CTA Case No. 224 (Decision)
EP G. > � Cv , . e'titioner, - V Sllw - � � I.S o. 2:?4- CTUR F ' H ;,)ponde t. E C IS I 0 hi i an PP al frcm t e decision of the Col- lector {no c ission r) o Internal \CV n ue d and- in of p .tltioner, ic.nte � i nco, the pay .e of th a ount of 5, 989 . 9' re pre~en in ficiency - - i co t x for th calend r ye r 191t9, plus 5, sur- ch r e, 1nt rest t t r of 1 p r onth and 40.00 as p n lty f or 1 te p y nt of th tax . Petitio ..er owns th co tr lil int r s in the 0 . LU ity ub1ishers, c . , a fa ily corpor - ion, a c. tt.le Foun tiOtl lle e . On bruary 2 0 , 1 5u CExt1illi t - 1, C.lA r c . p. 1,;6)' he f'led his inco e tax r t rn or 1~ 9, d cl ri 1 therein ne't il co of �9 ,~ . 59 on hic h te id a tax in . the su of 230 . 4 (see .ibit B, CT rec . p . 158) . fter udit, ex 1 tion verif catiOt of petition r�s 1 co tax ret urn, tog t er with his books of ccounts n pertin 1t papers, re por~ ent d.et r ine a t def'icier.cy of 5,989. 9;. 7Lis ta deficiency ses;,) ent, which r sulted from the disal- low ce of depreci tion and the inclusio of alle ed � un cclared inco �e, is co puted s foll0\15: 279
... 2 - ~et incom per return ������������� Add a o�C!allowed df'pr elation: House at Novaliches, Caloocan ��� 800 . 00 Residenc at ~.. t a . _a, ila ����� 900 . 00 Undeclare income: Ro yal . .1 ' S � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 580 . 00 ental,one LTE off set press ������ 7,200 . 00 l-7et profi on sale of book s s old by Co unity Publishers , I nc ���� 8,693. 45 Adc i tion to p l arJ� b ld � J.g (cons- truction made by Community Pub-- 1 s her s , Inc.) �...���..�.�.��.�� 2 , 901 , 07 Sal ry of petitioner' s wife from Com ' r.i t y '?� l _s ; r �J ' I l C . � � � �� � 48o . co Pro otional expenses of petitione r ' s wi . � ���������� � ��������.���..�� 3 , 6 00 . 00 Salary of wife from Foundation Col- leee ������������������������ ���� 2 ,4oo . oo et income from Found tion Colle e 2, 924 . 89 Net income per i nve r ti htion ��� 4o, o4o. oo Less: Perso al exemption ....... 4,~00 , 00 A~et � ncoi!'le s ub jnct t o t ~ . . . . . . 3g , 24o . oo Tax aue thereon ................ , 220 .40 Less: ~ Llotmt lr f' a .y s ed � � 2~L) , 4~ Deficiency income tax due ������ 5,9 9. 9 eti tioner pr otested t he asses s r� ent . His protest having been de ied , he file d t he instant ppe 1 . In hi pet ition for review, he r ised the issue of pres- cription o t he ri ght of the Com issioner of Inter- nal Revenue to col ect t e ef i c tency inc~me t x in question . hi~ Court , in a resolut ion dat~d Ju l y 7, 1958, re solvea th issue a ai s t pe titioner . The issu s to be r esolved in this case are. / 1 . Whether or n ot pe ti t i oner may properly cla� a ded uc tion f or t he depreciation of hi s hou ~es in 'ov lichesr, Calooc ur and Sta . An, 1anila; 2 , Whether or ~t the ~ colle t ed royalties, r Jntal of: LTE offset press and pro it on ;; he sale of books in the res pective s~s o { ~58o . c o , 7 ,2 00 . 00 and 8, 693 . 1+5 d ue peti t ioner from th Community Publishers, Inc . sho ld be co sidc red ~ s constr uct- ' ively rece ived by hi in 1949; 280
