner offers no proof to the effect that its creditable Petitioner could even still have attached a copy of its 1990 tax return to its petition for review before the tax ofP172,477.00 was applied as claimed above. Instead, it anchors its assertion of entitlement to Court of Appeals. The appellate court, being a trier of facts, is authorized to receive it in evidence and refund on an alleged finding in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 3289022 involving the same parties to the effect that would likely have taken it into account in its disposition of the petition. petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability to its tax credit for 1988 and not its 1989 tax credit. In BPI-Family Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals,27 although petitioner failed to present its 1990 tax Hence, its excess creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 for 1989 was left untouched and may be return, it presented other evidence to prove its claim that it did not apply and could not have applied the refunded. amount in dispute as tax credit. Importantly, petitioner therein attached a copy of its final adjustment Note should be taken, however, that nowhere in the case referred to by petitioner did the Court of return for 1990 to its motion for reconsideration before the CTA buttressing its claim that it incurred a Appeals make a categorical determination that petitioners tax liability for 1990 was applied against its net loss and is thus entitled to refund. Considering this fact, the Court held that there is no reason for 1988 tax credit. The statement adverted to by petitioner was actually presented in the appellate courts the BIR to withhold the tax refund. decision in CA-G.R. Sp No. 32890 as part of petitioners own narration of facts. The pertinent portion of In this case, petitioners failure to present sufficient evidence to prove its claim for refund is fatal to its the decision reads: cause. After all, it is axiomatic that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of It would appear from petitioners submission as follows: his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against x x x since it has already applied to its prior years excess credit of P81,403.00 (which the taxpayer.28 petitioner wanted refunded when it filed its 1988 Income Tax Return on April 14, 1989) the Section 69, Chapter IX, Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC) income tax liability for 1988 ofP28,127.00 and the income tax liability for 1989 of P27,653.00, provides: leaving a balance refundable of P25,623.00 subject of C.T.A. Case No. 4439, the P92,750.00 Sec. 69. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 24 shall file (P64,623.00 plus P28,127.00, since this second amount was already applied to the amount a final adjustment return covering the total net income for the preceding calendar or fiscal refundable of P81,403.00) should be the refundable amount. But since the taxpayer again year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal used part of it to satisfy its income tax liability of P33,240.00 for 1990, the amount refundable to the total tax due on the entire taxable net income of that year the corporation shall either: was P59,510.00, which is the amount prayed for in the claim for refund and also in the (a) Pay the excess tax still due; or petitioner (sic) for review. (b) Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year.[Emphasis supplied] Revenue Regulation No. 10-77 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue clarifies: SEC. 7. Filing of final or adjustment return and final payment of income tax. A final or an adjustment return on B.I.R. Form No. 1702 covering the total taxable income of the corporation for the preceding calendar or fiscal year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year. The return shall include all the items of gross income and deductions for the taxable year. The amount of income tax to be paid shall be the balance of the total income tax shown on the final or adjustment return after deducting therefrom the total quarterly income taxes paid during the preceding first three quarters of the same calendar or fiscal year. Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual income tax computed and shown in the adjustment or final corporate income tax return shall either (a) be refunded to the corporation, or (b) may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year. The corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return its intention whether to request for refund of the overpaid income tax or claim for automatic credit to be applied against its income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year by filling up the appropriate box on the corporate tax return (B.I.R. Form No. 1702). [Emphasis supplied] As clearly shown from the above-quoted provisions, in case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding year. The carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year is limited to the succeeding taxable year only. In the recent case of AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,29 where the Court declared that "[T]he carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year then islimited to the succeeding taxable year only," we ruled that since the case involved a claim for refund of overpaid taxes for 1993, petitioner could only have applied the 1993 excess tax credits to its 1994 income tax liabilities. To further carry-over to 1995 the 1993 excess tax credits is violative of Section 69 of the NIRC. In this case, petitioner included its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 in the computation of its total excess credit for 1989. It indicated this amount, plus the 1989 creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 or a total of P172,477.00, as its total excess credit to be applied as tax credit for 1990. By its own disclosure, petitioner effectively combined its 1988 and 1989 tax credits and applied its 1990 tax due of P33,240.00 against the total, and not against its creditable taxes for 1989 only as allowed by Section 69. This is a clear admission that petitioners 1988 tax credit was incorrectly and illegally applied against its 1990 tax liabilities. Parenthetically, while a taxpayer is given the choice whether to claim for refund or have its excess taxes applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year, such election is not final. Prior verification and approval by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is required. The availment of the remedy of tax credit is not absolute and mandatory. It does not confer an absolute right on the taxpayer to avail of the tax credit scheme if it so chooses. Neither does it impose a duty on the part of the government to sit back and allow an important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the taxpayer.30 Contrary to petitioners assertion however, the taxpayers election, signified by the ticking of boxes in Item 10 of BIR Form No. 1702, is not a mere technical exercise. It aids in the proper management of claims for refund or tax credit by leading tax authorities to the direction they should take in addressing the claim. The amendment of Section 69 by what is now Section 76 of Republic Act No. 842431 emphasizes that it is imperative to indicate in the tax return or the final adjustment return whether a tax credit or refund is sought by making the taxpayers choice irrevocable. Section 76 provides: SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal

year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefore. [Emphasis supplied] As clearly seen from this provision, the taxpayer is allowed three (3) options if the sum of its quarterly tax payments made during the taxable year is not equal to the total tax due for that year: (a) pay the balance of the tax still due; (b) carry-over the excess credit; or (c) be credited or refunded the amount paid. If the taxpayer has paid excess quarterly income taxes, it may be entitled to a tax credit or refund as shown in its final adjustment return which may be carried over and applied against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. However, once the taxpayer has exercised the option to carry-over and to apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed. Had this provision been in effect when the present claim for refund was filed, petitioners excess credits for 1988 could have been properly applied to its 1990 tax liabilities. Unfortunately for petitioner, this is not the case. Taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government. And since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of refund or exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and be based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.32 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is herebyAFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-66838 April 15, 1988 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION & THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,respondents. PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 31, 1984 in CTA Case No. 2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue," which declared petitioner therein, Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation to be entitled to the sought refund or tax credit in the amount of P4,832,989.00 representing the alleged overpaid withholding tax at source and ordering payment thereof. The antecedent facts that precipitated the instant petition are as follows: Private respondent, Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PMC-Phil.), a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Philippine laws, is engaged in business in the Philippines and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter and Gamble, U.S.A. herein referred to as PMCUSA), a non-resident foreign corporation in the Philippines, not engaged in trade and business therein. As such PMC-U.S.A. is the sole shareholder or stockholder of PMC Phil., as PMC-U.S.A. owns wholly or by 100% the voting stock of PMC Phil. and is entitled to receive income from PMC-Phil. in the form of dividends, if not rents or royalties. In addition, PMC-Phil has a legal personality separate and distinct from PMCU.S.A. (Rollo, pp. 122-123). For the taxable year ending June 30, 1974 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P56,500,332.00 and accordingly paid the corresponding income tax thereon equivalent to P25%-35% or P19,765,116.00 as provided for under Section 24(a) of the Philippine Tax Code, the pertinent portion of which reads: SEC. 24. Rates of tax on corporation. a) Tax on domestic corporations. A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or geting under the laws of the Philippines, and partnerships, no matter how created or organized, but not including general professional partnerships, in accordance with the following: Twenty-five per cent upon the amount by which the taxable net income does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos; and Thirty-five per cent upon the amount by which the taxable net income exceeds one hundred thousand pesos. After taxation its net profit was P36,735,216.00. Out of said amount it declared a dividend in favor of its sole corporate stockholder and parent corporation PMC-U.S.A. in the total sum of P17,707,460.00 which latter amount was subjected to Philippine taxation of 35% or P6,197,611.23 as provided for in Section 24(b) of the Philippine Tax Code which reads in full:

SECTION 1. The first paragraph of subsection (b) of Section 24 of the National Bureau Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: (b) Tax on foreign corporations. 41) Non-resident corporation. A foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, including a foreign life insurance company not engaged in the life insurance business in the Philippines, shall pay a tax equal to 35% of the gross income received during its taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as interest (except interest on foreign loans which shall be subject to 15% tax), dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations for technical services or otherwise, emoluments or other fixed or determinable, annual, periodical or casual gains, profits, and income, and capital gains: Provided, however, That premiums shall not include re-insurance premium Provided, further, That cinematograpy film owners, lessors, or distributors, shall pay a tax of 15% on their gross income from sources within the Philippines: Provided, still further That on dividends received from a domestic corporation hable to tax under this Chapter, the tax shall be 15% of the dividends received, which shall be collected and paid as provided in Section 53(d) of this Code, subject to the condition that the country in which the non-resident foreign corporation is domiciled shall allow a credit against the tax due from the non-resident foreign corporation, taxes deemed to have been paid in the Philippines equivalent to 20% which represents the difference between the regular tax (35%) on corporations and the tax (15%) on dividends as provided in this section: Provided, finally That regional or area headquarters established in the Philippines by multinational corporations and which headquarters do not earn or derive income from the Philippines and which act as supervisory, communications and coordinating centers for their affiliates, subsidiaries or branches in the Asia-Pacific Region shall not be subject to tax. For the taxable year ending June 30, 1975 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P8,735,125.00 which was subjected to Philippine taxation at the rate of 25%-35% or P2,952,159.00, thereafter leaving a net profit of P5,782,966.00. As in the 2nd quarter of 1975, PMC-Phil. again declared a dividend in favor of PMC-U.S.A. at the tax rate of 35% or P6,457,485.00.

