Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > July 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17715 July 31, 1963 - JOSE AVELINO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17715. July 31, 1963.]

JOSE AVELINO, Petitioner, v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Artemio M. Lobrin and Juanito S. Mayor for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; INCOME TAX; NET WORTH METHOD; BASIS JUSTIFIED. — Where the Commissioner of Internal Revenue used as part of the opening net worth the small bank deposit of petitioner at the beginning of the year 1946; and the petitioner presents in Court an income tax return for the year 1946 of petitioner’s wife to show that his wife made a gain prior to that period, and that therefore he had an opening net worth bigger than that used by the said Commissioner, but said return does not contain any details to indicate how the alleged gain was used, invested or deposited, it is held that the lower court was correct in considering said return as a self-serving statement and in giving no credence to the alleged existence of a bigger opening net worth corresponding to said supposed gain of the wife.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEDUCTIONS FROM INCREASE IN NET WORTH. — The lower court correctly deducted from the increase in net worth one-half of the capital gain realized from the sale of capital assets made in the period covered and the depreciation on the rental properties. It also correctly took into account the improvements made on the four buildings of the petitioner.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS CONSIDERED INCOME. — Where according to the articles of incorporation of a lumber company, petitioner and his wife were organizers of the corporation and paid money for their shares, the petitioner’s claim that the shares were not furnished by him but by the organizer of the company, still the total amount invested should be considered as a gift or an income, which income is liable to tax.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALLEGED LOANS TO DECREASE NET WORTH DECLARED NON-EXISTENT. — Where the petitioner alleged having contracted loans in connection with the acquisition of certain properties but nothing is said in the original of the document of sale of one of said properties that any part of the consideration therein has not been paid, and although an alleged creditor testified that the petitioner owed her a certain amount during the period in question which was fully paid thereafter, without interest, it is held that evidence of this character has, as a rule, been declared insufficient for purposes of the income tax laws.

5. ID.; ID.; FRAUD IN FILING RETURNS; EVIDENCE. — The acts of the petitioner in declaring as incomes in his income tax returns for three years amounts representing only small fractions of his actual incomes, justify the finding of the lower court that there has been fraud subject to be penalized by law.

6. ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR COLLECTION OF TAX WHERE FRAUD IS PRESENT STARTS FROM DISCOVERY OF THE FRAUD. — Where the petitioner has been guilty of fraud, the period within which he may be subject to liability begins from the moment the fraud is discovered and not when the income tax return was filed.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals confirming substantially the assessment of income tax deficiencies of the petitioner Jose Avelino for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. The assessments approved by the Court of Tax Appeals for the said years are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1946

Net taxable income in 1946 P106,223.06

=========

Tax due on P106,223.06 P29,669.22

Less tax previously assessed & paid 1,472.08

—————

Deficiency tax P28,197.14

50% surcharge P14,098.57

—————

Total deficiency Tax & surcharge P42,295.71

=========

1947

Net taxable income in 1947 P43,504.34

========

Tax due on P43,504.34 8,361.22

Less tax previously assessed & paid 4,375.72

—————

Deficiency tax P3,985.50

50% surcharge 1,992.75

—————

Total deficiency tax & surcharge P5,978.25

=========

1948

Net taxable income in 1948 P38,885.81

========

Tax due on P38,885.81 P7,090.31

Less tax previously assessed & paid 747.51

—————

Deficiency tax P6,342.80

50% surcharge 3,171.40

—————

Total deficiency tax & surcharge P9,514.20.

=========

SUMMARY

Deficiency tax & surcharge for 1946 P42,295.71

Deficiency tax & surcharge for 1947 5,978.25

Deficiency tax & surcharge for 1948 9,514.20

—————

GRAND TOTAL P57,788.16

========

In the brief of the petitioner various assignments of errors are made, each error raising specific questions of law and of fact. The errors will now be considered one by one, each independently of the others.

I


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE NET WORTH METHOD USED BY RESPONDENT IN DETERMINING PETITIONER’S TAXABLE INCOME IS WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE BASIS.

