CTA Case No. 935 (Decision)
.. � PET:::tA M. VD : DE FSH:.iUDEZ and CONC~PCION MARTINEZ , Petitioners , - versus - C . ~ . A . CASE NO . 935 COM'�HSSION;�R OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . X- - - - - - - --X CONCEPCION MARTINEZ and PETRA M. VDAo DE FEHHANDEZ , Petitioners , - versus - C. T. h . CASE NO . 1262 COMHISSI ONER OF INTERi�JAL R~VENUE , Respondent . X- - - - --- ----X DECI S I 0 N On July 20 , 1960 , respondent assessed petitioners in the amounts of P45 , 726 . 37 , P41 , 990 o70 and P41 , 918 . 13 as corporate income tax, inclusive of administrative penalties and interests for failure to file income tax returns for the years 1951 to 1953 , the subject matter in C. T. A. No . 935 . Subsequently , on De c enber 20 , 1961 , another assessrrent was made against petitioners in the amounts of P24 , 849 . 65 , P33 , 590 . 08 , P29 , 898 . 70 , �50, 466 . 69 , P43, 162 . 80 and P46 , 412 o99 as income tax for the years 1954 t o 1959 , the subject matter in C. T. A. No . 1262 . Having failed to secure a reconsideration of the said assessments , petitioners appealed to this Court . Ttiese t1 3 8
� .- 0 0 i 439
� i) c . ., '" 0 � .l t f.r:J 1 l. i .. . -- 440
CO ,lf!lt �� X 4 ow t 441
' ... l - ' 0 1 .... , r ' 442
0 � .. ar �' . " .... n �.. �~ ' ,.,,.. of t o .!'<h 'Y p .t1- o.. t t tl t)n.. njoym~nt r PIC! �1 �0''" ' �rip ( � i l l C V1J. J. p ... 39) - 0 v�t1nn3 . " p . pl .- c n C- - ne 1. � o ... nj - ant 0 o� 1.\.t;) 1.t!:t Oll 1 oeet 1 _.l.. t t )Oil.: ~. .r ....rv ... tl t~ .10 - I t. y d.� r n tl 1i"' 443
L .,., �~ o . l2j .: 7 n t r:;< co.1 r . t .. r�. a ... ti ion h llo .. nd r '.�h'f.~ exr, '� n tto ' t i. (... l l n l!'r' t . ~z ...~ ...tion ~ . "' Ca s 0 . don b� :r -r ot re- t tH: on .. n c . rou lo ' .e b ... l'tlt1 b� h.. t ;i1 rue t s r rro t q tre .. . 1� :. � t '1 i. 19?'i ~ t ...o fr .. h. or 1 rttr.d rop rt! ~ t t pr :rtl .s , an< tt- . t c t h t no 1ttt. tlon of bl r � ip o ' rt . ' ,n ~ eontr. r ..... 1 0 iou� n �no S-�;')10' ho.. r 0.:. on 1.ble own ... nl in L._ llS ;.;.he� for u..,tn . in tb& ~ ui � c o r if , t � coll at! � ( c.c te. t ... t si .... t) no '. : t c p t.:i.t 0 r 0 s t"" j ify .o n..,c � v�ln, n r 11 � Cour 444
~ l?, J ly 31 .,. I� a1 j 1n- \ ' \ . :::. 0 ro!) 0 ,.. r. r t t . . ht; ~ e.f'f i 0 [ n tl d l;J;tr fer 1 l t 19;).,-. , rc � l, 1 ' ' ' t ! ay ,~ t V'~l .. � o~t .� t r o . 445
0� 9 , . C'U :l �r f . V' � '"1pt . 2 ' ' n� �v � � rt ... ct 10 0 r e:i � 1 t1.cm l .) i l'P t ~ n t l 'i - ll ~ l'B .... 1t' n in u.r- i.v' in n O' r' tn ' ) .�' � t. I n ..c .� ro 446
. l 447 �r
c l 448�
� ' -- ----_------~-..................... .. _ ,..._........ ..,.., ___ _ � _.,..._, .... ............- -.... - - - - ..... - - ... 'f/111# ' 449
�' 0� 3 ) t1 � 7 � 450
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.