In July, 1977 PMC-Phil., invoking the tax-sparing credit provision in Section 24(b) as aforequoted, as the withholding agent of the Philippine government, with respect to the dividend taxes paid by PMC-U.S.A., filed a claim with the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the refund of the 20 percentage-point portion of the 35 percentage-point whole tax paid, arising allegedly from the alleged "overpaid withholding tax at source or overpaid withholding tax in the amount of P4,832,989.00," computed as follows: Dividend Income PMC-U.S.A. Tax withheld at at 35% P17,707,460 6,457,485 P24,164,946 P6,196,611 2,260,119 P8,457,731 source 15% under tax

tax sparing proviso P2,656,119 968,622 P3,624,941

There being no immediate action by the BIR on PMC-Phils' letter-claim the latter sought the intervention of the CTA when on July 13, 1977 it filed with herein respondent court a petition for review docketed as CTA No. 2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue," praying that it be declared entitled to the refund or tax credit claimed and ordering respondent therein to refund to it the amount of P4,832,989.00, or to issue tax credit in its favor in lieu of tax refund. (Rollo, p. 41) On the other hand therein respondent, Commissioner of qqqInterlaal Revenue, in his answer, prayed for the dismissal of said Petition and for the denial of the claim for refund. (Rollo, p. 48) On January 31, 1974 the Court of Tax Appeals in its decision (Rollo, p. 63) ruled in favor of the herein petitioner, the dispositive portion of the same reading as follows: Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the sought refund or tax credit of the amount representing the overpaid withholding tax at source and the payment therefor by the respondent hereby ordered. No costs. SO ORDERED. Hence this petition. The Second Division of the Court without giving due course to said petition resolved to require the respondents to comment (Rollo, p. 74). Said comment was filed on November 8, 1984 (Rollo, pp. 83-90). Thereupon this Court by resolution dated December 17, 1984 resolved to give due course to the petition and to consider respondents' comulent on the petition as Answer. (Rollo, p. 93) Petitioner was required to file brief on January 21, 1985 (Rollo, p. 96). Petitioner filed his brief on May 13, 1985 (Rollo, p. 107), while private respondent PMC Phil filed its brief on August 22, 1985. Petitioner raised the following assignments of errors: I

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW, THAT THE HEREIN RESPONDENT PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PMC-PHIL. FOR SHORT)IS ENTITLED TO THE SOUGHT REFUND OR TAX CREDIT OF P4,832,989.00, REPRESENTING ALLEGEDLY THE DIVIDED TAX OVER WITHHELD BY PMC-PHIL. UPON REMITTANCE OF DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE TOTAL SUM OF P24,164,946.00 TO PROCTER & GAMBLE, USA (PMC-USA FOR SHORT). II Alleged of THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW, THAT PMC-USA, A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION UNDER SECTION 24(b) (1) OF THE PHILIPPINE TAX CODE AND A DOMESTIC over CORPORATION DOMICILED IN THE UNITED STATES, IS ENTITLED UNDER THE U.S. TAX CODE AGAINST ITS U.S. FEDERAL TAXES TO A UNITED STATES FOREIGN TAX CREDIT payment EQUIVALENT TO AT LEAST THE 20 PERCENTAGE-POINT PORTION (OF THE 35 PERCENT DIVIDEND TAX) SPARED OR WAIVED OR OTHERWISE P3,541,492 CONSIDERED OR DEEMED PAID BY THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT. The sole issue 1,291,497 in this case is whether or not private respondent is entitled to the preferential 15% tax rate on dividends declared and remitted to its parent corporation. From this issueP4,832,989 two questions are posed by the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and they are (1) Whether or not PMC-Phil. is the proper party to claim the refund and (2) Whether or not the U. S. allows as tax credit the "deemed paid" 20% Philippine Tax on such dividends? The petitioner maintains that it is the PMC-U.S.A., the tax payer and not PMC-Phil. the remitter or payor of the dividend income, and a mere withholding agent for and in behalf of the Philippine Government, which should be legally entitled to receive the refund if any. (Rollo, p. 129) It will be observed at the outset that petitioner raised this issue for the first time in the Supreme Court. He did not raise it at the administrative level, nor at the Court of Tax Appeals. As clearly ruled by Us "To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenges the position he had accepted at the administrative level," would be to sanction a procedure whereby the Court-which is supposed to review administrative determinations would not review, but determine and decide for the first time, a question not raised at the administrative forum." Thus it is well settled that under the same underlying principle of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, on the judicial level, issues not raised in the lower court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal. (Pampanga Sugar Dev. Co., Inc. v. CIR, 114 SCRA 725 [1982]; Garcia v. C.A., 102 SCRA 597 [1981]; Matialonzo v. Servidad, 107 SCRA 726 [1981]), Nonetheless it is axiomatic that the State can never be in estoppel, and this is particularly true in matters involving taxation. The errors of certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize the government's financial position. The submission of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that PMC-Phil. is but a withholding agent of the government and therefore cannot claim reimbursement of the alleged over paid taxes, is completely meritorious. The real party in interest being the mother corporation in the United States, it follows that American entity is the real party in interest, and should have been the claimant in this case.

