Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > April 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23676 April 27, 1967 - TAN GUAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23676. April 27, 1967.]

TAN GUAN, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

Constantino B. Tadeña for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; RIGHT OF COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO ASSESS DEFICIENCY TAX; CASE AT BAR. — Tan Guan maintains that inasmuch as the deficiency assessment was issued only on Jan. 2, 1957, the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had prescribed, the same having been exercised after the lapse of the five-year period provided for in Section 331 of the Tax Code counted from the filing of his return on April 18, 1949. Held: The resolution of the question on whether or not the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the deficiency tax prescribed would depend on whether or not the income tax return of Tan Guan for 1948 was false or fraudulent. If so, the Commissioner’s right has not prescribed. If not, the assessment issued is void because of prescription. The returns being false or fraudulent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has not lost his right to issue the assessment on Jan. 8, 1957.

2. ID.; GOVERNMENT IS NOT BOUND BY ERRORS OF ITS AGENTS. — The Government is not bound by the errors committed by its agents in previous investigations and assessments. (Philippine American Drug Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 106 Phil., 161).

3. ID.; FICTITIOUS EXPENSES CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME. — The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, sustained by the Tax Court, found for a fact that the expenses in the amount of P206,870.00 are fictitious. Being fictitious, the expenses cannot be claimed as deduction from gross income.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


In 1947 Tan Guan and Sia Lin, Chinese nationals, organized and registered the Philippine Surplus Company, a general partnership. For the same year the partners and the partnership filed separate income tax returns. Tan Guan, who filed his return on April 18, 1949, reported a net income of P20,987.14 and paid P2,577.81 as income tax thereon. The partnership paid no income tax.

A registered general partnership is exempt from income tax 1 although it is required to file an income tax return. 2 Profits, whether or not distributed, are considered income of the partners. 3

Acting upon a confidential report that the Philippine Surplus Company posted in its books fictitious expenses for the purpose of avoiding taxes, the Bureau of Internal Revenue investigated in 1954 the books and papers of said partnership and disallowed the following expense deductions for the year 1948 for being fictitious:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. D. V. Balsicas, Dec. 7, 1948 serv-

ices rendered in over-hauling and

putting into running condition

eight big steam hoists at

P3,500.00 each....................... P28,000.00

Three smaller steam hoists at

P2,800.00 each....................... P8,400.00 P36,400.00

________

2. Service of engine.................... 104,470.00

3. Gonzalo Padua, freight 66,000.00

Total disallowed.................................... P206,380.00

=========

The BIR investigators discovered that the expenses were not supported by receipts; that the names of the payees in the aforesaid entries were erased; and that the said payees did not report the sums in question in their income tax returns for 1948.

Treating the disallowed sum as income of the individual partners the Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed on January 2, 1956 the following deficiency income tax against Tan Guan:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Net income per return P20,987.14

Add: Undeclared profit from Phil. Surplus Co. 103,435.00

________

Net income per investigation P124,422.14

Less: Personal exemption 1,000.00

________

Taxable income 123,422.14

________

Income tax due thereon 36,548.86

Less: Tax paid 2,577.81

________

Deficiency tax 33,971.05

Add: 50% surcharge 16,985.52

________

TOTAL amount due P50,956.57

========

This assessment could not be served on Tan Guan inasmuch as he could not be located.

On June 6, 1960 the Bureau of Internal Revenue wrote a letter to Tan Guan, c/o Atty. Constantino P. Tadeña, demanding payment of the sum of P50,956.57 as well as 5% percent surcharge for late payment, 1% percent monthly interest computed from January 26, 1957, and P50.00 administrative penalty. This letter was received by Atty. Tadeña on June 28, 1960.

On July 8, 1960 Tan Guan appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals which in turn affirmed the assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Tax Appeals, Tan Guan appealed to this Court.

The issues are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Has the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the deficiency tax in question prescribed?

2. Should the deduction in the amount of P206,870.00 claimed by the Philippine Surplus Co. as a business expense be allowed?

Tan Guan maintains that inasmuch as the deficiency assessment was issued only on January 2, 1957, the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had prescribed, the same having been exercised after the lapse of the five-year period provided for in Section 331 of the Tax Code counted from the filing of his return on April 18, 1949. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that Tan Guan’s return was false and fraudulent, hence the Commissioner had ten years counted from the discovery of the falsity or fraud on August 10, 1954 within which to make a deficiency assessment pursuant to Section 332(a) of the Tax Code; and that since the assessment was issued on January 8, 1957, the same was timely made.

Obviously, the resolution of the question on whether or not the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the deficiency tax prescribed would depend on whether or not the income tax return of Tan Guan for 1948 was false or fraudulent. If so, the Commissioner’s right has not prescribed. If not, the assessment issued is void because of prescription.

The Commissioner’s bases in concluding that Tan Guan’s income tax return was false or fraudulent are the findings of his agents that the Philippine Surplus Co. claimed deductions of fictitious expenses for the purpose of avoiding the declaration of profits which eventually would be taxable as income of Tan Guan and Sia Lin, and that the names of the payees in the corresponding entries of the expenses involved in the books of accounts were erased.