- 3- � 11/h t her or n t the co t of n additiona l c o � tr '.l ct_o.l ma e by t e Co ..i t y Publishers, I nc. in t e buil in, belon ~ in to p titio ei s ho uld be t r eated as nco e to hi ; 4. w ~eth r or n ot pe iti on .r i led t o d clare ~ ~1 r i n r ece i ved by his wi f f r o t h Co uni t y Publis hers , I nc . and t he Foun ation College; ./ � hether or r..o t amo unts r c e lv d by peti - tion r ' wife fr he Cornr:unity P1 bl h rs, Inc . all edly r present i n r imburs ment o pr ono ti onal expenses should be consid red as a lar y income t o the r~if ; a nd 6 . thcr or not pr ofi ts re al i zed by the Fo ur~a t ion Co l e e s houl d be re por t e as pe ti- t! ne r' s income . Th iss ues will be d is cus s ed a n dis po s ed of i n seri tim. 1 . D pr e c i t ion . Respond nt disa ll ed petitio r ' ~ claim fo r de pre c ia t � on deduc t i on on t h l a tt r ' house i n Novallc he s , Caloocan , on the r oun t hat h ho us e was ot used n bu ines s . Li k ewise , t he e pr c i ation d d uc tion c i wed on the house in S ta . na , a ila , was dis nllow c bec aus e 1t was use �1 y pe titi oner as hi s resid nc � he oval t c hes h s wa s c t ua lly rented t o t he Armed orce s of the Philippin es , but no ren t als were ever paid du to 1 ck or eunds . Pe titioner never used the said pr operty s his residence . ~e had no intention of convertin he pro perty fo r
- 4- pers onal use . Since the proper ty was never occu- pie by titioner s a reside ce but, on the con- tr r y , "'as rented t o the rmed Forc es f the Phil - ippines , the s id properti w s use in tr de or bu i ne ss . .-'ft - ere f ct t at petit ' on r received no rental due to the inability of th les s ee to pay would not c hange he z:.a. ture of the use of said pro- pcrty . The deduction for depr elation should co - s e que tly be 11 wed in pursuance of the prov~sions of par a r h (f ) , se c tion 3 of the 'I'ax C d � s r spect the ho "C ln Sta. Ana, t.he f c t s show th t a por t i on o it w s used by potitio er a s his re i ence and a po t1on was re n ted b the Co ur L . � ubl ishers, ll c . to house its sto ck room , bin ery e.nu printi g department . Said house was / used both l'or personal and b siLess p rp s . � ere a pro per t y i devoted t o .e s n 1 e:nd at th same t ime t o bus iness uses , ther mus b an p ortion- ment so that deprec � nt �on will b 11mitld to t h.e proportion of business t tot� 1 use ( see Jar:,ir vs . Collec or of I 1 t,erna1 I. ~ven.ue , C A Ca se �o . 443, Nov. 28 , 19;9 ~ff ' d in G. R. I� � 1-16:~52, " r eb 30, 1962; Sec. 23 . 11a, Vol . 4 , La n 1�� eral Income Taxa. tion , erte s , c i tin Bobe:r�t H. o t o ery , 3 7 BT 232; Gr enberg s. IUdd 11, 59- 2 'IC, par. 9555 (D .. C. . D. Cnl., 19:J9). Co .'� ider i ng t hat t ! e re t .d por tio n w s nsed by the corpor- a tion as ii.C'" E tocl:room, b 1 ~c1 .r y E:.ll printir:t; de - par t ent, n . hnlf of the c l uim f' or depr ec .: ation s hould be allo vJ �
- 5- 2 . Royal ties , ent al o pr ss , refit on b oks : he amounts of ? 0 . 00 , 7 , 20 . and � 8, 693. 