G.R. No. L-19342 May 25, 1972 LORENZO T. OA and HEIRS OF JULIA BUALES, namely: RODOLFO B.

OA, MARIANO B. OA, LUZ B. OA, VIRGINIA B. OA and LORENZO B. OA, JR., petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Orlando Velasco for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, and Special Attorney Purificacion Ureta for respondent.

BARREDO, J.:p Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 617, similarly entitled as above, holding that petitioners have constituted an unregistered partnership and are, therefore, subject to the payment of the deficiency corporate income taxes assessed against them by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the years 1955 and 1956 in the total sum of P21,891.00, plus 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest from December 15, 1958, subject to the provisions of Section 51 (e) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 8 of Republic Act No. 2343 and the costs of the suit, 1 as well as the resolution of said court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said decision. The facts are stated in the decision of the Tax Court as follows: Julia Buales died on March 23, 1944, leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo T. Oa and her five children. In 1948, Civil Case No. 4519 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of her estate. Later, Lorenzo T. Oa the surviving spouse was appointed administrator of the estate of said deceased (Exhibit 3, pp. 34-41, BIR rec.). On April 14, 1949, the administrator submitted the project of partition, which was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949 (See Exhibit K). Because three of the heirs, namely Luz, Virginia and Lorenzo, Jr., all surnamed Oa, were still minors when the project of partition was approved, Lorenzo T. Oa, their father and administrator of the estate, filed a petition in Civil Case No. 9637 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for appointment as guardian of said minors. On November 14, 1949, the Court appointed him guardian of the persons and property of the aforenamed minors (See p. 3, BIR rec.). The project of partition (Exhibit K; see also pp. 77-70, BIR rec.) shows that the heirs have undivided one-half (1/2) interest in ten parcels of land with a total assessed value of P87,860.00, six houses with a total assessed value of P17,590.00 and an undetermined amount to be collected from the War Damage Commission. Later, they received from said Commission the amount of P50,000.00, more or less. This amount was not divided among them but was used in the rehabilitation of properties owned by them in common (t.s.n., p. 46). Of the ten parcels of land aforementioned, two were acquired after the death of the decedent with money borrowed from the Philippine Trust Company in the amount of P72,173.00 (t.s.n., p. 24; Exhibit 3, pp. 31-34 BIR rec.). The project of partition also shows that the estate shares equally with Lorenzo T. Oa, the administrator thereof, in the obligation of P94,973.00, consisting of loans contracted by the latter with the approval of the Court (see p. 3 of Exhibit K; or see p. 74, BIR rec.). Although the project of partition was approved by the Court on May 16, 1949, no attempt was made to divide the properties therein listed. Instead, the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and securities. As a result, petitioners' properties and

investments gradually increased from P105,450.00 in 1949 to P480,005.20 in 1956 as can be gleaned from the following year-end balances:
Yea r

Investme nt Account

Land Accou nt P87,860.00 128,566.72 120,349.28 87,065.28 84,925.68 99,001.20 120,249.78 135,714.68 P17,590.00 96,076.26 110,605.11 152,674.39 161,463.83 167,962.04 169,262.52 169,262.52

Buildin g Accou nt

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

P24,657.65 51,301.31 67,927.52 61,258.27 63,623.37 100,786.00 175,028.68

(See Exhibits 3 & K t.s.n., pp. 22, 25-26, 40, 50, 102-104) From said investments and properties petitioners derived such incomes as profits from installment sales of subdivided lots, profits from sales of stocks, dividends, rentals and interests (see p. 3 of Exhibit 3; p. 32, BIR rec.; t.s.n., pp. 37-38). The said incomes are recorded in the books of account kept by Lorenzo T. Oa where the corresponding shares of the petitioners in the net income for the year are also known. Every year, petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income derived from said properties and securities and/or from transactions involving them (Exhibit 3, supra; t.s.n., pp. 25-26). However, petitioners did not actually receive their shares in the yearly income. (t.s.n., pp. 25-26, 40, 98, 100). The income was always left in the hands of Lorenzo T. Oa who, as heretofore pointed out, invested them in real properties and securities. (See Exhibit 3, t.s.n., pp. 50, 102-104). On the basis of the foregoing facts, respondent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue) decided that petitioners formed an unregistered partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 24, in relation to Section 84(b), of the Tax Code. Accordingly, he assessed against the petitioners the amounts of P8,092.00 and P13,899.00 as corporate income taxes for 1955 and 1956, respectively. (See Exhibit 5, amended by Exhibit 17, pp. 50 and 86, BIR rec.). Petitioners protested against the assessment and asked for reconsideration of the ruling of respondent that they have formed an unregistered partnership. Finding no merit in petitioners' request, respondent denied it (See Exhibit 17, p. 86, BIR rec.). (See pp. 1-4, Memorandum for Respondent, June 12, 1961). The original assessment was as follows: 1955 Net income as per investigation ................ P40,209.89 Income tax due thereon ............................... 8,042.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 2,010.50

Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P10,102.50 1956 Net income as per investigation ................ P69,245.23 Income tax due thereon ............................... 13,849.00 25% surcharge .............................................. 3,462.25 Compromise for non-filing .......................... 50.00 Total ............................................................... P17,361.25 (See Exhibit 13, page 50, BIR records) Upon further consideration of the case, the 25% surcharge was eliminated in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector v. Batangas Transportation Co., G.R. No. L-9692, Jan. 6, 1958, so that the questioned assessment refers solely to the income tax proper for the years 1955 and 1956 and the "Compromise for non-filing," the latter item obviously referring to the compromise in lieu of the criminal liability for failure of petitioners to file the corporate income tax returns for said years. (See Exh. 17, page 86, BIR records). (Pp. 13, Annex C to Petition) Petitioners have assigned the following as alleged errors of the Tax Court: I. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FORMED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; II. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED AND (THE) PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS THEREFROM (sic); III. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR CORPORATE INCOME TAXES FOR 1955 AND 1956 AS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP; IV. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT THEY INVESTED THE PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON AND THE LOANS RECEIVED USING THE INHERITED PROPERTIES AS COLLATERALS; V. ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON THEIR RESPECTIVE

SHARES OF THE PROFITS ACCRUING FROM THE PROPERTIES OWNED IN COMMON, FROM THE DEFICIENCY TAX OF THE UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP. In other words, petitioners pose for our resolution the following questions: (1) Under the facts found by the Court of Tax Appeals, should petitioners be considered as co-owners of the properties inherited by them from the deceased Julia Buales and the profits derived from transactions involving the same, or, must they be deemed to have formed an unregistered partnership subject to tax under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code? (2) Assuming they have formed an unregistered partnership, should this not be only in the sense that they invested as a common fund the profits earned by the properties owned by them in common and the loans granted to them upon the security of the said properties, with the result that as far as their respective shares in the inheritance are concerned, the total income thereof should be considered as that of co-owners and not of the unregistered partnership? And (3) assuming again that they are taxable as an unregistered partnership, should not the various amounts already paid by them for the same years 1955 and 1956 as individual income taxes on their respective shares of the profits accruing from the properties they owned in common be deducted from the deficiency corporate taxes, herein involved, assessed against such unregistered partnership by the respondent Commissioner? Pondering on these questions, the first thing that has struck the Court is that whereas petitioners' predecessor in interest died way back on March 23, 1944 and the project of partition of her estate was judicially approved as early as May 16, 1949, and presumably petitioners have been holding their respective shares in their inheritance since those dates admittedly under the administration or management of the head of the family, the widower and father Lorenzo T. Oa, the assessment in question refers to the later years 1955 and 1956. We believe this point to be important because, apparently, at the start, or in the years 1944 to 1954, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did treat petitioners as co-owners, not liable to corporate tax, and it was only from 1955 that he considered them as having formed an unregistered partnership. At least, there is nothing in the record indicating that an earlier assessment had already been made. Such being the case, and We see no reason how it could be otherwise, it is easily understandable why petitioners' position that they are co-owners and not unregistered co-partners, for the purposes of the impugned assessment, cannot be upheld. Truth to tell, petitioners should find comfort in the fact that they were not similarly assessed earlier by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Tax Court found that instead of actually distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of partition approved in 1949, "the properties remained under the management of Lorenzo T. Oa who used said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income derived therefrom and the proceed from the sales thereof in real properties and securities," as a result of which said properties and investments steadily increased yearly from P87,860.00 in "land account" and P17,590.00 in "building account" in 1949 to P175,028.68 in "investment account," P135.714.68 in "land account" and P169,262.52 in "building account" in 1956. And all these became possible because, admittedly, petitioners never actually received any share of the income or profits from Lorenzo T. Oa and instead, they allowed him to continue using said shares as part of the common fund for their ventures, even as they paid the corresponding income taxes on the basis of their respective shares of the profits of their common business as reported by the said Lorenzo T. Oa. It is thus incontrovertible that petitioners did not, contrary to their contention, merely limit themselves to holding the properties inherited by them. Indeed, it is admitted that during the material years herein involved, some of the said properties were sold at considerable profit, and that with said profit, petitioners engaged, thru Lorenzo T. Oa, in the purchase and sale of corporate securities. It is likewise admitted that all the profits from these ventures were divided among petitioners proportionately in accordance with their respective shares in the inheritance. In these circumstances, it is Our considered view that from the moment petitioners allowed not only the incomes from their respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties themselves to be used by Lorenzo T. Oa as a common fund in undertaking several transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamonut to actually contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the above-mentioned provisions of the Tax Code. It is but logical that in cases of inheritance, there should be a period when the heirs can be considered as co-owners rather than unregistered co-partners within the contemplation of our corporate tax laws aforementioned. Before the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased, all the income thereof does belong commonly to all the heirs, obviously, without them becoming thereby unregistered co-partners, but it does not necessarily follow that such status as co-owners continues until the inheritance is actually

