Swedish matches vs treasurer of manila

double taxation
ordinance 7794 sec 14 and 21
Direct duplicate taxation
Spajp and same kind or character
Abra valley college vs Aquino
-petitioner is an educational institution
-provincial and municipal treasurer send a notice of seizure
-non payment of real estate tax
-ground floor to a commercial company northern marketing corp
-second floor residential purposes school director
Issue: violation of constitutional prohibition against taxation of religious,
educational and charitable I
Ruling: exemption extends only to the facilities which are incidental and
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purpose
Cir vs ca and ymca
-ymca is a non stock, non profit ins which conducts various activities that are
beneficial to the public especially to the youth pursuant to its religious,
educational and charitable objectives
-leased a portion of its premises to small shop owners like restaurants and
canteen operators
- cir issued tax assessment for deficiency taxes including the income of ymca
from the leases premises and parking fees
-issue: rental income of ymca is taxable
Ruling: yes
-exemption claimed by ymca is expressly disallowed by then sec 27 or nirc
-income of exempt organizations from any of their properties, real or personal
shall be taxable
-the exemption does not apply to income derived from their properties whether
real or personal, or any of their activities conducted for profit.
CIR vs Shell
-Shell is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing petroleum and
the subsequent sale thereof
-it filed a petition for a tax refund with bir
-it argued that it has erroneously paid excise taxes from products it sold to
international carriers which are supposedly tax exempt sec 135 of nirc
-bir denied the petition
Issue: is the respondent entitled to a tax refund on the ground that the
petroleum products sold to international carriers are not subject to excise tax
Ruling: no
-sec 135 deals with the tax treatment of petroleum with respect to its buyer or
consumer.
-sec 148 clearly provides that that respondents petroleum products are subjext
to tax from the moment of its production and that the tax liablity attach to the
product itself regardless of the buyer
-strictissimi juris
Stateland vs CIR
-Stateland is a real state company
-paid its tax liablilities through tax credits for the year 1997-1998

-filed with bir a claim of refund 2000 (as there are still unutilized tax
Issue: is stateland entitled for a refund
Ruling: yes
-sec 76 of the tax code
-provided that the payment of tax is made within 2 years after the payment of
tax
Lung center vs qc
-petitioner is a charitable institution engaged in the hospitable business.
-generally tax exempt
-leased a part of its lot to private entities which are not directly or exclusively
used for charitable purposes
-petitioner claimed for real estate exemption arguing that 60% of its hospital
beds are for charity
-petition was denied
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to realty tax exemption
Ruling: court held that petitioner is indeed a charitable institution generally
charitable institutions are tax exempt
-a charitable institution does not lose its character by profiting from patients or
receiving subsidy from the gov as long as the profit is used for the benefit and
fulfillment of its purpose, and no money inures to the benefit of a private person
-despite this the court held that portions of real property not used for charitable
purposed are subject to real estate taxes.
-PD 1823 does not speak of tax exemption regarding lease from private entities
not directly or exclusively for charity purposes
-hence, expressio unius est exclusion alterius when one or more things of the
same class are mentioned, the rest are excluded
-strictissimi juris against the taxpayer
CIR vs St. Lukes
-st lukes is a proprietary non- profit hospital
-tax exempt sec 30 nirc
-bir assessed st lukes fro tax deficiency sec 27 (B) nirc
-st lukes argued that 65 percent of its operating income went to free services
Issue: does sec 27 have the effect into taking non profit hospitals out of the
income tax exemption as provided by sec 30 and its enire income be subjected
to 10% preferential tax rate?
Ruling: no
-the only thing that sec 27(b) captures is in the instance where the income
realized by the proprietary non proft hospital falls under the last paragraph of sec
30.
CIR vs Marubeni
-respondent is a Japanese corpo engaged in construction and is duly registered in
the Phil with manila branch office
-CIR sent a letter to respondent assessing the latter for deficiency taxes as it did
not declare its income from NDC and PHILPHOS projects aug 27, 1986
- September 26 of the same year respondend filed a case questioning the tax
assessement
-August 2 before the filing, EO 41 tax amnesty
-marubeni filed its tax amnesty oct 30
-cir contends that marubeni is disqualified to avail the tax amnesty since it falls
under the exception