45 r preset..ting r oyalties, rental of one LTE offset pres an profits from the le of titioner ' s book , respec tive ly , ere due petitio~ r from th Community Pub ishers, I nc . , but w ic h he di ~ not ac- tu lly r ceive in 1949 becau e the cor poration re- quested him not to collect the sarue . P ti t ioner now conten s tha sai mounts s hould not be treated as income for 1949 as t hey were a ctu l y received by i m in 19/2 � In this connec tio , it must be state th t pe titioner r ported his � come on the basis of ac ual rece ipts and pa Lents . / The i come whi c h is subjec to a an ' s unf ttered command an which he is free to en oy at hts own option is taxed to him as his inco e whether he sees fiv t o enj oy i or n t (C rliss vs . Bo ers , 281 US 376 , 74 ed 916 , 918 ) . H may not d libcrat y t rn his b c on income a.n t hus select the year in which he will r port it (l amilton Nat . Bank of Chat- tanoo a, 29 B1 63 , 67). ut , when a taxpayer reports his i ncome on the basis of a tual receipts an pa y- cnts , h h he power t o " �termi n t he tim wr e items b come income . S uc h a po er produces a tell- ing ndva~ta e to him beca se of t he s iftin s cale f t r tes , the v r yi tr ,atment of capital gains and losse... , an 1:he possible bar of t tl t� t te of limitations . n it was to nc.bl t r~ (. omru ic: sio r to circumvent the avoidanc and possiul ' oV&sion
� ... t t r o c l c.p 1 1 r- c . 1pt s t of ( � yl ' D � 12 11 21, 19 8) . t t th '1 tt d 0 1 eli e to b - 11 h r ct o hi on . It 1r pl c , h cor or tio ith. which to ce un 1�I 0 l e �, r. b .ln t c int r 1n r rc to . 1 cr llsu ly r ot pl c th t 0 (. ou 0 in ei' � n top or ~ t to � on 16 7). 5 pr - rl i 0 co OJ t.r uc ~. l lJ! 1V � � n t0 : r on r o .~ ., :il i of r, � , r p 1d or y 0 r t ~..io, ( 2, 1 . 07 ) on t 1 tt r 1 orcr to she -, r d 0 1c in h c.di 1or. 1 c tr ti. 1 ilt th corpor tiox b - c v tvr w
- 7- lon � 1h ost of th ~ ditional co tr uc tion s ho uld not . tr ate as incom . of p tit ner . 1 s a lle ged by p ti ion r .n uncontr d iet d by r .s pondent , th d itio 1 cons r ction n quest on was fo r t he u a nd ccount o t h corporati n . It b lo d t o the cor por 1o � s~c bein th c as , it ~ould be i ~o per and ine quit ble o t re t th cos t of the construe- tio in co of petition r . o do so would be t n- t ount t t a in , p ti ion r for a earned income . ~. y of p titian r ' ~f~ th Co ~unity ublishers, an ound tion Coll g : po nt c ont nc s h.. t. p titian r did not de- cl� e t h sal r i c r cei e by 1 wif fro th Co - m~t Publi her ..,, me . and th 'ounda.tion Coll ge i n te r'"spectiv ~u t of 480 . 00 and 2 , 4 J. oo. On th otter h n , p t1v1 n.l' m i t i s tba t th se mounts . wer r por t tu-;d .r chedul of i .... 5.ncome t ax r t urn f or 1949 a n ex in tion f .Pe titio er 1 i J.C O � tu. r tnr (l!.xbibi t n 11 ) dis - c l ose t hat h do cl red the ount of 7, 2 0 . 00 as 1 r y r ive f r o th corpor tion r th olle e. ut th r is 10 i.dic tion th .rein s to wtle h.r or not the sL d c lar . w ~ r ceive by him and b hi ~ wife . r o th e t r � 1 1 e w h v no t-lay of knowin and e ini te fin 1 s o w ~ether or not hi wi f 1 lar1e w r ac tu lly r e porte there in. l e pr es nte no other evid e ~ c or ~he point . ?he � ss sent f r spondent is pr s ed prima f ci correct an th bur en of provin t he incor r ect-
- 8- ness or ~lle ali � y of the a s s es sment lies on the tax- pa er ( Interpr ov incial Aut obus Co . , Inc. vs . Col lec- tor of I ternal Rev nue, G. R. No . L-6741, January 31, 1956) . Petitioner f ailed to show error i n respondent's fi nding vri t h r espect t o the items in que sti on . He nce, res pondent ' s deter mination is sust ined . 