The Commissioner’s finding on the facts constituting fraud, proved in, and found established by, the Court of Tax Appeals, was not rebutted by the taxpayer. Hence, We are not inclined to disturb the finding of falsity or fraudulence in Tan Guan’s return.

The returns being false or fraudulent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has not lost his right to issue the assessment on January 8, 1957.

With respect to Tan Guan’s contention that he should be given the same treatment as Sia Lin, who was absolved by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from paying deficiency income tax on the other half of the sum of P206,870.00, suffice it to say that the Government is not bound by the errors committed by its agents in previous investigations and assessments. 4

We come now to the question of deductibility of the sum of P206,870.00 as business expenses of the Philippine Surplus Co. for 1948. The only reason why said deduction was disallowed is because the expenses were fictitious or non-existent. Said conclusion was prompted by the absence of supporting receipts in the voucher covering the expenses and by the failure of the recipients thereof to declare them in their income tax returns. Tan Guan however contends that said supporting receipts could not be produced, for the assessment took place beyond the period during which he was duty bound under Section 337 of the Tax Code to keep and preserve them, that is allegedly more than five years from the filing of his income tax return. This explanation for the absence of supporting receipts cannot be accepted. The records show that the investigation of Tan Guan’s liability was made in 1954, prior to the expiration of the five-year period set forth in Section 337 of the Tax Code.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, sustained by the Tax Court, found for a fact that the expenses in the amount of P206,870.00 are fictitious. Tan Guan presented no evidence to disprove such finding. In appeals to the Court of Tax Appeals, the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is presumed correct and it behooves the taxpayers to rebut such presumption. 5 Tan Guan failed to overcome his burden. Hence, the finding that the expenses are fictitious must be sustained. And being fictitious, the expenses cannot be claimed as deduction from gross income.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. With costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 24, Tax Code.

2. Section 49, Id.

3. Section 26, Id.

4. Phil-American Drug Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, L- 13032, August 31, 1959.

5. Perez v. Court of Tax Appeals, Et Al., L-10507, May 30, 1958; Collector of Internal Revenue, v. Bohol Land Transportation Co., L- 13099, L-13462, April 29, 1960.




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






April-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18127 April 5, 1967 - IN RE: CORAZON ADOLFO CALDERON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-19726 April 13, 1967 - DOMINGO IMPERIAL v. VENANCIO P. ZIGA

  • G.R. Nos. L-24235-36 April 18, 1967 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20215 April 24, 1967 - DIONISIO PEREZ v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO

  • G.R. Nos. L-20246-48 April 24, 1967 - JORGE VYTIACO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22591 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: ANG CHUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23102 April 24, 1967 - CECILIO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 & L-16256 April 24, 1967 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-17599 April 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NICOLAS CUNANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19606 April 24, 1967 - BUENAVENTURA TAN v. HON. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23387 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: LIM SIH BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23611 April 24, 1967 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22310 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: TAN CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22500 April 24, 1967 - NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23855 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: WONG CHUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23390 April 24, 1967 - MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORP. v. MCDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION CO. OF FLORIDA

  • A.C. No. 561 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO P. VINZON

  • G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO AYOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18911 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CLEOFE RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-19425 April 27, 1967 - DEMOSTHENES MEDIANTE, ET AL. v. HON. MONTANO ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-20083 April 27, 1967 - CRISOSTOMO BONILLA, ET AL. v. SEC. OF AGRI. & NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20338 April 27, 1967 - BANAGAN LUMIGUIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20408 April 27, 1967 - NARCISO SOLANCHO v. JOSEFA RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20623 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: LAW TAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20797 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21118 April 27, 1967 - LEON CLIMACO v. CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21724 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22409 April 27, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22625 April 27, 1967 - FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22688 April 27, 1967 - UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22819 April 27, 1967 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23932 April 27, 1967 - ABELARDO BUENO v. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-24037 April 27, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23766 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE C. TAYENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23734 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SABIO

  • G.R. No. L-23676 April 27, 1967 - TAN GUAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19475 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: JIMMY CHUA YANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25467 April 27, 1967 - LUCAS V. CAUTON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967 - SIMEON SADAYA v. FRANCISCO SEVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-19570 April 27, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO, JR. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20195 April 27, 1967 - HEIRS OF JULIAN MOLINA, ET AL. v. HONORIA VDA. DE BACUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20886 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. ASSOCIATED FINANCE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 April 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21113 April 27, 1967 - MIGUEL OCAMPO v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21550 April 27, 1967 - ALFREDO DIAZ v. LUIS MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21705 April 27, 1967 - NAWASA v. HON. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22515 April 27, 1967 - EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23377 April 27, 1967 - CARLOS KAHN, ET AL. v. JACOBO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26558 April 27, 1967 - AMADO O. IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20701 April 27, 1967 - MARIA L. VDA. DE MlSA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MARKETING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22650 April 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.