tax digest cases

7/23/2019 TAX Digest Cases

1/4

CIR v. PINEDA GR No. L-22734, September 15, 1967 21 SCRA 15

FACTS: Atanasio Pineda died, survived by his wife, Felicisima Bagtas, and 1 children, the eldest of whom isAtty! "anuel Pineda! #state $roceedings were had in Court so that the estate was divided among andawarded to the heirs! Atty Pineda%s share amounted to about P&,''!''! After the estate $roceedings wereclosed, the B() investigated the income ta* liability of the estate for the years 1+, 1+-, 1+. and 1+/and it found that the corres$onding income ta* returns were not 0led! Thereu$on, the re$resentative of theCollector of (nternal )evenue 0led said returns for the estate issued an assessment and charged the fulamount to the inheritance due to Atty! Pineda who argued that he is liable only to e*tent of his $ro$ortionashare in the inheritance!

(SS#: Can B() collect the full amount of estate ta*es from an heir%s inheritance!

2#34: 5es! The 6overnment can re7uire Atty! Pineda to $ay the full amount of the ta*es assessedThe reason is that the 6overnment has a lien on the P&,''!'' received by him from the estate as hisshare in the inheritance, for un$aid income ta*es for which said estate is liable! By virtue of such lien, the6overnment has the right to sub8ect the $ro$erty in Pineda%s $ossession to satisfy the income ta*assessment! After such $ayment, Pineda will have a right of contribution from his co9heirs, to achieve anad8ustment of the $ro$er share of each heir in the distributable estate All told, the 6overnment has two ways of collecting the ta* in 7uestion! ne, by going after all the heirsand collecting from each one of them the amount of the ta* $ro$ortionate to the inheritance received; andsecond, is by sub8ecting said $ro$erty of the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the$ayment of the ta* due! This second remedy is the very avenue the 6overnment too< in this case tocollect the ta*! The Bureau of (nternal )evenue should be given, in instances li


2/4

n the last issue raised, the ordinances do not $arta


3/4

regulate and su$ervise the videogram industry!

A month after the $romulgation of the said Presidential 4ecree, the amended the ?ational (nternal)evenue Code $rovided that:

=S#C! 1@! Dideo Ta$es! N There shall be collected on each $rocessed video9ta$e cassette, ready for$laybacected the viability of the movieindustry!

I&&*e&=

1 Hhether or not ta* im$osed by the 4#C)## is a valid e*ercise of $olice $ower!

& Hhether or nor the 4#C)## is constitutional!

%e/8=Ta*ation has been made the im$lement of the state%s $olice $ower! The levy of the @'O ta* is for a$ublic $ur$ose! (t was im$osed $rimarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry, $articularlybecause of the ram$ant 0lm $iracy, the Eagrant violation of intellectual $ro$erty rights, and the$roliferation of $ornogra$hic video ta$es! And while it was also an ob8ective of the 4#C)## to $rotect themovie industry, the ta* remains a valid im$osition!

He 0nd no clear violation of the Constitution which would 8ustify us in $ronouncing Presidential 4ecree ?o!1+/. as unconstitutional and void! Hhile the underlying ob8ective of the 4#C)## is to $rotect themoribund movie industry, there is no 7uestion that $ublic welfare is at bottom of its enactment,

considering =the unfair com$etition $osed by ram$ant 0lm $iracy; the erosion of the moral 0ber of theviewing $ublic brought about by the availability of unclassi0ed and unreviewed video ta$es containing$ornogra$hic 0lms and 0lms with brutally violent se7uences; and losses in government revenues due tothe dro$ in theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the activities of video establishments arevirtually unta*ed since mere $ayment of "ayor%s $ermit and munici$al license fees are re7uired to engagein business!=

H2#)#F)#, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed! ?o costs!

P%ILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. ED( G.R. No. L- 4133, A*>*&t 15, 19


4/4

FACTS: The Phili$$ine Airlines PA3 is a cor$oration engaged in the air trans$ortation business under a

legislative franchise, Act ?o! &.@+! nder its franchise, PA3 is e*em$t from the $ayment of ta*es!

Sometime in 1+.1, however, 3and Trans$ortation Commissioner )omeo F! #levate #levate issued a

regulation $ursuant to Section /, )e$ublic Act 1@-, otherwise

tax digest cases

Documents