-taxpayers with cases filed in court as of the effectivity of the amnesty is

prohibited to avail
Issue: can marubeni avail of the tax exemption
Ruling: yes
The reference date here is the effectivity of the EO
-EO 41 took effect on aug 22 when EO 41 took effect, the case had not yet
been filed
(situs of taxation)
-petitioner contends that the project was done within Phillipine jurisdiction
-respondent however sufficiently proved that the services rendered was done in
Japan, outside the Philippine jurisdiction and is therefore not subject to
contractors tax.
-petition denied
Angeles U vs City of Angeles
-Au was converted into a non-stock, non profit educational foundation
-it then filed a for a an application for a building permit for the construction of an
11 storey building which is to be used as its Medical Center
-The office of the city building official then issued a bulding permit fee and
location clearance fee
-AU contested that under section 8, of ra 6055, it was exempted from
government fees such as the aforementioned building permit fee and location
clearance fee.
Issue: is AU exempted from paying the building permit fee and location clearance
fee
Ruling: it is worthy to note that section 8 of ra 6055 expressly enumerated the
fees that non profit educational institutions are exempted to pay.
-AU relied on the term other charges imposed by the government as worded by
sec 8.
-However this general term was preceded by a list of things, or fees in this case.
Which includes import duties and assessments and is also qualified that says
taxes derived from the exclusive use of the educational foundation.
-In the case at bar, the buildings that are yet to be constructed does not yet
generate income. Regardless of its potential of being a source of income derived
from the direct and exclusive purpose of the educational foundation, it can not
be held that it can now be exempt from building permit taxes and location
clearance taxes.
-ejusdem generis as rule, provides that if a general term which is not
expandable, is preceded by a list of the same class, the general term is restricted
to be construed within the class of the listed items.
Tolentino vs secretary of finance
-a petition seeking ra 7716 unconstitutional
-ra7716 seeks to widen its tax base by making some amendments on the nirc
-one of which is the removal of the press and religious sects from vat exemption
-among the petitioners was the PPI which claims that ra 7716 violates their press
freedom and religious liberty
-the press being removed from the exemption is discriminatory.
-at any rate they also argued that even non discriminatory taxation of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional
-PPI furthermore argued that VAT is in the nature of license tax.
Issue: WON the purpose of the VAT is the same of that the license tax
Ruling: No
-A license tax unlike any ordinary tax is mainly for regulation

-Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior restraint on

the exercise of its right
-VAT is, however different. It is not a tax on the exercise of the privilege, much
less a constitutional right
-it is imposed on sale, exchange of goods or properties and/or services purely for
revenue purposes
-To subject the press in the payment of VAT is not to burden their right to exercise
press freedom any more than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to
general regulation is not violative of their freedom under the constitution.
__________________
Villanueva vs Iloilo
-Villanueva and other appellees are owners of tenement houses
-villanueva et al questioned the constitutionality of ordinance 11 imposing
municipal tax on tenement houses
-the aver that ordinance 11 constitutes double taxation since they are already
paying real estate taxes, and that the taxes imposed by ordinance 11 is a form of
real estate tax in guise of a municipal tax.
Issue: does the ordinance impose double taxation?
Ruling: no
-while it is true that appellees are taxable under nirc as real estate dealers, and
also taxable under ordinance 11, appellees may not invoke double taxation
-the state may impose the same tax, one from the national government and the
other by the local government.
-in order to constitute taxation, both taxes must be of the same kind and
character.
-the two taxes, object of the dispute was not levied by the same taxing authority
hence, the two is not of the same kind
-furthermore, the tax imposed by ordinance 11 is not a real estate tax. Hence not
within the exemptions mentioned in ra 2264, otherwise known as the local
autonomy act
American bible society vs city of manila
-petitioner is a foreign non stock, non profit religious corporation
-operating in manila since 1899
-petitioner has been selling bibles and gospel portion throughout the Phil.
-city of manila then sent a letter addressed to American bible informing the latter
that it has been violating several ordinances for operating without the necessary
permit and license, thereby requiring the petitioner to secure the fees needed for
the permit and license.
-to avoid being shut down, petitioner paid the fees
-later on it filed a complaint, challenging the constitutionality of ordinance 3000,
and praying for a tax refund
Trial court dismissed the complaint, hence this petition
Issue: WON American bible society liable to pay the required permit and license
fees?
Ruling: no
-the permit and license fees are in a form of license tax.
-the purpose of license tax, unlike any other tax, is regulation
-the imposition of license tax, which is a tax levied in exchange for the exercise
of a certain privilege, burdens or suppresses the constitutional right of the
petitioner to exercise its right of religious practice
-as held in the case of Murdock vs Pennsylvania - It is flat license tax levied and
collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the
constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

-hence the petition is granted