and physically distributed among the heirs, for it is easily conceivable that after knowing their respective shares in the partition, they might decide to continue holding said shares under the common management of the administrator or executor or of anyone chosen by them and engage in business on that basis. Withal, if this were to be allowed, it would be the easiest thing for heirs in any inheritance to circumvent and render meaningless Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is true that in Evangelista vs. Collector, 102 Phil. 140, it was stated, among the reasons for holding the appellants therein to be unregistered co-partners for tax purposes, that their common fund "was not something they found already in existence" and that "it was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso," but it is certainly far fetched to argue therefrom, as petitioners are doing here, that ergo, in all instances where an inheritance is not actually divided, there can be no unregistered co-partnership. As already indicated, for tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate proceeding. The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in common with his co-heirs under a single management to be used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case. In this connection, petitioners' reliance on Article 1769, paragraph (3), of the Civil Code, providing that: "The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived," and, for that matter, on any other provision of said code on partnerships is unavailing. In Evangelista, supra, this Court clearly differentiated the concept of partnerships under the Civil Code from that of unregistered partnerships which are considered as "corporations" under Sections 24 and 84(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Justice Roberto Concepcion, now Chief Justice, elucidated on this point thus: To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships," which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in confirmity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporation. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b),the term "corporation" includes, among others, "joint accounts,(cuentas en participacion)" and "associations", none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general co-partnerships" which are possessed of the aforementioned personality have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84[b]) from the connotation of the term "corporation." .... xxx xxx xxx Similarly, the American Law ... provides its own concept of a partnership. Under the term "partnership" it includes not only a partnership as known in common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization which carries on any business, financial

operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. ... . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 789; emphasis ours.) The term "partnership" includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. ... . (8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis ours.) For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code includes these partnerships with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject to the income tax for corporations. We reiterated this view, thru Mr. Justice Fernando, in Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G. R. Nos. L-24020-21, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 198, wherein the Court ruled against a theory of co-ownership pursued by appellants therein. As regards the second question raised by petitioners about the segregation, for the purposes of the corporate taxes in question, of their inherited properties from those acquired by them subsequently, We consider as justified the following ratiocination of the Tax Court in denying their motion for reconsideration: In connection with the second ground, it is alleged that, if there was an unregistered partnership, the holding should be limited to the business engaged in apart from the properties inherited by petitioners. In other words, the taxable income of the partnership should be limited to the income derived from the acquisition and sale of real properties and corporate securities and should not include the income derived from the inherited properties. It is admitted that the inherited properties and the income derived therefrom were used in the business of buying and selling other real properties and corporate securities. Accordingly, the partnership income must include not only the income derived from the purchase and sale of other properties but also the income of the inherited properties. Besides, as already observed earlier, the income derived from inherited properties may be considered as individual income of the respective heirs only so long as the inheritance or estate is not distributed or, at least, partitioned, but the moment their respective known shares are used as part of the common assets of the heirs to be used in making profits, it is but proper that the income of such shares should be considered as the part of the taxable income of an unregistered partnership. This, We hold, is the clear intent of the law. Likewise, the third question of petitioners appears to have been adequately resolved by the Tax Court in the aforementioned resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision of said court. Pertinently, the court ruled this wise: In support of the third ground, counsel for petitioners alleges: Even if we were to yield to the decision of this Honorable Court that the herein petitioners have formed an unregistered partnership and, therefore, have to be taxed as such, it might be recalled that the petitioners in their individual income tax returns reported their shares of the profits of the unregistered partnership. We think it only fair and equitable that the various amounts paid by the individual petitioners as income tax on their respective shares of the unregistered partnership should be deducted from the deficiency income tax found by this Honorable Court against the unregistered partnership. (page 7, Memorandum for the Petitioner in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration, Oct. 28, 1961.)

In other words, it is the position of petitioners that the taxable income of the partnership must be reduced by the amounts of income tax paid by each petitioner on his share of partnership profits. This is not correct; rather, it should be the other way around. The partnership profits distributable to the partners (petitioners herein) should be reduced by the amounts of income tax assessed against the partnership. Consequently, each of the petitioners in his individual capacity overpaid his income tax for the years in question, but the income tax due from the partnership has been correctly assessed. Since the individual income tax liabilities of petitioners are not in issue in this proceeding, it is not proper for the Court to pass upon the same. Petitioners insist that it was error for the Tax Court to so rule that whatever excess they might have paid as individual income tax cannot be credited as part payment of the taxes herein in question. It is argued that to sanction the view of the Tax Court is to oblige petitioners to pay double income tax on the same income, and, worse, considering the time that has lapsed since they paid their individual income taxes, they may already be barred by prescription from recovering their overpayments in a separate action. We do not agree. As We see it, the case of petitioners as regards the point under discussion is simply that of a taxpayer who has paid the wrong tax, assuming that the failure to pay the corporate taxes in question was not deliberate. Of course, such taxpayer has the right to be reimbursed what he has erroneously paid, but the law is very clear that the claim and action for such reimbursement are subject to the bar of prescription. And since the period for the recovery of the excess income taxes in the case of herein petitioners has already lapsed, it would not seem right to virtually disregard prescription merely upon the ground that the reason for the delay is precisely because the taxpayers failed to make the proper return and payment of the corporate taxes legally due from them. In principle, it is but proper not to allow any relaxation of the tax laws in favor of persons who are not exactly above suspicion in their conduct vis-a-vis their tax obligation to the State. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals appealed from is affirm with costs against petitioners. G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985 JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P. OBILLOS, brothers and sisters, petitioners vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Demosthenes B. Gadioma for petitioners.

AQUINO, J.: This case is about the income tax liability of four brothers and sisters who sold two parcels of land which they had acquired from their father. On March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots with areas of 1,124 and 963 square meters located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 (Exh. A and B, p. 44, Rollo). Presumably, the Torrens titles issued to them would show that they were co-owners of the two lots. In 1974, or after having held the two lots for more than a year, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050 (Exh. C and D). They derived from the sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792. In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the five-year prescriptive period, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in

addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56. Not only that. He considered the share of the profits of each petitioner in the sum of P33,584 as a " taxable in full (not a mere capital gain of which is taxable) and required them to pay deficiency income taxes aggregating P56,707.20 including the 50% fraud surcharge and the accumulated interest. Thus, the petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them. The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822). The petitioners contested the assessments. Two Judges of the Tax Court sustained the same. Judge Roaquin dissented. Hence, the instant appeal. We hold that it is error to consider the petitioners as having formed a partnership under article 1767 of the Civil Code simply because they allegedly contributed P178,708.12 to buy the two lots, resold the same and divided the profit among themselves. To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated. As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction. Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Castan Tobeas says: Como establecer el deslinde entre la comunidad ordinaria o copropiedad y la sociedad? El criterio diferencial-segun la doctrina mas generalizada-esta: por razon del origen, en que la sociedad presupone necesariamente la convencion, mentras que la comunidad puede existir y existe ordinariamente sin ela; y por razon del fin objecto, en que el objeto de la sociedad es obtener lucro, mientras que el de la indivision es solo mantener en su integridad la cosa comun y favorecer su conservacion. Reflejo de este criterio es la sentencia de 15 de Octubre de 1940, en la que se dice que si en nuestro Derecho positive se ofrecen a veces dificultades al tratar de fijar la linea divisoria entre comunidad de bienes y contrato de sociedad, la moderna orientacion de la doctrina cientifica seala como nota fundamental de diferenciacion aparte del origen de fuente de que surgen, no siempre uniforme, la finalidad perseguida por los interesados: lucro comun partible en la sociedad, y mera conservacion y aprovechamiento en la comunidad. (Derecho Civil Espanol, Vol. 2, Part 1, 10 Ed., 1971, 328- 329). Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived". There must be an unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint venture.* Such intent was present in Gatchalian vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 67 Phil. 666, where 15 persons contributed small amounts to purchase a two-peso sweepstakes ticket with the agreement that they would