Closely intertwined with the first assignment of error is the issue of whether or not PMC-U.S.A. a non-resident foreign corporation under Section 24(b)(1) of the Tax Code (the subsidiary of an American) a domestic corporation domiciled in the United States, is entitled under the U.S. Tax Code to a United States Foreign Tax Credit equivalent to at least the 20 percentage paid portion (of the 35% dividend tax) spared or waived as otherwise considered or deemed paid by the government. The law pertinent to the issue is Section 902 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Public Law 87-834, the law governing tax credits granted to U.S. corporations on dividends received from foreign corporations, which to the extent applicable reads: SEC. 902 - CREDIT FOR CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS IN FOREIGN CORPORATION. (a) Treatment of Taxes Paid by Foreign Corporation - For purposes of this subject, a domestic corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable year shall(1) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (a)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is not a less developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends (determined without regard to Section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated profits in excess of such income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (other than those deemed paid); and (2) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (b)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is a less-developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends bears to the amount of such accumulated profits. xxx xxx xxx (c) Applicable Rules (1) Accumulated profits defined - For purpose of this section, the term 'accumulated profits' means with respect to any foreign corporation.

(A) for purposes of subsections (a) (1) and (b) (1), the amount of its gains, profits, or income computed without reduction by the amount of the income, war profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or income by any foreign country.... ; and (B) for purposes of subsections (a) (2) and (b) (2), the amount of its gains, profits, or income in excess of the income, was profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or income. The Secretary or his delegate shall have full power to determine from the accumulated profits of what year or years such dividends were paid, treating dividends paid in the first 20 days of any year as having been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or years (unless to his satisfaction shows otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as having been paid from the most recently accumulated gains, profits, or earnings. .. (Rollo, pp. 55-56) To Our mind there is nothing in the aforecited provision that would justify tax return of the disputed 15% to the private respondent. Furthermore, as ably argued by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to meet certain conditions necessary in order that the dividends received by the non-resident parent company in the United States may be subject to the preferential 15% tax instead of 35%. Among other things, the private respondent failed: (1) to show the actual amount credited by the U.S. government against the income tax due from PMC-U.S.A. on the dividends received from private respondent; (2) to present the income tax return of its mother company for 1975 when the dividends were received; and (3) to submit any duly authenticated document showing that the U.S. government credited the 20% tax deemed paid in the Philippines. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is GRANTED and the decision appealed from, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985 JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and sisters, petitioners vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners. AQUINO, J.: This case is about the income tax liability of four brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which they had acquired from their father. On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, p. 44, Rollo). Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to them would show that they were co-owners of the two lots. In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the 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 an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792. In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56. Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in full (not a mere capital gain of which is taxable) and required them to pay deficiency income taxes aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud surcharge and the accumulated interest. Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them. The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822). The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin dissented. Hence, the instant appeal. We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and divided the profit among themselves. To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated. As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction. Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Castan Tobeas says: Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad? El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion, mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe ordinariamente sin ela; y por razon del fin objecto, en que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion.

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