chamber of real estate and builders' assoc. vs hon. exec. sec. alberto romulo

Upload: rhea-mae-lasay

Post on 03-Apr-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/28/2019 Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Assoc. vs Hon. Exec. Sec. Alberto Romulo

    1/2

    GR NO. 160756. March 9, 2010Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations, Inc. v the Hon. Executive SecretaryAlberto Romulo, the Hon. Acting Secretary of Finance Juanita D. Amatong, and the Hon.Commissioner of Internal Revenue Guillermo Parayno, JR

    FACTS : Petitioner CREBA is an association of real estate developers and builders in the

    Philippines. It assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) oncorporations and creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinaryassets.

    Under the MCIT scheme, a corporation, beginning on its fourth year of operation, is assessedan MCIT of 2% of its gross income when such MCIT is greater than the normal corporate income taxIf the regular income tax is higher than the MCIT, the corporation does not pay the MCIT. Any

    excess of the MCIT over the normal tax shall be carried forward and credited against the normalincome tax for the three immediately succeeding taxable years.

    CREBA sought to invalidate the provisions of RR No. 2-98otherwise known as the Consolida ted Withholding Tax Regulationson the grounds that theseregulations:

    1. Use gross selling price (GSP) or fair market value(FMV) as basis for determining the income tax on the sale of real estate classified as ordinary assets, instead of the entitys net taxable income2. Mandate the collection of income tax on a per transaction basis, contrary to the Tax Code

    provision which imposes income tax on net income at the end of the taxable period;3. Go against the due process clause because the government collects income tax even whenthe net income has not yet been determined4. Contravene the equal protection clause because the CWT is being charged upon real estateenterprises, but not on other business enterprises

    Petitioner argues that the MCIT violates the due process clause because it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain. Petitioner contends that these revenue regulations are contrary to law for two reasons: first , they ignore the different treatment by RA 8424 of ordinary assets and capital assets

    and second , respondent Secretary of Finance has no authority to collect CWT, much less, to base theCWT on the gross selling price or fair market value of the real properties classified as ordinary assets.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the imposition of the MCIT and CWT is unconstitutional

    RULING: Taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It is a power that is purely legislative, this means that in the legislature primarily lies thediscretion to determine the nature , object , extent, coverage and situs of taxation.

    As a general rule, the power to tax is plenary and unlimited in its range. Nevertheless, it iscircumscribed by constitutional limitations. At the same time, like any other statute, tax legislationcarries a presumption of constitutionality. The party alleging the laws unconstitutionality has theburden to demonstrate the supposed violations.

    Certainly, an income tax is arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes capital because capital is notincome. However, the MCIT is not a tax on capital. The MCIT is imposed on gross income which isarrived at by deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods

    Furthermore, the MCIT is not an additional tax imposition. It is imposed in lieu of the normalnet income tax, and only if the normal income tax is suspiciously low. The MCIT merely approximatesthe amount of net income tax due from a corporation, pegging the rate at a very much reduced 2%and uses as the base the corporations gross income. Again, it is stressed that the CWT is creditable against the tax due from the seller of theproperty at the end of the taxable year. The seller will be able to claim a tax refund if its net income isless than the taxes withheld. Nothing is taken that is not due so there is no confiscation of property

  • 7/28/2019 Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Assoc. vs Hon. Exec. Sec. Alberto Romulo

    2/2

    repugnant to the constitutional guarantee of due process. More importantly, the due processrequirement applies to the power to tax. The CWT does not impose new taxes nor does it increasetaxes. It relates entirely to the method and time of payment.

    The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for purposes of taxation. Inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption,infringe no constitutional limitation. The real estate industry is, by itself, a class and can be validlytreated differently from other business enterprises.

    Petitioner has miserably failed to discharge its burden of convincing the Court that theimposition of MCIT and CWT is unconstitutional. Petition is hereby DISMISSED .