divide the prize The ticket won the third prize of P50,000. The 15 persons were held liable for income tax as an unregistered partnership. The instant case is distinguishable from the cases where the parties engaged in joint ventures for profit. Thus, in Oa vs. ** This view is supported by the following rulings of respondent Commissioner: Co-owership distinguished from partnership.We find that the case at bar is fundamentally similar to the De Leon case. Thus, like the De Leon heirs, the Longa heirs inherited the 'hacienda' in question pro-indiviso from their deceased parents; they did not contribute or invest additional ' capital to increase or expand the inherited properties; they merely continued dedicating the property to the use to which it had been put by their forebears; they individually reported in their tax returns their corresponding shares in the income and expenses of the 'hacienda', and they continued for many years the status of co-ownership in order, as conceded by respondent, 'to preserve its (the 'hacienda') value and to continue the existing contractual relations with the Central Azucarera de Bais for milling purposes. Longa vs. Aranas, CTA Case No. 653, July 31, 1963). All co-ownerships are not deemed unregistered pratnership.Co-Ownership who own properties which produce income should not automatically be considered partners of an unregistered partnership, or a corporation, within the purview of the income tax law. To hold otherwise, would be to subject the income of all co-ownerships of inherited properties to the tax on corporations, inasmuch as if a property does not produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of income tax, whether the income tax on individuals or the income tax on corporation. (De Leon vs. CI R, CTA Case No. 738, September 11, 1961, cited in Araas, 1977 Tax Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., pp. 77-78). Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-19342, May 25, 1972, 45 SCRA 74, where after an extrajudicial settlement the co-heirs used the inheritance or the incomes derived therefrom as a common fund to produce profits for themselves, it was held that they were taxable as an unregistered partnership. It is likewise different from Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198, where father and son purchased a lot and building, entrusted the administration of the building to an administrator and divided equally the net income, and from Evangelista vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, where the three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real property which they leased to various tenants and derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in these two cases had formed an unregistered partnership. In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have investigated was whether the father donated the two lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging this matter. It might have already prescribed. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No costs. SO ORDERED. Abad Santos, Escolin, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr., is on leave. G.R. No. 109289 October 3, 1994 RUFINO R. TAN, petitioner, vs.

RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., as SECRETARY OF FINANCE & JOSE U. ONG, as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. G.R. No. 109446 October 3, 1994 CARAG, CABALLES, JAMORA AND SOMERA LAW OFFICES, CARLO A. CARAG, MANUELITO O. CABALLES, ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, JR. and BENJAMIN A. SOMERA, JR., petitioners, vs. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF FINANCE and JOSE U. ONG, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. Rufino R. Tan for and in his own behalf. Carag, Caballes, Jamora & Zomera Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. 109446.

VITUG, J.: These two consolidated special civil actions for prohibition challenge, in G.R. No. 109289, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7496, also commonly known as the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), amending certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code and, in G.R. No. 109446, the validity of Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, promulgated by public respondents pursuant to said law. Petitioners claim to be taxpayers adversely affected by the continued implementation of the amendatory legislation. In G.R. No. 109289, it is asserted that the enactment of Republic Act No. 7496 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Article VI, Section 28(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Article III, Section 1 No person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. In G.R. No. 109446, petitioners, assailing Section 6 of Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, argue that public respondents have exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT to general professional partnerships. The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by public respondents. The Court has given due course to both petitions. The parties, in compliance with the Court's directive, have filed their respective memoranda. G.R. No. 109289 Petitioner contends that the title of House Bill No. 34314, progenitor of Republic Act No. 7496, is a misnomer or, at least, deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the SelfEmployed and Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession" (Petition in G.R. No. 109289).

The full text of the title actually reads: An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended. The pertinent provisions of Sections 21 and 29, so referred to, of the National Internal Revenue Code, as now amended, provide: Sec. 21. Tax on citizens or residents. xxx xxx xxx (f) Simplified Net Income Tax for the Self-Employed and/or Professionals Engaged in the Practice of Profession. A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income as determined in Section 27 received during each taxable year from all sources, other than income covered by paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section by every individual whether a citizen of the Philippines or an alien residing in the Philippines who is self-employed or practices his profession herein, determined in accordance with the following schedule: Not over P10,000 3% Over P10,000 P300 + 9% but not over P30,000 of excess over P10,000 Over P30,000 P2,100 + 15% but not over P120,00 of excess over P30,000 Over P120,000 P15,600 + 20% but not over P350,000 of excess over P120,000 Over P350,000 P61,600 + 30% of excess over P350,000 Sec. 29. Deductions from gross income. In computing taxable income subject to tax under Sections 21(a), 24(a), (b) and (c); and 25 (a)(1), there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this section: Provided, however, That in computing taxable income subject to tax under Section 21 (f) in the case of individuals engaged in business or practice of profession, only the following direct costs shall be allowed as deductions: (a) Raw materials, supplies and direct labor; (b) Salaries of employees directly engaged in activities in the course of or pursuant to the business or practice of their profession; (c) Telecommunications, electricity, fuel, light and water; (d) Business rentals; (e) Depreciation; (f) Contributions made to the Government and accredited relief organizations for the rehabilitation of calamity stricken areas declared by the President; and

(g) Interest paid or accrued within a taxable year on loans contracted from accredited financial institutions which must be proven to have been incurred in connection with the conduct of a taxpayer's profession, trade or business. For individuals whose cost of goods sold and direct costs are difficult to determine, a maximum of forty per cent (40%) of their gross receipts shall be allowed as deductions to answer for business or professional expenses as the case may be. On the basis of the above language of the law, it would be difficult to accept petitioner's view that the amendatory law should be considered as having now adopted a gross income, instead of as having still retained the net income, taxation scheme. The allowance for deductible items, it is true, may have significantly been reduced by the questioned law in comparison with that which has prevailed prior to the amendment; limiting, however, allowable deductions from gross income is neither discordant with, nor opposed to, the net income tax concept. The fact of the matter is still that various deductions, which are by no means inconsequential, continue to be well provided under the new law. Article VI, Section 26(1), of the Constitution has been envisioned so as (a) to prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of unrelated subjects in support of the whole act, (b) to avoid surprises or even fraud upon the legislature, and (c) to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its proceedings as are usually made, of the subjects of legislation. 1 The above objectives of the fundamental law appear to us to have been sufficiently met. Anything else would be to require a virtual compendium of the law which could not have been the intendment of the constitutional mandate. Petitioner intimates that Republic Act No. 7496 desecrates the constitutional requirement that taxation "shall be uniform and equitable" in that the law would now attempt to tax single proprietorships and professionals differently from the manner it imposes the tax on corporations and partnerships. The contention clearly forgets, however, that such a system of income taxation has long been the prevailing rule even prior to Republic Act No. 7496. Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection, merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities (Juan Luna Subdivision vs. Sarmiento, 91 Phil. 371). Uniformity does not forfend classification as long as: (1) the standards that are used therefor are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions, and (4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class (Pepsi Cola vs. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 3; Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52). What may instead be perceived to be apparent from the amendatory law is the legislative intent to increasingly shift the income tax system towards the schedular approach 2 in the income taxation of individual taxpayers and to maintain, by and large, the present global treatment 3 on taxable corporations. We certainly do not view this classification to be arbitrary and inappropriate. Petitioner gives a fairly extensive discussion on the merits of the law, illustrating, in the process, what he believes to be an imbalance between the tax liabilities of those covered by the amendatory law and those who are not. With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation. This court cannot freely delve into those matters which, by constitutional fiat, rightly rest on legislative judgment. Of course, where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down, for, despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional proscriptions. This stage, however, has not been demonstrated to have been reached within any appreciable distance in this controversy before us. Having arrived at this conclusion, the plea of petitioner to have the law declared unconstitutional for being violative of due process must perforce fail. The due process clause may correctly be invoked only when there is a clear contravention of inherent or constitutional limitations in the exercise of the tax power. No such transgression is so evident to us. G.R. No. 109446

The several propositions advanced by petitioners revolve around the question of whether or not public respondents have exceeded their authority in promulgating Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, to carry out Republic Act No. 7496. The questioned regulation reads: Sec. 6. General Professional Partnership The general professional partnership (GPP) and the partners comprising the GPP are covered by R. A. No. 7496. Thus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the direct costs mentioned in said law are to be deducted from partnership income. Also, the expenses paid or incurred by partners in their individual capacities in the practice of their profession which are not reimbursed or paid by the partnership but are not considered as direct cost, are not deductible from his gross income. The real objection of petitioners is focused on the administrative interpretation of public respondents that would apply SNIT to partners in general professional partnerships. Petitioners cite the pertinent deliberations in Congress during its enactment of Republic Act No. 7496, also quoted by the Honorable Hernando B. Perez, minority floor leader of the House of Representatives, in the latter's privilege speech by way of commenting on the questioned implementing regulation of public respondents following the effectivity of the law, thusly: MR. ALBANO, Now Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the correct impression of this bill. Do we speak here of individuals who are earning, I mean, who earn through business enterprises and therefore, should file an income tax return? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. This does not apply to corporations. It applies only to individuals. (See Deliberations on H. B. No. 34314, August 6, 1991, 6:15 P.M.; Emphasis ours). Other deliberations support this position, to wit: MR. ABAYA . . . Now, Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Gentleman from Batangas say that this bill is intended to increase collections as far as individuals are concerned and to make collection of taxes equitable? MR. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. (Id. at 6:40 P.M.; Emphasis ours). In fact, in the sponsorship speech of Senator Mamintal Tamano on the Senate version of the SNITS, it is categorically stated, thus: This bill, Mr. President, is not applicable to business corporations or to partnerships; it is only with respect to individuals and professionals. (Emphasis ours) The Court, first of all, should like to correct the apparent misconception that general professional partnerships are subject to the payment of income tax or that there is a difference in the tax treatment between individuals engaged in business or in the practice of their respective professions and partners in general professional partnerships. The fact of the matter is that a general professional partnership, unlike an ordinary business partnership (which is treated as a corporation for income tax purposes and so subject to the corporate income tax), is not itself an income taxpayer. The income tax is imposed not on the professional partnership, which is tax exempt, but on the partners themselves in their individual capacity computed on their distributive shares of partnership profits. Section 23 of the Tax Code, which has not been amended at all by Republic Act 7496, is explicit:

Sec. 23. Tax liability of members of general professional partnerships. (a) Persons exercising a common profession in general partnership shall be liable for income tax only in their individual capacity, and the share in the net profits of the general professional partnership to which any taxable partner would be entitled whether distributed or otherwise, shall be returned for taxation and the tax paid in accordance with the provisions of this Title. (b) In determining his distributive share in the net income of the partnership, each partner (1) Shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership's income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit to the extent provided by the pertinent provisions of this Code, and (2) Shall be deemed to have elected the itemized deductions, unless he declares his distributive share of the gross income undiminished by his share of the deductions. There is, then and now, no distinction in income tax liability between a person who practices his profession alone or individually and one who does it through partnership (whether registered or not) with others in the exercise of a common profession. Indeed, outside of the gross compensation income tax and the final tax on passive investment income, under the present income tax system all individuals deriving income from any source whatsoever are treated in almost invariably the same manner and under a common set of rules. We can well appreciate the concern taken by petitioners if perhaps we were to consider Republic Act No. 7496 as an entirely independent, not merely as an amendatory, piece of legislation. The view can easily become myopic, however, when the law is understood, as it should be, as only forming part of, and subject to, the whole income tax concept and precepts long obtaining under the National Internal Revenue Code. To elaborate a little, the phrase "income taxpayers" is an all embracing term used in the Tax Code, and it practically covers all persons who derive taxable income. The law, in levying the tax, adopts the most comprehensive tax situs of nationality and residence of the taxpayer (that renders citizens, regardless of residence, and resident aliens subject to income tax liability on their income from all sources) and of the generally accepted and internationally recognized income taxable base (that can subject non-resident aliens and foreign corporations to income tax on their income from Philippine sources). In the process, the Code classifies taxpayers into four main groups, namely: (1) Individuals, (2) Corporations, (3) Estates under Judicial Settlement and (4) Irrevocable Trusts (irrevocable both as to corpus and as to income). Partnerships are, under the Code, either "taxable partnerships" or "exempt partnerships." Ordinarily, partnerships, no matter how created or organized, are subject to income tax (and thus alluded to as "taxable partnerships") which, for purposes of the above categorization, are by law assimilated to be within the context of, and so legally contemplated as, corporations. Except for few variances, such as in the application of the "constructive receipt rule" in the derivation of income, the income tax approach is alike to both juridical persons. Obviously, SNIT is not intended or envisioned, as so correctly pointed out in the discussions in Congress during its deliberations on Republic Act 7496, aforequoted, to cover corporations and partnerships which are independently subject to the payment of income tax. "Exempt partnerships," upon the other hand, are not similarly identified as corporations nor even considered as independent taxable entities for income tax purposes. A general professional partnership is such an example. 4 Here, the partners themselves, not the partnership (although it is still obligated to file an income tax return [mainly for administration and data]), are liable for the payment of income tax in their individual capacity computed on their respective and distributive shares of profits. In the determination of the tax liability, a partner does so as an individual, and there is no choice on the matter. In fine, under the Tax Code on income taxation, the general professional partnership is deemed to be no more than a mere mechanism or a flow-through entity in the generation of income by, and the ultimate distribution of such income to, respectively, each of the individual partners. Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 did not alter, but merely confirmed, the above standing rule as now so modified by Republic Act No. 7496 on basically the extent of allowable deductions applicable to all individual income taxpayers on

their non-compensation income. There is no evident intention of the law, either before or after the amendatory legislation, to place in an unequal footing or in significant variance the income tax treatment of professionals who practice their respective professions individually and of those who do it through a general professional partnership. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. No special pronouncement on costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Padilla and Bidin, JJ., are on leave

August 7, 1918 G.R. No. L-12287 VICENTE MADRIGAL and his wife, SUSANA PATERNO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JAMES J. RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue, and VENANCIO CONCEPCION, Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue, defendants-appellees. Gregorio Araneta for appellants. Assistant Attorney Round for appellees. Malcolm, J.: This appeal calls for consideration of the Income Tax Law, a law of American origin, with reference to the Civil Code, a law of Spanish origin. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Vicente Madrigal and Susana Paterno were legally married prior to January 1, 1914. The marriage was contracted under the provisions of law concerning conjugal partnerships (sociedad de gananciales). On February 25, 1915, Vicente Madrigal filed sworn declaration on the prescribed form with the Collector of Internal Revenue, showing, as his total net income for the year 1914, the sum of P296,302.73. Subsequently Madrigal submitted the claim that the said P296,302.73 did not represent his income for the year 1914, but was in fact the income of the conjugal partnership existing between himself and his wife Susana Paterno, and that in computing and assessing the additional income tax provided by the Act of Congress of October 3, 1913, the income declared by Vicente Madrigal should be divided into two equal parts, one-half to be considered the income of Vicente Madrigal and the other half of Susana Paterno. The general question had in the meantime been submitted to the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands who in an opinion dated March 17, 1915, held with the petitioner Madrigal. The revenue officers being still unsatisfied, the correspondence together with this opinion was forwarded to Washington for a decision by the United States Treasury Department. The United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue reversed the opinion of the Attorney-General, and thus decided against the claim of Madrigal.

After payment under protest, and after the protest of Madrigal had been decided adversely by the Collector of Internal Revenue, action was begun by Vicente Madrigal and his wife Susana Paterno in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against Collector of Internal Revenue and the Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue for the recovery of the sum of P3,786.08, alleged to have been wrongfully and illegally collected by the defendants from the plaintiff, Vicente Madrigal, under the provisions of the Act of Congress known as the Income Tax Law. The burden of the complaint was that if the income tax for the year 1914 had been correctly and lawfully computed there would have been due payable by each of the plaintiffs the sum of P2,921.09, which taken together amounts of a total of P5,842.18 instead of P9,668.21, erroneously and unlawfully collected from the plaintiff Vicente Madrigal, with the result that plaintiff Madrigal has paid as income tax for the year 1914, P3,786.08, in excess of the sum lawfully due and payable. The answer of the defendants, together with an analysis of the tax declaration, the pleadings, and the stipulation, sets forth the basis of defendants' stand in the following way: The income of Vicente Madrigal and his wife Susana Paterno of the year 1914 was made up of three items: (1) P362,407.67, the profits made by Vicente Madrigal in his coal and shipping business; (2) P4,086.50, the profits made by Susana Paterno in her embroidery business; (3) P16,687.80, the profits made by Vicente Madrigal in a pawnshop company. The sum of these three items is P383,181.97, the gross income of Vicente Madrigal and Susana Paterno for the year 1914. General deductions were claimed and allowed in the sum of P86,879.24. The resulting net income was P296,302.73. For the purpose of assessing the normal tax of one per cent on the net income there were allowed as specific deductions the following: (1) P16,687.80, the tax upon which was to be paid at source, and (2) P8,000, the specific exemption granted to Vicente Madrigal and Susana Paterno, husband and wife. The remainder, P271,614.93 was the sum upon which the normal tax of one per cent was assessed. The normal tax thus arrived at was P2,716.15. The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants concerned the additional tax provided for in the Income Tax Law. The trial court in an exhausted decision found in favor of defendants, without costs. ISSUES. The contentions of plaintiffs and appellants having to do solely with the additional income tax, is that is should be divided into two equal parts, because of the conjugal partnership existing between them. The learned argument of counsel is mostly based upon the provisions of the Civil Code establishing the sociedad de gananciales. The counter contentions of appellees are that the taxes imposed by the Income Tax Law are as the name implies taxes upon income tax and not upon capital and property; that the fact that Madrigal was a married man, and his marriage contracted under the provisions governing the conjugal partnership, has no bearing on income considered as income, and that the distinction must be drawn between the ordinary form of commercial partnership and the conjugal partnership of spouses resulting from the relation of marriage KyEggs.