It is contended under this assignment of error that there is no reasonable certainty of the amount taken as an opening net worth, there being no sufficient basis for establishing such opening net worth. Included in the opening net worth as of January 1, 1946, both according to the petitioner as well as to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are P700.00 and P5,500.00, representing cash in bank, PNB savings account and PNB current account, respectively. But petitioner claims that the cash on hand in the opening net worth should be, on December 31, 1945 (or January 1, 1946), not P100.00 as estimated by respondent but P47,300.00, for the reason that in an income tax return submitted by the wife of the petitioner, Mrs. Enriqueta Avelino, she made it appear that she netted a profit of P55,000.00 from her business of importation of shoes, operation of a bar, and of a restaurant, shortly after liberation. The income tax return submitted by her for the year 1946 was submitted in the year 1949 and was presented at the hearing as Exhibit "A." Petitioner asserts that his wife made a gain of P55,000.00 during the year 1946, but the supposed copy of the income tax return that she has submitted as evidence does not show how that amount had been earned. If she did actually earn that amount Exhibit "A" would have contained the details indicating the transactions in which the big sum was earned. Why none of that amount or the greater part thereof appears to have been deposited in a bank has not been explained. Apparently the court below considered the return as a self-serving statement, and We agree that on the basis of that income tax return, without any other explanation how the gains were used or invested or deposited, there is no reason to disturb the action of the court below in giving no credence to the said alleged existence of the cash net worth existing at the beginning of the year 1946. We therefore declare that the alleged error has not been committed.

II


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS IN COMPUTING THE DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ALLEGEDLY DUE FROM THE PETITIONER, ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING FROM THE INCREASE IN NET WORTH OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 1948. THE SUM OF P6,508.00 REPRESENTING ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE CAPITAL GAIN REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF TWO PARCELS OF LAND (CAPITAL ASSETS) MADE IN 1948.

The respondent denies that this error has been committed. In Annex I, the yellow working sheet prepared by Examiner Lasquety, it is shown that the sum of P6,508.00 was deducted in the year 1948 as the taxable capital gain. This deduction was sustained by the Court below. The alleged error, therefore, is disproved by Annex I.

III


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF P9,816.78 AS DEPRECIATION ON RENTAL PROPERTIES IN DETERMINING THE PETITIONER’S NET WORTH FOR THE YEAR 1948.

This supposed error was not committed as evidenced by an examination of Annex I, which shows that P9,816.78 was allowed as deduction for 1948 under the heading "Reserve for Depreciation, Building"

IV


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO REFLECT OR TAKE UP IN 1947 THE IMPROVEMENTS VALUED AT P35,000.00, ERECTED IN 1947 IN THE QUEZON CITY LOT OF PETITIONER.

This error again is disproved by Annex I, the yellow working sheet prepared by Bureau of Internal Revenue Examiner Lasquety. This working sheet was adopted by the Court of Tax Appeals and it shows that P35,000.00 alleged to have been omitted was actually taken into account in the computation of the 1947 accounts of the petitioner, as improvements on four buildings.

V


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE HAD INVESTMENT IN THE TALISAY LUMBER COMPANY IN THE SUM OF P29,000.00, WITHOUT CONSIDERING AN OFFSETTING LIABILITY IN THE SAME AMOUNT.

Neither do we find any merit in this assignment of error. According to the evidence, the articles of incorporation of the Talisay Lumber Company, which is under oath, petitioner and his wife invested the sums of P28,000.00 and P1,000.00 in the company. If these sums were not furnished by the petitioner but by the organizer of the company, still the total amount of P29,000.00 should be considered as a gift, or an income received by the petitioner and his wife from the said organizer of the Talisay Lumber Company, which income is liable to tax.

VI


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD INVESTMENT IN AVELINO, BAGTAS, ALZATE AND COMPANY IN THE SUM OF P5,000.00 FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1946 TO 1950.

Under this assignment of error, petitioner argues that the appearance of the said amount as having been contributed to the partnership by petitioner is no proof that amount was petitioner’s actual investment in the company. The same reasons obtaining in the case of the investment of P29,000.00 of the spouses in the Talisay Lumber Company obtain in the case of the petitioner’s investment in the partnership of Avelino, Bagtas, Alzate and Company.

VII


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOAN OF P10,000.00 FROM ROSARIO GRAY DE HAYS AND ANOTHER LOAN OF P30,000.00 FROM ANGELA M. VDA. DE BUTTE NEVER EXISTED.

In support of this assignment of error, petitioner contends that he owed the sum of P10,000.00 to Rosario Gray de Hays, which amount represents one-half of the price of P20,000.00 which was the consideration for the sale of certain property described in Exhibit "C." But the original of the document shows that the amount of the consideration was P22,000.00 and the vendor was Severina de Casal, and nothing is said in the original of the document that any part of the amount under consideration has not been paid.

