CTA Case No. 251 (Decision)
Rf<JPUBLIC OF TITF. P LlPPINEa COUHT OF 1.\X APPEALS MANU.A �I - v�r us - \.i . l � � �- ... � 25 CT L -y'>J\~ -y --- -- -- x- A - -.. - espond nt . c I T c. � hia � � 1- eieney ~~~~~~-.~~~~ n tioner �� pl pr i nl y fo ti 1 I � � 0 total su o y e ~ n c ve th clu i � or an oper n , c lpallty of L c: � 1 5 � I ternal r rv c z . -t i- (; gat us X y t nee; wi h hi p uc r urin t period fr � 1�.) .. cordln ly, verlfied the t X1 yf � and on to r 1� 19 .... � su itt� h report ~. 29
� ~1 .. 2 - th Prov e 1 nt. ( ..� 2- ) con- ta!n n h s , dur ng t h per undt'r r v �spro or ion u t X� .r � c nt o c n� ie ets. ort t in th pr ioua ( f 1 - 19 1) th ratio o ulta n . ch ldren pa z n we tr �� to 1. � �� for v ry thre trin h t ater. o e n th ~ro in - three ch l an c t � lc t - � c cy � f t. woll e r ctl � 30
�� 2 1 � 3- � to eat on t � ~oxr etn $~ of o as o s � ya u e the ote.r l \ en'. Follo spon� ent � a u est .o � i ... lon � n u filed in nt1 onf re c taff o pro le factual ent. ell � � th Co f or f � te � .r s of t n nt oll ctor o In ern 1 in e ct t h .. a e~ re � 1111C i l . p.r i ll s 0 ac ul t pr ctic ere r. cc 1h the r c t fr t f , 1:e po nt ac i1 v :zo � he tit or fur r �t c 9 pr t x- ayer' u u .1t c 1c t1 � (p. 1 � c:.) .J Yt ! 5 � e tt ' on t . nt 1. 1� lity was furt r t yt � vine al ven 1 'V u i~er � � 11 ,. 31
I � 251 rat (l) ehil of 75.2 indors � t c 0t � 1~�1' t ffice is not the per-i tt D $U 1tted h p 'X' . 0 - n 1 venue w t o t ny co J nu y 95~ , h 01 f f of th ureau of I t rn u , ftcr d of 1 .. 1d d t ollecto;r o nt 1 t cf d .. f!clency s mrant nt hi.Cl ~ .,_ h b - I'! ect of t e pre& t l. The o 1 C.&$ is 0 f t. he p ~ id petitioner here � 1: � se11 and issue two (2) t n' �tt~kets to his a lt cust rs ln te o~ ( l) � I� 32
1� c � � 21 -5 - centavo 1 t or c c &to r? l 1 to not d h the t x nt, tch 1s t ubj ct ft s 1 ly � �~tir ly 0 h presu � th r n th r od r ery und r r � �1 c 5 0 s 0 't patr n t.o ~ a ltted fe � I of t ate 1 l h v r, o hn t t sion to tl 0 t � .. tt 1n nt tt t � COI C r to o G l ch 1 n� � f. IU d. or o~ r , th t xp y r r l'l c t , v . e ntly d d t 1 il 1 pr ctic h ch ~ �� � To � app l c o ctu 1 st x v r � nt f x s n deter 1nea th t x 1 ty � n a lt i& rv d, n t h rt he ta o cer n :re prasu tio s tr o r 1 �c 1 said pr su tiona v be. h .. +ha 33
� 251 - 6- averag t 00 lts ch dr patronlz g o 1, t e con tl h 1952 clur f ct t 1 ost fici t y, 1 55 d J has n no 2 dl 5� t� nt y 5 hv l r t y, t� T p � ro pr � to ~st o IIJ)tio 2 0 9 to 9 l d uly 195 � Ln t r .r 0 - on~v t/'6h.f.l �n 6 ev enc , y th 11 or er fleet t he ru 1 taxpayer ( �� ct tJo l OdeJ a a so in 0 o. � 1 f- t � 1 5 ), ter al � �nu�. c. r. � lie o. - f t owever, th u 1 n f � t; ���� t t d at 0 t e t for ch 1� sou � ff .. _.,... dan er to the reven as of t ;1f
.. 35
� .. � ~1 - a- upon &n all d f ct o.r et u "" cts ve n n ct lly found to st an at 1t 1� etter or n le th n p- ment of a tax le a taxp y_er 0 tn t ana. nd 1� t cy � houl � h r� tion, t'- . <1K1 h u cb � f. here y, � � Ua, h li in � J ru y 23, 1 �� I concur n the Hault. 'G vote. I �' 36
More in CTA Decisions
- HEDCOR, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8964)
- AECOM PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8971)
- CTA Case No. 5352 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5352)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 1087)
- RIECKERMANN PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9613)
- LAPANDAY FOODS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 2032)
- UNIOIL PETROLEUM PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 11275)
- CTA Case No. 5675 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5675)
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.