Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Commisioner vs algue Facts:Private respondent corporation Algue Inc.

filed its income tax returns for 1958 and 1959showing deductions, for promotional fees paid, from their gross income, thus lowering their taxable income. The BIR assessed Algue based on such deductions contending that the claimed deduction is disallowed because it was not an ordinary, reasonable and necessary expense Issue:The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns Held: No. "SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions (a) Expenses: (1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; ... and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows: SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service" Thus, The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction. We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable, however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.

Mayor Villegas vs hiu chong

On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No. 72797, praying for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a judgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. 6 Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind.

Issue: W/N O.N. 6537 is valid as a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation; Held: Yes.the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation. The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid executive Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to allow or prevent an activity per se lawful.

Mamba Vs Lara

Facts: On the year 2002, The city of Cagayan,represented by gov edgar lara, passed numerous resolutions which authorized it to contract with Preferred Ventures Corporation as financial advisor and Asset Builders Corporation, giving to the latter the planning, design, construction and site development of the town center project for a fee of P213,795,732.39. On December 12, 2003, petitioners Manuel N. Mamba, Raymund P. Guzman and Leonides N. Fausto filed a Petition for Annulment of Contracts and Injunction with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction[13]against Edgar R. Lara. Respondent however questioned the locus standi of the petitioner because he is not a party to the contract.

Issue: W/N petitioner has locus standi?

Held: A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that the public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[39] A person suing as a taxpayer, however, must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.[40] He must also prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury because of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract.[41] In other words, for a taxpayers suit to prosper, two requisites must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act.[42]

In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that contrary to the view of the RTC, a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity.[43] As long as taxes are involved, people have a right to question contracts entered into by the government.

In this case, although the construction of the town center would be primarily sourced from the proceeds of the bonds, which respondents insist are not taxpayers money, a government support in the amount of P187 million would still be spent for paying the interest of the bonds.[44] In fact, a Deed of Assignment[45] was executed by the governor in favor of respondent RCBC over the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other revenues of the provincial government as payment and/or security for the obligations of the provincial government under the Trust Indenture Agreement dated September 17, 2003. Records also show that on March 4, 2004, the governor requested the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to appropriate an amount ofP25 million for the interest of the bond.[46] Clearly, the first requisite has been met.

As to the second requisite, the court, in recent cases, has relaxed the stringent direct injury test bearing in mind that locus standi is a procedural technicality.[47] By invoking transcendental importance, paramount public interest, or far-reaching implications, ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to sue even if they failed to show direct injury.[48] In cases where serious legal issues were raised or where public expenditures of millions of pesos were involved, the court did not hesitate to give standing to taxpayers.[49]

We find no reason to deviate from the jurisprudential trend.

To begin with, the amount involved in this case is substantial. Under the various agreements entered into by the governor, which were ratified by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the provincial government of Cagayan would incur the following costs:[50] Compensation to Preferred Ventures (3% of P205M)[51] Resolution No. 290-2001 Management and Underwriting Fees (1.5% of P205M)[52] Documentary Tax (0.75% of P205M)[53] Guarantee Fee[54] Construction and Design of town center[55] Total Cost P 6,150,000.00

3,075,000.00

1,537,500.00

7,350,000.00 213,795,732.39 P231,908,232.39

What is more, the provincial government would be shelling out a total amount of P187 million for the period of seven years by way of subsidy for the interest of the bonds. Without a doubt, the resolution of the present petition is of paramount importance to the people of Cagayan who at the end of the day would bear the brunt of these agreements.

Another point to consider is that local government units now possess more powers, authority and resources at their disposal,[56] which in the hands of unscrupulous officials may be abused and misused to the detriment of the public. To protect the interest of the people and to prevent taxes from being squandered or wasted under the guise of government projects, a liberal approach must therefore be adopted in determining locus standi in public suits.

In view of the foregoing, we are convinced that petitioners have sufficient standing to file the present suit. Accordingly, they should be given the opportunity to present their case before the RTC.