cta_decision CTA Case No. 41174117 1989-06-06

CTA Case No. 4117 (Decision)

YJ. REPUBLIC OF THE I~IILIPPI N ES COURT Olt' '1'1\X APPEALS QUEZON ClTY P I S O B AN K, F'f? t .i. t.i.one1r�, C.T . A. CASE NO. 4117 THE COMMI SSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )( - - - - Re spnnc' E!n t .. - -- - X D .K C I s This is i3n i::ippE:>.:~. l r� r.:!s;po nd e n t Cornrn.i ss!s.ic,ne ��� n �f In t r?l'� na 1 P~e> v enue' c;::. dE! C .i f:;.iu rl d P ny inq petitioner 's prote st against th e asse ssme nt of ta:-: �f or� .1. 97 4 E:l<:'i .:1: l E�ncl .irlf,J .invc?!:; Lol'.... Peti tion e 1�� i s dumt.-!~~ t.ic: cor� por� a t.i. on i:\nd incorporated in 1974 as an .i.nvestrn~nt h o u se. It L::; pro vided with a pr.i.vileqe tax t - E~ce�ipt as; ( .1. ) contractor ( 2) dealer i n sec uriti es and ( 3 ) as qua si-banking in s titution authorized hy the Ce ntral B.:~nk. During the p 8 riod from M8y up to December 1974 it was asc ertained and verified upon investigation th i::lt p!'�~ t .it. .i. on r:> ,r� p 1 c:\ c:Pd ti�lf..:' r:�q u.i.ty i t�. c.:~ stockho lders in money mark~t 243

DECI S ION - CTA CASE NO . 41 1 7 - 2- earned intere s t amounting to P2,866~129.95~ for which respondent assessed petition e r on Febru a ry amount of P257, 183.29 as fi xed and pe r cen tage t axe s for .l97 lJ.. t. h l'" l..l .:1 1 12 t t c;:> r� cl,;�,\ tr?d t'1a 1r �c:: f��, l ::~:, In i::l. fin ,:;~. l d c:c is :i.un di''lt.E!d r"iuqu<st l l , l9B 6, t h e~ pr-otr.:~<.:- t.. actually engaged in the bu s ines s as a .1. F' rlcl ir�,q i n vestor- subje:-:~ct to �fi :.:<=.>d dnd f:l <;? t"' C:f:?r..,t. ,::\ tlP t: a>~E~s of the Tax Cod e ). Tht: n Sf? c tion l94(U) ( rHJvl EiE�cl:.io n 1 ~T7 (U) ) o f the Tax Code d ef in es a lenrlinq inves tor as follows: 11 L r..;>rH�f .i.n ~:J .i n vE! :=;tol'" '' j.nc : lucler::; <'Ill per. so ns v1t1n mi::\k f.�? ;,~ p l' � ,:~r:: t.:i. c:P of l <=?ncl.inq money �fen � t hemSE'] VPS 0 r� 0-1::.h�-? I'" r,; c<.t inte l"es t.. 11 s h ort - ter m mon ey market placement s for wh ic h it 244

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4 117 - 3- earned gross i n come f or th e 2nd~ q u arter- s~ of P 60 1. , 17 6 . :::;;9 , a nd P1~336~054.06, re s pecti v ely. Pet i tioner i n f act ad mitted that o n several occasi on i t placed in money tr�ansaction s f.�~qui ty its stockhold&~t-� s .::~s shn~~n in i t s l�7' ttt=..' l'" pr- ote~:;t d <:~ted March 1:.: . , .1.980. However~ i t denied that i t is e ngag ed in t h r:~ bu s ine s s as a lending investor in 1974 as i t ''rnf.�? t� �e l y invest F? cl i t3 'funds �for- a s hor- t per-iod o �f time in t h e mo ney m.:H�ket in or-der to rna:.:imi ZE! t hf:? r-e:�tL.t r-rl of i.b; idle funds. n o ' bus.inE? !=;s' of l t::> ndinq rno n E' Y with intr:.:>r�t=0st. ~<~hr::>n the money ma r-kE:?t pl a cF.? rn e nt s ~<~t?.rf: made. There wa ~; no h abitua l ity and cont inuity or a practice of l endin g mone y ,:~t interest." ( p. 5, Peti t.ioner' :; l"'e mo .. ) We t.)eliE'V[�? that p etitio ner- h<:~d ht=.- e:m h o":\b.it uall y a nd continuou s l y l ending money for l n te r es t in 1974 a n d he n cP , cou ld be con s idered a nd ta:.:ed as a lendin g investo r- . For� rwac: tic: 21. J 1 y the enti r-e per-iod of 1974, i t did h .:dJ.i'l:L.u:\l l y f2 nqagE~ it ~;e:? lf i.n t he busines s as a l e nding i nves tor c on s idering the numbeJ'" o �f ma r �k E?t placeme:�nts i t m<:\de i n 1c174 of ~'llhit:: h W o":\S " �for- the e n ti.n: pt=~t-iod beginnin g thr,? 245

- DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4 1 1 7 - 4- second quarter t h rough th e fourth quarter of 19 7 4~ I<?, U66, .1.'27. c:;::.i .in interF.:!st income." (p. 4, Respondent's Memo . ) Incl e f.? d ~ th e l E? ndir1q ac t: .ivi. t..i. ..,"''� of p c:� t i t .ionc:�?l'" t h .:m oc::c: "''~-~ .i.o na l . 11 ( p" r;:c?. s ponden t ' s Memo.) T h P c: '" s P ~; o �!' Mo 1 o v s � Y a t c o , 7 .1. F' h i 1 � 4 6 U ~ which h e ld thu s - "Wh E~ r- f.'.' .i. �l-. �::~ppe<:II'"S t.l'v:.1t C!!::'.... ........~:;_j,::.:. q~; _<:::_c3.~~-tf:?L'!.~::; i::l per�!:::,on <"'C:C? pt f? d mor.. t:gaqP!:; t .o guara n te e Jc) i:'~n s t .o b E~ m<:l ciP t .o d.i.f �fF.~ r�G~r . t pt~ r� sons <::1'1::. ,;~n i.nt:. t:;~n::?s t oi' .1. ::-.'% <':\nc:l g:;uc: h pF.~r~:., cm dOE')!::, not pr-ove t t:.h;:~ sue h t. r. "'' n s '"' c t .i. on~;; wP r-<?. m,;~dE~ ,;, cr.: i cI E-~ n t a l 1 y n r.. bec ause of c e rt Bin pe c uli ar c: .i. Y" C: ums t .::Oi n c f~!'; ,, i t:. c,:;.h o u 1 d l:::. r::� p r r:� c.:; u. m ~-::~ d t l'li.'l t.: h c .i n r. f." ,,:\1 .i. t y rn ,:;u :l E~ '" pI" .:u.:: l:.:.i.c. r�: rTf 1 E�' n c1 i. n q mon PY a L i.r�, t .f.:'~ I'" <~�~~ t , t.l�"ll..\ ~,; hc�c orn :i. n q a l e-;)n eli nq i r1 V ��?!oi t .or.. und E~ r. t he 1 .aw. (Und e r scori ng s uppli ed) is applic:.:~ble, and Siao Tiao Hong v s. C IR, e t a l . , CTA C,::~ c,;; f.~' 1\lo � .1./'~'i:'."�~ l'1<':� r-c h .1. '::, .1. (170~ :.1r.; :i.n point:: ''Fr.. om thr:~ abovf~ t.r� an~;act. :i. ons~ i t i s apparen t that petitioner c:cnti.nuously and habi tua J. l y <� ?n!;.}C:\(]f~d .i.n t h rc� hu c.::..i.nPss of J. end .ing m o nf.~Y with .i.n tel'- es~t to s r?YE'ra 1 entities a nd p ersons . The se lendin g t:r.. .::~n !5 .3C:: t ions ~'�J C�) r-f.-? not. .isol a t�:>< :1 c:: cl. SE?~;; bu.t thf:~y r �epi''G:! <:>t�m t a sr-:? 1- ies n �f 1 oo:\ns s howing hab .it1..1al.ity. " H .:~bi..t u r.~lity" in thE~ practice of commerce presupposes the r c7?pet.i. tion C.'\11d co n t.i.nua t.i.on n�f c: ornrnE? rr�c: i '"' 1 246

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4117 ac: t s , in ~; L\ C: h rn ''" r1n r0 ,,.. th ."t�. t h (�::�y ''" t"' f:> r�e 1 atE�d to c ;;1c: h u t h r:~r� b y I'" C i:l ~::.,C\ 1"1 D �f thE' WHEREFORE, the deci s ion of t he Commissioner of Internal Revenue asses sing against petitioner the sum of P258,183.29 as defic i ency fixed and percentage ta x, plus in ter�est:, as a lending investor is hereby affirmed . With cost s a~Jainst petitioner� . SO ORDE T~t::D � Qu ezon Cit y , Metr o Ma nila , Ju n e 6, 1989. / JUDGE WE CONCUR: ~ ~~v AMANTE: ILI,EF PRES I DI G .JUDGF: 24 7

- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 4117 - 6- C E: Ft. �r I F' I C A ".1." I <> N I thi~:- cl ec :.\.<::; :i.nn rea c h e d afte r due co n s u l t a t io n amo nq t h e m8 mb e r s of the Cntw t of T �"'- :-; (-"' p p e,::ll <::; .i.n <: lc:: c or-d,3. nc:: e ~>J .i t. h Se c: t.i. o n .1. ::~;, (~ r- t�. :.i c l E-~ VII I o"f t:. h r;~ Co n !:; t: i. t.u t .i.r) n . . </ 1_.-.;.,:t.(t, 'rt -,..--~..-.t~.~ L.1-- ....__/_[__'(:{ - // / AM AN'fK ILLim PREBIJ> 'NG JUDGE Court of Tax Appea ls

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.