Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CIR vs CA,CTA,GCL

CIR vs CA,CTA,GCL

Ratings: (0)|Views: 581|Likes:
Published by Noel Galit
for TAX 1
for TAX 1

More info:

Published by: Noel Galit on Jul 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
G.R. No. 95022 March 23, 1992COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
petitioner,vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, GCLRETIREMENT PLAN, represented by its Trustee-Director,
respondents.Facts:GCL Retirement Plan is an employees' trust maintained by the employer, GCL Inc., toprovide retirement, pension, disability and death benefits to its employees. The Plan assubmitted was approved and qualified as exempt from income tax by Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue in accordance with Rep. Act No. 4917.In 1984, Respondent GCL made investsments and earned therefrom interest incomefrom which was witheld the fifteen per centum (15%) final witholding tax imposed byPres. Decree No. 1959,
2
which took effect on 15 October 1984GCL filed with Petitioner a claim for refund in the amounts of P1,312.66 withheld by Anscor Capital and Investment Corp., and P2,064.15 by Commercial Bank of Manila.On 12 February 1985, it filed a second claim for refund of the amount of P7,925.00withheld by Anscor, stating in both letters that it disagreed with the collection of the 15%final withholding tax from the interest income as it is an entity fully exempt from incometax as
provided 
 
under Rep. Act No. 4917 in relation to Section 56 (b)
3
 
of the Tax Code.CIR – denied the refund, Petitioner elevated the matter to CTACTA - ruled in favor of GCL, holding that employees' trusts are exempt from the 15%final withholding tax on interest income and ordering a refund of the tax withheld.CA - upheld the CTA Decision.CIR’ s Contention - the exemption from withholding tax on interest on bank depositspreviously extended by Pres. Decree No. 1739 if the recipient (individual or corporation)of the interest income is exempt from income taxation, and the imposition of thepreferential tax rates if the recipient of the income is enjoying preferential income taxtreatment, were both abolished by Pres. Decree No. 1959. Petitioner thus submits thatthe deletion of the exempting and preferential tax treatment provisions under the old lawis a clear manifestation that the single 15% (now 20%) rate is impossible on all interestincomes from deposits, deposit substitutes, trust funds and similar arrangements,regardless of the tax status or character of the recipients thereof. In short, petitioner'sposition is that from 15 October 1984 when Pres. Decree No. 1959 was promulgated,employees' trusts ceased to be exempt and thereafter became subject to the finalwithholding tax.\GCL contention - the tax exempt status of the employees' trusts applies to all kinds of taxes, including the final withholding tax on interest income. That exemption, according
 
to GCL, is derived from Section 56(b) and not from Section 21 (d) or 24 (cc) of the TaxCode.Issue: Whether GCL is exempted from Income TaxHeld:GCL Plan was qualified as exempt from income tax by the Commissioner of InternalRevenue in accordance with Rep. Act No. 4917 approved on 17 June 1967. In so far asemployees' trusts are concerned, the foregoing provision should be taken in relation tothen Section 56(b) (now 53[b]) of the Tax Code, as amended by Rep. Act No.1983,
supra,
which took effect on 22 June 1957.The tax-exemption privilege of employees' trusts, as distinguished from any other kindof property held in trust, springs from the foregoing provision. It is unambiguous.Manifest therefrom is that the tax law has singled out employees' trusts for taxexemption. And rightly so, by virtue of the
raison de'etre
behind the creation of employees' trusts.Employees' trusts or benefit plans normally provide economic assistance to employeesupon the occurrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age retirement, death,sickness, or disability. It provides security against certain hazards to which members of the Plan may be exposed. It is an independent and additional source of protection for the working group. What is more, it is established for their exclusive benefit and for noother purpose.The deletion in Pres. Decree No. 1959 of the provisos regarding tax exemption andpreferential tax rates under the old law, therefore, can not be deemed to extent toemployees' trusts. Said Decree, being a general law, can not repeal by implication aspecific provision, Section 56(b) now 53 [b]) in relation to Rep. Act No. 4917 grantingexemption from income tax to employees' trusts. Rep. Act 1983, which exceptedemployees' trusts in its Section 56 (b) was effective on 22 June 1957 while Rep. Act No.4917 was enacted on 17 June 1967, long before the issuance of Pres. Decree No. 1959on 15 October 1984. A subsequent statute, general in character as to its terms andapplication, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enactment, unlessthe legislative purpose to do so is manifested. This is so even if the provisions of thelatter are sufficiently comprehensive to include what was set forth in the special act(Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-31711, 30 September 1971, 41 SCRA 190).There can be no denying either that the final withholding tax is collected from
income
inrespect of which employees' trusts are declared exempt (Sec. 56 [b], now 53 [b], TaxCode). The application of the withholdings system to interest on bank deposits or yieldfrom deposit substitutes is essentially to maximize and expedite the collectionof 
income
taxes by requiring its payment at the source. If an employees' trust like theGCL enjoys a tax-exempt status from income, we see no logic in withholding a certainpercentage of that income which it is not supposed to pay in the first place.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->