CTA Case No. 964 (Decision)
f� , ID"U LIC THB PHILIPP / ~UBT .t..X ~I!.�Al..l 41illii.A. L . I Jl ~" ��� -r~ \ - - v J\' � .. 4 X .. � - .. - .. � - � X
. ,. . l' 4 - 2 ... th nti � c 5 n ct d Rep blic ct o. � 3 7 f ctiv J n 17. � ich .ende ct � 1789 n p vidin for fror c ns t- f m th tax r.C - n t xe t� p v�d in t 1 li s to t 0 v c r y it in 1 tit... r fil d 1 nt �o i - ion f in e.-ch of h b e- c s ue nt d f r o r c t r or not i fr ns t - i tX f r c n Oi. v s l J.n n. r c i 5 th t t �s n ... l i b on th run s th-t s ~�ll 0 th ilti n c n in t it th r - fo ur n1 f t l v nu 'i ti cti n 4 f u t fo �t is n f t--x y vi t of of ct � J. � 0 , ction 1 f b t o. 17 o , - ...f. ct \ tl oth h' s nd nt clai ~ n tt tt ' li no v . io of t n tl e, tion <� cti r v es� v lu -such ll 47
#� �. ECI J: ) T .. C. T. A. E.;) os . 964 & 984 -3- anc , o mi ssi on and al l s: ilor c ar9e s� a ccmpe sating t x equi ier.t t o t he per- ce ge t es im os ed un th i s itl on or'gin l transa ctions eff cted by � r- ch nts , impoxte s , or anufaet ~ s~ s u 1 tax o be oaid f e he i h r ' 1 removal o{ s id corr.modi ies , g s, ~ . t or me ch andise fr om h custo1h use, o he os t off ice. x x x. I is e on nd e on e ~rf cf petitioner at he fora oing , r o i i o e o templ tes pureh as ~s und re e ip s of goo 0 ere . n isu fr r .., d 7he e the title o ne s :p ,f 1e qoo s or n nd'se s receiv is vesta � s ute y or ~r nsfur e to t o purcha er o r - cipient uneondition all j. nd since title to the said v ess s L.) t aine by th pa t i ons Commissicn u1til th e 1hole pu ch se P::7ice , ha 1 Lave .., en oaid (the pur- ch as' p-r:ice n ae 1 vus~el iz oy in ann 1 e ual in- s fo . a eri o of u~ ty yc.rs)p it is not lia- . ble or t e , The 1 , � iMpos s he co p ns atin t x up n co .. rJodi- ti es, goods , ��~.,.. �s o.,. c::-ch nd � .:>e , cxce 't ose ;;)reci- fie lJy e em. e~ , u ch0 sed f rei l.'ithcut the Phi ... ip :nes. he""e �s n th � g i the l ~r \' d e. r quire~ th a fo~ tho ox to ? c �ue it is esse ntial tha absolute tit le t o h . operty so importe or recei e from abroad e ansf~ �red fro th s acquired to t h urc s d or ceiv d i o is n ugh � for a pe~s~ to bo su~ject o t he compens . ti ng ax tha t ~ he nu .chased 0 ax le rtic le from i t hout the hi l . ppi eo (c~nti n umber Co. v. Collo of Int. Rev,, G. T. � I � ' 8, re e se on another gro nd -��h-;� 48 1 �
.. , � in � � o. . - 4 - cor c s - 1 3 , ct. 3 , l 6 ) 0 cc t t e ft .i i; n r ' t ould null.fy th pu - 0i h t n t X all ac 0 iv d fr 0 d for in th h"lip i l t fr nd ~n rn te c 1 Y� b t t , it1 to 0 n th n nt ' c i p i t y tl.n t x. I u nt at th y of s. � 0 ' ft tt (. �v f in t � XC t 1� 0 c ot 1 t ti 0 t. i � � t :. - i n thi c � :.L � i nt i h i 0 t y nt �n t t tX ti 0 t li fo ct� n y, v r c t� o 1 tf - :. 49
� t. Q t v nu fo h Vi -5- nd r c iv d eta f tt ilippin for it rn � f ct th t t g in t u f c t in t r v .ont ct ti n 1 rc le f " nt to ' tia ti ion n t ff t t tX � f the v t i co t nd ction 4 lie et � 7 � ct � � in 1 t io of h ct , titi r nt1tl to X p ft ti t x in ct to n the nd at d~ t t t X o� go th p ti t tf u ic ct � .n cl r y c ui fr th d fin � u li t' X ~tio. f r-t o i .ic t t f y of id ct; 1 nd :n X i f" X t� c nt in- s y 1 ct. o. � 0 �t �n � 1' .. b '! 50