It is also alleged in support of this error that the petitioner is indebted to Angela M. Vda. de Butte in 1948 in the sum of P30,000.00. Mrs. Butte testified that petitioner owed her the amount of P30,000.00; that the debt was in the form of a check and that in 1949 Mr. Avelino, the petitioner, paid P15,000.00, and that he paid the balance in 1951, no interest on the loan having been demanded and paid. Evidence of this character has, as a rule, been declared insufficient for purposes of the income tax law. (Eugenio Perez v. Court of Tax Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. L-10507, May 30, 1958; Aurelio P. Reyes v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. L-11534 & L-11558, Nov. 25, 1958.) We declare that in consonance with the rule which appears to be reasonable, the alleged loan cannot be declared as actually existing.

VIII


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER COMMITTED FRAUD IN FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEARS UNDER REVIEW.

Under this alleged error it is contended that there was no evidence of fraud committed by the petitioner. We find that the acts of the petitioner in declaring an income of only P5,258.99 in the year 1946 when he had an actual income of P106,223.06; his act in submitting an income tax return for 1947 only for the amount of P12,219.96 when he actually had a net taxable income of P43,504.34; and lastly his act in reporting an income for the year 1948 which is only ten percent of the actual taxable income of P38,885.81 — all these circumstances justify the finding of the court below that there has been fraud subject to be penalized by law.

IX


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT’S ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT YET PRESCRIBED.

In this assignment of error it is contended that the liability of the petitioner for income tax for the years 1946, 1947 and 1948 has already prescribed. The contention is without merit as it has been found out that the petitioner has been guilty of fraud. The period within which he may be subjected to liability in case of fraud begins from the moment the fraud is discovered and not when the income tax return was presented. (Sec. 332, Internal Revenue Law).

X


THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER LIABLE FOR P57,788.16 AS DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX FOR THE YEARS 1946, 1947, AND 1948.

This supposed error is the result of the previous errors and need not be considered.

Finding no error in the conclusions of fact and of law made by the respondent Court, we hereby affirm the assessments made by it as above indicated, with costs against petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary:red

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo and Dizon, JJ., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16682 July 26, 1963 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19360 July 26, 1963 - SILVESTRA DEYMOS VDA. DE OYZON v. DEMETRIO G. VINZON

  • A.C. No. 204 July 31, 1963 - PATRICIO SALAMANCA v. FELICIANO R. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-13365 July 31, 1963 - SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LA LOMA CATHOLIC CEMETERY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-14030-31 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO GONGORA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-14883 July 31, 1963 - NARCISA BUENCAMINO, ET AL., v. C. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-15133 July 31, 1953

    EMIGDIO SORIANO, ET AL., v. HEIRS OF DOMINGO MAGALI

  • G.R. No. L-15378 July 31, 1963 - ERNESTO SALAZAR v. FLOR DE LIS MENESES, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-16054 July 31, 1963 - ROMAN TOLEDO, ET AL., v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17085 July 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16691 July 31, 1963 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RAMCAR, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16860 July 31, 1963 - ISHAR SINGH v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-17105 July 31, 1963 - POLICARPIO GEGANTO v. QUINTIN KATALBAS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17117 July 31, 1963 - ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17285 July 31, 1963 - EDUARDO ELCHICO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17299 July 31, 1963 - JOSEFINA POTESTAS CABRERA, ET AL., v. MARIANO T. TIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17454 July 31, 1963 - CORNELIO ARROJO v. WENCESLAO CALDOZA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17468 July 31, 1963 - PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17578 July 31, 1963 - MANILA METAL CAPS AND TIN CANS MFG. CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17600 July 31, 1963 - BIG FIVE PRODUCTS WORKERS UNION-CLP v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17649 July 31, 1963 - ESTEBAN TAWATAO, ET AL., v. EUGENIO GARCIA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17715 July 31, 1963 - JOSE AVELINO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17717 July 31, 1963 - UBALDO BARON, ET AL., v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-17944 July 31, 1968

    MARTIN SAVELLANO v. PELAGIA M. DIAZ , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18135 July 31, 1963 - BASILIO S. FALCON v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-18181 July 31, 1963 - ILUMINADA DE GALA-SISON v. SOCORRO MANALO

  • G.R. No. L-18330 July 31, 1963 - JOSE DE BORJA v. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18335 July 31, 1963 - SALUD LEDESMA v. ALBERTO REALUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18353 July 31, 1963 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC. v. DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18422-23 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BORROMEO PAGULAYAN, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18528 July 31, 1963 - MARINDUQUE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18572 July 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO IGNACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18663 July 31, 1963 - CARMEN D. DE CRUZ, ET AL., v. EMILIANA MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-18765 July 31, 1963 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18998 July 31, 1963 - AMANDO LITAO v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED CIVIL EMPLOYEES

  • G.R. No. L-19000 July 31, 1963 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-21274 July 31, 1963 - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v. FELIX R. DOMINGO