DECISION. From the point of view of test of faculty in taxation, no less than five answers have been given the course of history. The final stage has been the selection of income as the norm of taxation. (See Seligman, "The Income Tax," Introduction.) The Income Tax Law of the United States, extended to the Philippine Islands, is the result of an effect on the part of the legislators to put into statutory form this canon of taxation and of social reform. The aim has been to mitigate the evils arising from inequalities of wealth by a progressive scheme of taxation, which places the burden on those best able to pay. To carry out this idea, public considerations have demanded an exemption roughly equivalent to the minimum of subsistence. With these exceptions, the income tax is supposed to reach the earnings of the entire non-governmental property of the country. Such is the background of the Income Tax Law. Income as contrasted with capital or property is to be the test. The essential difference between capital and income is that capital is a fund; income is a flow. A fund of property existing at an instant of time is called capital. A flow of services rendered by that capital by the payment of money from it or any other benefit rendered by a fund of capital in relation to such fund through a period of time is called an income. Capital is wealth, while income is the service of wealth. (See Fisher, "The Nature of Capital and Income.") The Supreme Court of Georgia expresses the thought in the following figurative language: "The fact is that property is a tree, income is the fruit; labor is a tree, income the fruit; capital is a tree, income the fruit." (Waring vs. City of Savannah [1878], 60 Ga., 93.) A tax on income is not a tax on property. "Income," as here used, can be defined as "profits or gains." (London County Council vs. Attorney-General [1901], A. C., 26; 70 L. J. K. B. N. S., 77; 83 L. T. N. S., 605; 49 Week. Rep., 686; 4 Tax Cas., 265. See further Foster's Income Tax, second edition [1915], Chapter IV; Black on Income Taxes, second edition [1915], Chapter VIII; Gibbons vs. Mahon [1890], 136 U.S., 549; and Towne vs. Eisner, decided by the United States Supreme Court, January 7, 1918.) A regulation of the United States Treasury Department relative to returns by the husband and wife not living apart, contains the following: The husband, as the head and legal representative of the household and general custodian of its income, should make and render the return of the aggregate income of himself and wife, and for the purpose of levying the income tax it is assumed that he can ascertain the total amount of said income. If a wife has a separate estate managed by herself as her own separate property, and receives an income of more than $3,000, she may make return of her own income, and if the husband has other net income, making the aggregate of both incomes more than $4,000, the wife's return should be attached to the return of her husband, or his income should be included in her return, in order that a deduction of $4,000 may be made from the aggregate of both incomes. The tax in such case, however, will be imposed only upon so much of the aggregate income of both shall exceed $4,000. If either husband or wife separately has an income equal to or in excess of $3,000, a return of annual net income is required under the law, and such return must include the income of both, and in such case the return must be made even though the combined income of both

be less than $4,000. If the aggregate net income of both exceeds $4,000, an annual return of their combined incomes must be made in the manner stated, although neither one separately has an income of $3,000 per annum. They are jointly and separately liable for such return and for the payment of the tax. The single or married status of the person claiming the specific exemption shall be determined as one of the time of claiming such exemption which return is made, otherwise the status at the close of the year." With these general observations relative to the Income Tax Law in force in the Philippine Islands, we turn for a moment to consider the provisions of the Civil Code dealing with the conjugal partnership. Recently in two elaborate decisions in which a long line of Spanish authorities were cited, this court in speaking of the conjugal partnership, decided that "prior to the liquidation the interest of the wife and in case of her death, of her heirs, is an interest inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not ripen into title until there appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement." (Nable Jose vs. Nable Jose [1916], 15 Off. Gaz., 871; Manuel and Laxamana vs. Losano [1918], 16 Off. Gaz., 1265.) Susana Paterno, wife of Vicente Madrigal, has an inchoate right in the property of her husband Vicente Madrigal during the life of the conjugal partnership. She has an interest in the ultimate property rights and in the ultimate ownership of property acquired as income after such income has become capital. Susana Paterno has no absolute right to one-half the income of the conjugal partnership. Not being seized of a separate estate, Susana Paterno cannot make a separate return in order to receive the benefit of the exemption which would arise by reason of the additional tax. As she has no estate and income, actually and legally vested in her and entirely distinct from her husband's property, the income cannot properly be considered the separate income of the wife for the purposes of the additional tax. Moreover, the Income Tax Law does not look on the spouses as individual partners in an ordinary partnership. The husband and wife are only entitled to the exemption of P8,000 specifically granted by the law. The higher schedules of the additional tax directed at the incomes of the wealthy may not be partially defeated by reliance on provisions in our Civil Code dealing with the conjugal partnership and having no application to the Income Tax Law. The aims and purposes of the Income Tax Law must be given effect. The point we are discussing has heretofore been considered by the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the United States Treasury Department. The decision of the latter overruling the opinion of the Attorney-General is as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington. Income Tax. FRANK MCINTYRE, Chief, Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, Washington, D. C.

SIR: This office is in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1915, transmitting copy of correspondence "from the Philippine authorities relative to the method of submission of income tax returns by marred person." You advise that "The Governor-General, in forwarding the papers to the Bureau, advises that the Insular Auditor has been authorized to suspend action on the warrants in question until an authoritative decision on the points raised can be secured from the Treasury Department." From the correspondence it appears that Gregorio Araneta, married and living with his wife, had an income of an amount sufficient to require the imposition of the net income was properly computed and then both income and deductions and the specific exemption were divided in half and two returns made, one return for each half in the names respectively of the husband and wife, so that under the returns as filed there would be an escape from the additional tax; that Araneta claims the returns are correct on the ground under the Philippine law his wife is entitled to half of his earnings; that Araneta has dominion over the income and under the Philippine law, the right to determine its use and disposition; that in this case the wife has no "separate estate" within the contemplation of the Act of October 3, 1913, levying an income tax. It appears further from the correspondence that upon the foregoing explanation, tax was assessed against the entire net income against Gregorio Araneta; that the tax was paid and an application for refund made, and that the application for refund was rejected, whereupon the matter was submitted to the Attorney-General of the Islands who holds that the returns were correctly rendered, and that the refund should be allowed; and thereupon the question at issue is submitted through the Governor-General of the Islands and Bureau of Insular Affairs for the advisory opinion of this office wm23Gxc. By paragraph M of the statute, its provisions are extended to the Philippine Islands, to be administered as in the United States but by the appropriate internal-revenue officers of the Philippine Government. You are therefore advised that upon the facts as stated, this office holds that for the Federal Income Tax (Act of October 3, 1913), the entire net income in this case was taxable to Gregorio Araneta, both for the normal and additional tax, and that the application for refund was properly rejected. The separate estate of a married woman within the contemplation of the Income Tax Law is that which belongs to her solely and separate and apart from her husband, and over which her husband has no right in equity. It may consist of lands or chattels. The statute and the regulations promulgated in accordance therewith provide that each person of lawful age (not excused from so doing) having a net income of $3,000 or over for the taxable year shall make a return showing the facts; that from the net income so shown there shall be deducted $3,000 where the person making the return is a single person, or married and not living with consort, and $1,000 additional where the person making the return is married and living with consort; but that where the husband and wife both make

returns (they living together), the amount of deduction from the aggregate of their several incomes shall not exceed $4,000. The only occasion for a wife making a return is where she has income from a sole and separate estate in excess of $3,000, but together they have an income in excess of $4,000, in which the latter event either the husband or wife may make the return but not both. In all instances the income of husband and wife whether from separate estates or not, is taken as a whole for the purpose of the normal tax. Where the wife has income from a separate estate makes return made by her husband, while the incomes are added together for the purpose of the normal tax they are taken separately for the purpose of the additional tax. In this case, however, the wife has no separate income within the contemplation of the Income Tax Law. Respectfully, DAVID A. GATES. Acting Commissioner. In connection with the decision above quoted, it is well to recall a few basic ideas. The Income Tax Law was drafted by the Congress of the United States and has been by the Congress extended to the Philippine Islands. Being thus a law of American origin and being peculiarly intricate in its provisions, the authoritative decision of the official who is charged with enforcing it has peculiar force for the Philippines. It has come to be a wellsettled rule that great weight should be given to the construction placed upon a revenue law, whose meaning is doubtful, by the department charged with its execution. (U.S. vs. Cerecedo Hermanos y Cia. [1907], 209 U.S., 338; In re Allen [1903], 2 Phil., 630; Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Municipality of Binalonan, and Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Segovia [1915], 32 Phil., 634.) We conclude that the judgment should be as it is hereby affirmed with costs against appellants. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-65773-74 April 30, 1987 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Pea, Valmonte & Marcos for respondent British Airways.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) seeks a review on certiorari of the joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, which set aside petitioner's assessment of deficiency income taxes against respondent British Overseas Airways