5. Promotional expen e of wife , 3, 6 o. o : Re spondent urges upon us t l1a t , since pe titione r' s wife ne ver participa ted in t he prom tion of t he busi- ess of the Communi ty Pu lishers, Inc ., payments re gu- larly made to her as r imbur sement f r bus ines s pr omo- tion expense in the amount of 150 . 00 every iddle and end of the month or 3 , 600 . 0 J ear l y s ho uld be cons id- ered as s a l ary income . s the C mn un i y Publis hers, Inc. was ( :!.n 1949) a fa mily c orporation , f r om which peti tioner ' s wife rece ived a s ala ry f or services ren- dered i n 1949 i n t he amount of ~48o . oo , we do not f ind it ill og i cal to c onclude hat she pa rti cipated in t he busines s promoti on of the f amily corporation f or the ex pen s e s of hic h s he was r e imburs ed i n t he s id year i n t he amount of �3 , 600 . 00 . B t t he f ac t that pay- m~nt was made to pet itioner' s wife regular l y at �150 . 00 ev er f i f teen d a ys constrain~ t he conclus i on t hat the re imbur sements wer e not for ad a ces made by a-s . Sinco t o the corporation. Rather , we conclude that these so-called r imburs ments we re allowance s to her which pr ope rly should have be en re t ur ~ed in 1949 ( see Da e S. Jos eph , 1 1�Ct1 105� De c. 12 , 892-1*' ; R. 1 . Cot t ingt a , 15 TCH 987, Dec. 21, 885(M).
... f~ .... 6 . .Profi ts f r "> I'o ..~.da ior Co lege; � � nally , responde tre ted the profits in the of P2,924. 89 realized by the oun t ion College as income o e t itioner . But , petition r ssails this t eat. ent on th gr oun that he coll , e has not d clared any i vid nd nor istr ibuted pr r�ts to its embers . He also alleges t hat the college is non- stock an non- profi t corporation devoted exc lusively to .ducational purpo es and is exe pt fr o the pay en of i ncome ax under sec tion 2? (e) of the ~ Co e . e can ot sustain the termin tion respon- dent . It is n dispute' that s id refits in the s� of 2,92 . 89 were not distr i butee ong t he owners of the c lle � Petitioner never rece i ved nor was credite with the amount . Th ere fa ct that peti- tioner o s the contrcl lin i nteres t in th colle e does ot subro ate him in the colle .e ' s pl ce as to a e the earnings of he college his ow~ 1 co e . Th collep.e, b ing a c orpora tion , has personality of its ow , dis tinct nd s par t fro ~ hat of pe i loner . 1.~ t h res p c t to t e co pro i se penalty i posed by respo 1 ent in the amount of ~l.to . oo , it has been held ti e r.. a� n that th Cc is s ioL r of Inter - nal e e ue as no au.thority to impose an e u.a.nd pay ent of his penalty i he bs !Ce of ~n a r ee- ent tbereo � 287
- .. ,, 2 8 8
- � � 289
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 4113 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4113)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DEREK ARTHUR P. RAMSAY(CTA Case No. EB 1413)
- NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10915)
- AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly AGREVO PRODUCTION PHILIPPINES CORPORATION) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6270)
- CTA Case No. 2299 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2299)
- CTA Case No. 1620 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1620)
- SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (consolidated with case no. 7973 dtd. May 12, 2010)(CTA Case No. 7953)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 626)
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.