CTA Case No. 369 (Decision)
l'.PUBI 1\ n P riLlPPIN~ COUHl l At'Pl!:Al.� rJ.AM LA � � 369 � veraua � �-- ------- --� -� CI Tbl treat� of an .tty � f $ � 31, 1 � a f o t City sa S$ ~ to tax t tit collec- tlvel t. tne'� .o$p1 l l � cated In Tf ~t t henwutu. uly 24l , 1~2. of os ltal operate t � �t u1ne' uazon , � ... ta. 1 h '� P� ' � c.} . t1t1onezoa 1 nt � ��tln .~:eal �� the lot, 1ld1ng and Z' ove c lain the osp1ta at.I: that the � d fo~ cha- rltable tar a.n purpoa � or ~ al gaJ.n ( t ec. � ter in- .. 1��� apect on o t � �2 , PP� o� pre 1n � t1 tu a careful 506
latt f c; - () " t�t� �� I (12) f t �nt � t pe 1t ,. . c f t� � (a) t () re ya ' splt�l f 507
-- � 9 ( y .. - p tl ). t�e 1 y �n � 1 c� t HC 1 1� t W1th1n t p ..-� ..... 1� t c - t 1C " s 1, �1� �t �tu at � or 1 !.ng, 1 tl � � ont ch 508 5;;
.. 1�� -.-- l, ... a � .. -1" �) ... .17. 1 � .. -.- � 7. 1� ( � 509
vr t 1 d nd nt 1n t 0 c t1o 1 � t n- 1tl� tot t In u or t �~�of , t 11 d( ) t t f ct th t t pltal t ty ( } ft t � 1 vel or � c:ollec e � by c it� 1� �� ( ) t a c ll'
I � -- the or t hp � pr1 t � X' t1 1 ro � tc� � uc th !t 1 P r 11 0 r pit 1 for 1tJ d (c) th t t tS.on of c01 0 tc 1t t :r tl n t h1ch o prof � d. t rc tt 1 xclus1 1 d/r Ctt 0 � In up ort tl it 18 dl ( ) th t no r ~h r - ct p I. nts. nd t tv r h t1 n nt th of. t ont:: fr t inc 11 cl f py u dt 0 plt 1; nd (c) th t t tl 10 r r 0 p1 1 f 1 lc � rlcc: pn r� r. v 1 t 11 to t tX 1 c. 1� nd on 47 (c) o 1 c ct fo. 7) . 0 511
� - 7- �- 1 � � � y_ � 7� 1 � 1� 1. � 11 t � �' � � � v� Intr 11. ~ ). ), 512
� -- r l Applying t � c nee 0 .. f c. ln S CIS t f tl 1on 11 ~� re f S t P1 e 1 pit 1 t f c1 - y � 1n Cl a I'V1ce, ha- r1t tie � cl not .r: t 1 1ld1n ts 1n ct d e J.t 1� � or 1n5 nt � � 1t � so s t � t 1 h yw ~ � 0 the 0 :1� vry 1 � f; dt occ py � 0~1 1r � vU � --- 1 n r1�ett~ t � pro rtl a cl � t 1. 11 � � pr nt I t1 n 513
� - To h lt 1 15 x lu 1 y, tl co t 1r 1n - t f 1 al 1 t h- 1 � T 1 n ~ ., 1 t 1 n~ �c rty 1 �- c
-- t.nct �pita � c� � f y v. lty )� 1 �1 Jll �� - � (c.r� � � t r 515
� 11 - ��tined 0 UclS.ng 1� l~..lf .IN11vU1ble ( � � 516
� 12- ��.. ty /r �� c X� f � �� al T 0 t � If a , tly ��� t � A r 517
-1 - � � � le � ty t v �� 1 f ~u1 t.t � �� 1 �� t t 1 z . ��� 'R~- Gt g k-" Jaa..1!JJ ~1� ~o, 1~\ � 518
More in CTA Decisions
- SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 355)
- ANGLO VENTURES CORPORATION v. CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S. RIOLA, in his official capacity as the City Treasurer of Davao City(CTA Case No. AC-128)
- DNATA, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 7780)
- CTA Case No. 5769 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5769)
- JERRY OCIER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6831)
- REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY - BRANCH 208 AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF MANDALUYONG(CTA Case No. AC-177)
- LACSON & LACSON INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8203)
- CTA Case No. 646 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 646)
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.