11 . Q � rt t.�X � - - 6 I he 5 ct� n, . n e l y epubli<: . ct � 79 , , n, oi put i. ct �o. ' 7 t s l.l t 17 , 1 1 � c lt ce ta�n provi l(OS th reof wi ich wero s ci - fie 1 y na . olic ble =.. ac i ns eff cted prio t1�r .o under th c ndi im 1 id do n 1n sai s ction. � f 5 id in fu 5 t ~~ .. I
{) �I C. T� � - 7- �r b v quot d p 0 i . pe th t 00 s ac ir d by iv te c n~ isJion pri r to h ctivit.Y of lie e-'" o. J79 r su J c to th e s in t x and h t oor.ls c q ir th :r. aft r e a~ t x. r , it ct to 00 cq d r� or to t of id ct , .cti n " at y I"'--- riv t r y or end-us r -y pt ly �� the n v.ti 0 his u iti tion co t act ,.t't . p rati ns issio i -rd t ail hi s .lf of ny vi ~on of s id c � hie i5 f vcr bl to him n gr t in lik rn nn nrl tn h xten as an us4 filin his t' , �t r the a prov 1 tl i a~ da o y t . nd t' ~ a nr t"ons C Jmi ion i riz d to to ch nov tion em co dition h�t t nd - u ll ~i u e ll t1 J 0 lJ. a ions fo:r:- in is tory ct. "'ctio - of e u lie ct o. 79 m S th T s�on th r of avor to nd -u~ rs , - �ng ic" i t rm t' tax , ~ plic let t n c - tions f ct� ior o its a rova , p vi ed th Cl - h " 52
t e n - us r. -- cent ct / - - - - v ion of his util"z tion ~lie t nd- ti s xovid d e tions C mission '"'nd ( / h vol 0 i.n T.'ily s ll th n � obl 9 - i c� e vid nc sho s t t in ition r lied f r th of its tiliz.t on ov ring . . ls n qu stio t th t t th fo in v pr - - f s.ic1 ic c ions :r. no tr ct �' tt t t c nt �n pr i - ions f to t e uth _�z ~ nd n by t nt f 11 th n in 1 r �n ' t e - � t . co t t:r::~ ollv ov t # 1"
/ - c0 . rC.I os . 98 ed X Xo h ov r n doe not d ny t f et th t o tition- h c li d ith 11 t r .1 nts l in ord th t my av �1 it lf of 11 f vo prOVJ.SiO ublic Act � 3079. t i � how v , con - t e th h favo bl provisions m ntio in ct �on of aid ct ich m y e av a led of by n ap lie t for nov t ion f hi ut liz ti o co t ct ith th a tio' ns C is i on o n t �ncl d x co - t (; u uch x tion is n t x r ly �n th la � n r ovid"n t h t t p ovi- io s o o u l"c ct � 3079 sh 11 av il P� plic nt f r r n va ion o th i utili zation contracts, on co i th t i oplicant hall vo1 ntarily a - s 11th n 0 i atio s provid d in t n lt the 1 int to 1 c rs ns ho equ� r p r ti on s e o h n ct nt o � t ndato y ct on th m fo ting as thos o ac uir r pa tltio ods ft r �t n ctm nt . hi �s 0 b Cc US of th p ov� . sion th t one n p lie ion fo en vat�o 0 a utiliz - ti on co .t ct b n pp rov d , th f vo provi ions of i ct ha 1 b vail t the n nd -us r f lin~ his 1�c t�on ft t a . rov 1 of thi d tory ct.
, 55
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 2341 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2341)
- TRAVEL WAREHOUSE INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9103)
- HEDCOR, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 1761)
- CTA Case No. 1521 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1521)
- CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 66)
- DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE LTD., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8012)
- PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 1929)
- PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10966)
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.