Corporation (BOAC) for the fiscal years 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively, as well as its Resolution of 18 November, 1983 denying reconsideration. BOAC is a 100% British Government-owned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom It is engaged in the international airline business and is a member-signatory of the Interline Air Transport Association (IATA). As such it operates air transportation service and sells transportation tickets over the routes of the other airline members. During the periods covered by the disputed assessments, it is admitted that BOAC had no landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines, and was not granted a Certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate in the Philippines by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), except for a nine-month period, partly in 1961 and partly in 1962, when it was granted a temporary landing permit by the CAB. Consequently, it did not carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines, although during the period covered by the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines Wamer Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways which was responsible for selling BOAC tickets covering passengers and cargoes. 1 G.R. No. 65773 (CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case) On 7 May 1968, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR, for brevity) assessed BOAC the aggregate amount of P2,498,358.56 for deficiency income taxes covering the years 1959 to 1963. This was protested by BOAC. Subsequent investigation resulted in the issuance of a new assessment, dated 16 January 1970 for the years 1959 to 1967 in the amount of P858,307.79. BOAC paid this new assessment under protest. On 7 October 1970, BOAC filed a claim for refund of the amount of P858,307.79, which claim was denied by the CIR on 16 February 1972. But before said denial, BOAC had already filed a petition for review with the Tax Court on 27 January 1972, assailing the assessment and praying for the refund of the amount paid. G.R. No. 65774 (CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case) On 17 November 1971, BOAC was assessed deficiency income taxes, interests, and penalty for the fiscal years 1968-1969 to 1970-1971 in the aggregate amount of P549,327.43, and the additional amounts of P1,000.00 and P1,800.00 as compromise penalties for violation of Section 46 (requiring the filing of corporation returns) penalized under Section 74 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). On 25 November 1971, BOAC requested that the assessment be countermanded and set aside. In a letter, dated 16 February 1972, however, the CIR not only denied the BOAC request for refund in the First Case but also re-issued in the Second Case the deficiency income tax assessment for P534,132.08 for the years 1969 to 1970-71 plus P1,000.00 as compromise penalty under Section 74 of the Tax Code. BOAC's request for reconsideration was denied by the CIR on 24 August 1973. This prompted BOAC to file the Second Case before the Tax Court praying that it be absolved of liability for deficiency income tax for the years 1969 to 1971. This case was subsequently tried jointly with the First Case. On 26 January 1983, the Tax Court rendered the assailed joint Decision reversing the CIR. The Tax Court held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage tickets in the Philippines by Warner Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later by Qantas Airways, during the period in question, do not constitute BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed by BOAC within the Philippines" and, therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax. The CTA position was that income from transportation is income from services so that the place where services are rendered determines the source. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the Tax Court ordered petitioner to credit BOAC with the sum of P858,307.79, and to cancel the deficiency income tax assessments against BOAC in the amount of P534,132.08 for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71. Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Tax Court. The Solicitor General, in representation of the CIR, has aptly defined the issues, thus:

1. Whether or not the revenue derived by private respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air transportation, while having no landing rights here, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable. 2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question BOAC s a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines or has an office or place of business in the Philippines. 3. In the alternative that private respondent may not be considered a resident foreign corporation but a non-resident foreign corporation, then it is liable to Philippine income tax at the rate of thirty-five per cent (35%) of its gross income received from all sources within the Philippines. Under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code: (h) the term resident foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein. (i) The term "non-resident foreign corporation" applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines and not having any office or place of business therein It is our considered opinion that BOAC is a resident foreign corporation. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. 2 "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character. 3 BOAC, during the periods covered by the subject - assessments, maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines, That general sales agent, from 1959 to 1971, "was engaged in (1) selling and issuing tickets; (2) breaking down the whole trip into series of trips each trip in the series corresponding to a different airline company; (3) receiving the fare from the whole trip; and (4) consequently allocating to the various airline companies on the basis of their participation in the services rendered through the mode of interline settlement as prescribed by Article VI of the Resolution No. 850 of the IATA Agreement." 4 Those activities were in exercise of the functions which are normally incident to, and are in progressive pursuit of, the purpose and object of its organization as an international air carrier. In fact, the regular sale of tickets, its main activity, is the very lifeblood of the airline business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective. There should be no doubt then that BOAC was "engaged in" business in the Philippines through a local agent during the period covered by the assessments. Accordingly, it is a resident foreign corporation subject to tax upon its total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. 5 Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. ... (b) Tax on foreign corporations. ... (2) Resident corporations. A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, except a foreign fife insurance company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) Next, we address ourselves to the issue of whether or not the revenue from sales of tickets by BOAC in the Philippines constitutes income from Philippine sources and, accordingly, taxable under our income tax laws.

The Tax Code defines "gross income" thus: "Gross income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from profession, vocations, trades, business, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interests, rents, dividends, securities, or the transactions of any business carried on for gain or profile, or gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever (Sec. 29[3]; Emphasis supplied) The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. "The words 'income from any source whatever' disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws." Income means "cash received or its equivalent"; it is the amount of money coming to a person within a specific time ...; it means something distinct from principal or capital. For, while capital is a fund, income is a flow. As used in our income tax law, "income" refers to the flow of wealth. 6 The records show that the Philippine gross income of BOAC for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 amounted to P10,428,368 .00. 7 Did such "flow of wealth" come from "sources within the Philippines", The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. 8 For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The site of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government. A transportation ticket is not a mere piece of paper. When issued by a common carrier, it constitutes the contract between the ticket-holder and the carrier. It gives rise to the obligation of the purchaser of the ticket to pay the fare and the corresponding obligation of the carrier to transport the passenger upon the terms and conditions set forth thereon. The ordinary ticket issued to members of the traveling public in general embraces within its terms all the elements to constitute it a valid contract, binding upon the parties entering into the relationship. 9 True, Section 37(a) of the Tax Code, which enumerates items of gross income from sources within the Philippines, namely: (1) interest, (21) dividends, (3) service, (4) rentals and royalties, (5) sale of real property, and (6) sale of personal property, does not mention income from the sale of tickets for international transportation. However, that does not render it less an income from sources within the Philippines. Section 37, by its language, does not intend the enumeration to be exclusive. It merely directs that the types of income listed therein be treated as income from sources within the Philippines. A cursory reading of the section will show that it does not state that it is an all-inclusive enumeration, and that no other kind of income may be so considered. " 10 BOAC, however, would impress upon this Court that income derived from transportation is income for services, with the result that the place where the services are rendered determines the source; and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines, the income derived is from sources without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Court upholds that stand in the joint Decision under review. The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the site of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at the time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source"; and the source of an income is that activity ... which produced the income. 11 Unquestionably, the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. business a And even if the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities", 12 it

cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source" conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines. 13 It should be pointed out, however, that the assessments upheld herein apply only to the fiscal years covered by the questioned deficiency income tax assessments in these cases, or, from 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71. For, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November, 1972, international carriers are now taxed as follows: ... Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of 2- per cent on their cross Philippine billings. (Sec. 24[b] [21, Tax Code). Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April, 1978, provided a statutory definition of the term "gross Philippine billings," thus: ... "Gross Philippine billings" includes gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggage or mail provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. ... The foregoing provision ensures that international airlines are taxed on their income from Philippine sources. The 2- % tax on gross Philippine billings is an income tax. If it had been intended as an excise or percentage tax it would have been place under Title V of the Tax Code covering Taxes on Business. Lastly, we find as untenable the BOAC argument that the dismissal for lack of merit by this Court of the appeal in JAL vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. L-30041) on February 3, 1969, is res judicata to the present case. The ruling by the Tax Court in that case was to the effect that the mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, does not render the taxpayer therein subject to the common carrier's tax. As elucidated by the Tax Court, however, the common carrier's tax is an excise tax, being a tax on the activity of transporting, conveying or removing passengers and cargo from one place to another. It purports to tax the business of transportation. 14 Being an excise tax, the same can be levied by the State only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The subject matter of the case under consideration is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in one cannot be res judicata to the other. WHEREFORE, the appealed joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P534,132.08 as deficiency income tax for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 plus 5% surcharge, and 1% monthly interest from April 16, 1972 for a period not to exceed three (3) years in accordance with the Tax Code. The BOAC claim for refund in the amount of P858,307.79 is hereby denied. Without costs. SO ORDERED. Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur. Fernan, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, C.J., concurring:

I concur with the Court's majority judgment upholding the assessments of deficiency income taxes against respondent BOAC for the fiscal years 1959-1969 to 1970-1971 and therefore setting aside the appealed joint decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals. I just wish to point out that the conflict between the majority opinion penned by Mr. Justice Feliciano as to the proper characterization of the taxable income derived by respondent BOAC from the sales in the Philippines of tickets foe BOAC form the issued by its general sales agent in the Philippines gas become moot after November 24, 1972. Booth opinions state that by amendment through P.D. No.69, promulgated on November 24, 1972, of section 24(b) (2) of the Tax Code providing dor the rate of income tax on foreign corporations, international carriers such as respondent BOAC, have since then been taxed at a reduced rate of 2-% on their gross Philippine billings. There is, therefore, no longer ant source of substantial conflict between the two opinions as to the present 2-% tax on their gross Philippine billings charged against such international carriers as herein respondent foreign corporation. FELICIANO, J., dissenting: With great respect and reluctance, i record my dissent from the opinion of Mme. Justice A.A. MelencioHerrera speaking for the majority . In my opinion, the joint decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, is correct and should be affirmed. The fundamental issue raised in this petition for review is whether the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), a foreign airline company which does not maintain any flight operations to and from the Philippines, is liable for Philippine income taxation in respect of "sales of air tickets" in the Philippines through a general sales agent, relating to the carriage of passengers and cargo between two points both outside the Philippines. 1. The Solicitor General has defined as one of the issue in this case the question of: 2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question 1 BOAC [was] a resident foreign

corporation doing business in the Philippines or [had] an office or place of business in the Philippines.
It is important to note at the outset that the answer to the above-quoted issue is not determinative of the lialibity of the BOAC to Philippine income taxation in respect of the income here involved. The liability of BOAC to Philippine income taxation in respect of such income depends, not on BOAC's status as a "resident foreign corporation" or alternatively, as a "non-resident foreign corporation," but rather on whether or not such income is derived from "source within the Philippines." A "resident foreign corporation" or foreign corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines or having an office or place of business in the Philippines is subject to Philippine income taxation only in respect of income derived from sources within the Philippines. Section 24 (b) (2) of the National Internal Revenue CODE ("Tax Code"), as amended by Republic Act No. 2343, approved 20 June 1959, as it existed up to 3 August 1969, read as follows: (2) Resident corporations. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business with in the Philippines (expect foreign life insurance companies) shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section. Section 24 (a) of the Tax Code in turn provides: Rate of tax on corporations. (a) Tax on domestic corporations. ... and a like tax shall be livied, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceeding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines by every corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country: ... . (Emphasis supplied) Republic Act No. 6110, which took effect on 4 August 1969, made this even clearer when it amended once more Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code so as to read as follows:

(2) Resident Corporations. A corporation, organized, authorized or existing under the laws of any foreign counrty, except foreign life insurance company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) Exactly the same rule is provided by Section 24 (b) (1) of the Tax Code upon non-resident foreign corporations. Section 24 (b) (1) as amended by Republic Act No. 3825 approved 22 June 1963, read as follows: (b) Tax on foreign corporations. (1) Non-resident corporations. There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premium, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinative annual or periodical gains, profits and income a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount: provided, however, that premiums shall not include reinsurance premiums. 2 Clearly, whether the foreign corporate taxpayer is doing business in the Philippines and therefore a resident foreign corporation, or not doing business in the Philippines and therefore a non-resident foreign corporation, it is liable to income tax only to the extent that it derives income from sources within the Philippines. The circumtances that a foreign corporation is resident in the Philippines yields no inference that all or any part of its income is Philippine source income. Similarly, the non-resident status of a foreign corporation does not imply that it has no Philippine source income. Conversely, the receipt of Philippine source income creates no presumption that the recipient foreign corporation is a resident of the Philippines. The critical issue, for present purposes, is therefore whether of not BOAC is deriving income from sources within the Philippines. 2. For purposes of income taxation, it is well to bear in mind that the "source of income" relates not to the physical sourcing of a flow of money or the physical situs of payment but rather to the "property, activity or service which produced the income." In Howden and Co., Ltd. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 3 the court dealt with the issue of the applicable source rule relating to reinsurance premiums paid by a local insurance company to a foreign reinsurance company in respect of risks located in the Philippines. The Court said: The source of an income is the property, activity or services that produced the income. The reinsurance premiums remitted to appellants by virtue of the reinsurance contract, accordingly, had for their source the undertaking to indemnify Commonwealth Insurance Co. against liability. Said undertaking is the activity that produced the reinsurance premiums, and the same took place in the Philippines. [T]he reinsurance, the liabilities insured and the risk originally underwritten by Commonwealth Insurance Co., upon which the reinsurance premiums and indemnity were based, were all situated in the Philippines. 4 The Court may be seen to be saying that it is the underlying prestation which is properly regarded as the activity giving rise to the income that is sought to be taxed. In the Howden case, that underlying prestation was the indemnification of the local insurance company. Such indemnification could take place only in the Philippines where the risks were located and where payment from the foreign reinsurance (in case the casualty insured against occurs) would be received in Philippine pesos under the reinsurance premiums paid by the local insurance companies constituted Philippine source income of the foreign reinsurances. The concept of "source of income" for purposes of income taxation originated in the United States income tax system. The phrase "sources within the United States" was first introduced into the U.S. tax system in 1916, and was subsequently embodied in the 1939 U.S. Tax Code. As is commonly known, our Tax Code (Commonwealth Act 466, as amended) was patterned after the 1939 U.S. Tax Code. It therefore seems useful to refer to a standard U.S. text on federal income taxation: The Supreme Court has said, in a definition much quoted but often debated, that income may be derived from three possible sources only: (1) capital and/or (2) labor and/or (3) the

sale of capital assets. While the three elements of this attempt at definition need not be accepted as all-inclusive, they serve as useful guides in any inquiry into whether a particular item is from "source within the United States" and suggest an investigation into the nature and location of the activities or property which produce the income. If the income is from labor (services) the place where the labor is done should be decisive; if it is done in this counrty, the income should be from "source within the United States." If the income is from capital, the place where the capital is employed should be decisive; if it is employed in this country, the income should be from "source within the United States". If the income is from the sale of capital assets, the place where the sale is made should be likewise decisive. Much confusion will be avoided by regarding the term "source" in this fundamental light. It is not a place; it is an activity or property. As such, it has a situs or location; and if that situs or location is within the United States the resulting income is taxable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. The intention of Congress in the 1916 and subsequent statutes was to discard the 1909 and 1913 basis of taxing nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and to make the test of taxability the "source", or situs of the activities or property which produce the income . . . . Thus, if income is to taxed, the recipient thereof must be resident within the jurisdiction, or the property or activities out of which the income issue or is derived must be situated within the jurisdiction so that the source of the income may be said to have a situs in this country. The underlying theory is that the consideration for taxation is protection of life and property and that the income rightly to be levied upon to defray the burdens of the United States Government is that income which is created by activities and property protected by this Government or obtained by persons enjoying that protection. 5 3. We turn now to the question what is the source of income rule applicable in the instant case. There are two possibly relevant source of income rules that must be confronted; (a) the source rule applicable in respect of contracts of service; and (b) the source rule applicable in respect of sales of personal property. Where a contract for the rendition of service is involved, the applicable source rule may be simply stated as follows: the income is sourced in the place where the service contracted for is rendered. Section 37 (a) (3) of our Tax Code reads as follows: Section 37. Income for sources within the Philippines. (a) Gross income from sources within the Philippines. The following items of gross income shall be treated as gross income from sources within the Philippines: xxx xxx xxx (3) Services. Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the Philippines;... (Emphasis supplied) Section 37 (c) (3) of the Tax Code, on the other hand, deals with income from sources without the Philippines in the following manner: (c) Gross income from sources without the Philippines. The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the Philippines: (3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed without the Philippines; ... (Emphasis supplied) It should not be supposed that Section 37 (a) (3) and (c) (3) of the Tax Code apply only in respect of services rendered by individual natural persons; they also apply to services rendered by or through the medium of a juridical person. 6 Further, a contract of carriage or of transportation is assimilated in our Tax Code and Revenue Regulations to a contract for services. Thus, Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code provides as follows:

(e) Income form sources partly within and partly without the Philippines. Items of gross income, expenses, losses and deductions, other than those specified in subsections (a) and (c) of this section shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the Philippines, under the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance. ... Gains, profits, and income from (1) transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines, or (2) from the sale of personnel property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines, or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the Philippines. ... (Emphasis supplied) It should be noted that the above underscored portion of Section 37 (e) was derived from the 1939 U.S. Tax Code which "was based upon a recognition that transportation was a service and that the source of the income derived therefrom was to be treated as being the place where the service of transportation was rendered. 7 Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code quoted above carries a strong well-nigh irresistible, implication that income derived from transportation or other services rendered entirely outside the Philippines must be treated as derived entirely from sources without the Philippines. This implication is reinforced by a consideration of certain provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 2 entitled "Income Tax Regulations" as amended, first promulgated by the Department of Finance on 10 February 1940. Section 155 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (implementing Section 37 of the Tax Code) provides in part as follows: Section 155. Compensation for labor or personnel services. Gross income from sources within the Philippines includes compensation for labor or personal services within the Philippines regardless of the residence of the payer, of the place in which the contract for services was made, or of the place of payment (Emphasis supplied) Section 163 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (still relating to Section 37 of the Tax Code) deals with a particular species of foreign transportation companies i.e., foreign steamship companies deriving income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines: Section 163 Foreign steamship companies. The return of foreign steamship companies whose vessels touch parts of the Philippines should include as gross income, the total receipts of all out-going business whether freight or passengers. With the gross income thus ascertained, the ratio existing between it and the gross income from all ports, both within and without the Philippines of all vessels, whether touching of the Philippines or not, should be determined as the basis upon which allowable deductions may be computed, . (Emphasis supplied) Another type of utility or service enterprise is dealt with in Section 164 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (again implementing Section 37 of the Tax Code) with provides as follows: Section 164. Telegraph and cable services. A foreign corporation carrying on the business of transmission of telegraph or cable messages between points in the Philippines and points outside the Philippines derives income partly form source within and partly from sources without the Philippines. ... (Emphasis supplied) Once more, a very strong inference arises under Sections 163 and 164 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 that steamship and telegraph and cable services rendered between points both outside the Philippines give rise to income wholly from sources outside the Philippines, and therefore not subject to Philippine income taxation. We turn to the "source of income" rules relating to the sale of personal property, upon the one hand, and to the purchase and sale of personal property, upon the other hand.

We consider first sales of personal property. Income from the sale of personal property by the producer or manufacturer of such personal property will be regarded as sourced entirely within or entirely without the Philippines or as sourced partly within and partly without the Philippines, depending upon two factors: (a) the place where the sale of such personal property occurs; and (b) the place where such personal property was produced or manufactured. If the personal property involved was both produced or manufactured and sold outside the Philippines, the income derived therefrom will be regarded as sourced entirely outside the Philippines, although the personal property had been produced outside the Philippines, or if the sale of the property takes place outside the Philippines and the personal was produced in the Philippines, then, the income derived from the sale will be deemed partly as income sourced without the Philippines. In other words, the income (and the related expenses, losses and deductions) will be allocated between sources within and sources without the Philippines. Thus, Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code, although already quoted above, may be usefully quoted again: (e) Income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines. ... Gains, profits and income from (1) transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines; or (2) from the sale of personal property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines, or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the Philippines. ... (Emphasis supplied) In contrast, income derived from the purchase and sale of personal property i. e., trading is, under the Tax Code, regarded as sourced wholly in the place where the personal property is sold. Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code provides in part as follows: (e) Income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines ... Gains, profits and income derived from the purchase of personal property within and its sale without the Philippines or from the purchase of personal property without and its sale within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived entirely from sources within the country in which sold. (Emphasis supplied) Section 159 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 puts the applicable rule succinctly: Section 159. Sale of personal property. Income derived from the purchase and sale of personal property shall be treated as derived entirely from the country in which sold. The word "sold" includes "exchange." The "country" in which "sold" ordinarily means the place where the property is marketed. This Section does not apply to income from the sale personal property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines. (See Section 162 of these regulations). (Emphasis supplied) 4. It will be seen that the basic problem is one of characterization of the transactions entered into by BOAC in the Philippines. Those transactions may be characterized either as sales of personal property (i. e., "sales of airline tickets") or as entering into a lease of services or a contract of service or carriage. The applicable "source of income" rules differ depending upon which characterization is given to the BOAC transactions. The appropriate characterization, in my opinion, of the BOAC transactions is that of entering into contracts of service, i.e., carriage of passengers or cargo between points located outside the Philippines. The phrase "sale of airline tickets," while widely used in popular parlance, does not appear to be correct as a matter of tax law. The airline ticket in and of itself has no monetary value, even as scrap paper. The value of the ticket lies wholly in the right acquired by the "purchaser" the passenger to demand a prestation from BOAC, which prestation consists of the carriage of the "purchaser" or passenger from the one point to another outside the Philippines. The ticket is really the evidence of the contract of carriage entered into between BOAC and the passenger. The money paid by the passenger changes hands in the Philippines. But the passenger does not receive undertaken to be delivered by BOAC. The "purchase price of the airline ticket" is quite different from the purchase price of a physical good or commodity such as a pair of shoes of a refrigerator or an automobile; it is really the compensation paid for the undertaking of BOAC to transport the passenger or cargo outside the Philippines.

The characterization of the BOAC transactions either as sales of personal property or as purchases and sales of personal property, appear entirely inappropriate from other viewpoint. Consider first purchases and sales: is BOAC properly regarded as engaged in trading in the purchase and sale of personal property? Certainly, BOAC was not purchasing tickets outside the Philippines and selling them in the Philippines. Consider next sales: can BOAC be regarded as "selling" personal property produced or manufactured by it? In a popular or journalistic sense, BOAC might be described as "selling" "a product" its service. However, for the technical purposes of the law on income taxation, BOAC is in fact entering into contracts of service or carriage. The very existance of "source rules" specifically and precisely applicable to the rendition of services must preclude the application here of "source rules" applying generally to sales, and purchases and sales, of personal property which can be invoked only by the grace of popular language. On a slighty more abstract level, BOAC's income is more appropriately characterized as derived from a "service", rather than from an "activity" (a broader term than service and including the activity of selling) or from the here involved is income taxation, and not a sales tax or an excise or privilege tax. 5. The taxation of international carriers is today effected under Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November 1972 and by Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April 1978, in the following manner: (2) Resident corporations. A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceeding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of two and one-half per cent on their gross Philippine billings. "Gross Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggege or mail, provide the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. The gross revenue realized from the said cargo or mail shall include the gross freight charge up to final destination. Gross revenues from chartered flights originating from the Philippines shall likewise form part of "gross Philippine billings" regardless of the place of sale or payment of the passage documents. For purposes of determining the taxability to revenues from chartered flights, the term "originating from the Philippines" shall include flight of passsengers who stay in the Philippines for more than forty-eight (48) hours prior to embarkation. (Emphasis supplied) Under the above-quoted proviso international carriers issuing for compensation passage documentation in the Philippines for uplifts from any point in the world to any other point in the world, are not charged any Philippine income tax on their Philippine billings (i.e., billings in respect of passenger or cargo originating from the Philippines). Under this new approach, international carriers who service port or points in the Philippines are treated in exactly the same way as international carriers not serving any port or point in the Philippines. Thus, the source of income rule applicable, as above discussed, to transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines, or wholly without the Philippines, has been set aside. in place of Philippine income taxation, the Tax Code now imposes this 2 per cent tax computed on the basis of billings in respect of passengers and cargo originating from the Philippines regardless of where embarkation and debarkation would be taking place. This 2- per cent tax is effectively a tax on gross receipts or an excise or privilege tax and not a tax on income. Thereby, the Government has done away with the difficulties attending the allocation of income and related expenses, losses and deductions. Because taxes are the very lifeblood of government, the resulting potential "loss" or "gain" in the amount of taxes collectible by the state is sometimes, with varying degrees of consciousness, considered in choosing from among competing possible characterizations under or interpretation of tax statutes. It is hence perhaps useful to point out that the determination of the appropriate characterization here that of contracts of air carriage rather than sales of airline tickets entails no down-the-road loss of income tax revenues to the Government. In lieu thereof, the Government takes in revenues generated by the 2- per cent tax on the gross Philippine billings or receipts of international carriers. I would vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.

G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987

"BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ANTONIO CASBADILLO, PROSPERO TABLADA, ERNESTO BENGSON, PATRICIO SERRANO, ANTONIO B. BOBIAS, VIRGILIO ECHAS, DOMINGO PARINAS, NORBERTO GALANG, JUANITO NAVARRO, NESTORIO MARCELLANA, TEOFILO B. CACATIAN, RUFO L. EGUIA, CARLOS SUMOYAN, LAMBERTO RONQUILLO, ANGELITO AMANCIO, DANILO B. MATIAR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, GENARO OLIVES, ENRIQUE CAMAHORT, FEDERICO OATE, ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, ANTONIO BOCALING and GODOFREDO CUETO, respondents. Armando V. Ampil for petitioners. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office for private respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The elemental question in labor law of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners-members of the "Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines" (BLUM) and respondent San Miguel Corporation, is the main issue in this petition. The disputed decision of public respondent Ronaldo Zamora, Presidential Assistant for legal Affairs, contains a brief summary of the facts involved: 1. The records disclose that on July 11, 1969, BLUM filed a complaint with the now defunct Court of Industrial Relations, charging San Miguel Corporation, and the following officers: Enrique Camahort, Federico Ofiate Feliciano Arceo, Melencio Eugenia Jr., Ernesto Villanueva, Antonio Bocaling and Godofredo Cueto of unfair labor practice as set forth in Section 4 (a), sub-sections (1) and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 and of Legal dismissal. It was alleged that respondents ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant union; and that management dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their union membership. On their part, respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the complainants are not and have never been employees of respondent company but employees of the independent contractor; that respondent company has never had control over the means and methods followed by the independent contractor who enjoyed full authority to hire and control said employees; and that the individual complainants are barred by estoppel from asserting that they are employees of respondent company. While pending with the Court of Industrial Relations CIR pleadings and testimonial and documentary evidences were duly presented, although the actual hearing was delayed by several postponements. The dispute was taken over by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with the decreed abolition of the CIR and the hearing of the case intransferably commenced on September 8, 1975. On February 9, 1976, Labor Arbiter Nestor C. Lim found for complainants which was concurred in by the NLRC in a decision dated June 28, 1976. The amount of backwages awarded, however, was reduced by NLRC to the equivalent of one (1) year salary. On appeal, the Secretary in a decision dated June 1, 1977, set aside the NLRC ruling, stressing the absence of an employer-mployee relationship as borne out by the records of the case. ... The petitioners strongly argue that there exists an employer-employee relationship between them and the respondent company and that they were dismissed for unionism, an act constituting unfair labor practice "for which respondents must be made to answer."

Unrebutted evidence and testimony on record establish that the petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory since 1961, averaging about seven (7) years of service at the time of their termination. They worked as "cargadores" or "pahinante" at the SMC Plant loading, unloading, piling or palleting empty bottles and woosen shells to and from company trucks and warehouses. At times, they accompanied the company trucks on their delivery routes. The petitioners first reported for work to Superintendent-in-Charge Camahort. They were issued gate passes signed by Camahort and were provided by the respondent company with the tools, equipment and paraphernalia used in the loading, unloading, piling and hauling operation. Job orders emanated from Camahort. The orders are then transmitted to an assistant-officer-in-charge. In turn, the assistant informs the warehousemen and checkers regarding the same. The latter, thereafter, relays said orders to the capatazes or group leaders who then give orders to the workers as to where, when and what to load, unload, pile, pallet or clean. Work in the glass factory was neither regular nor continuous, depending wholly on the volume of bottles manufactured to be loaded and unloaded, as well as the business activity of the company. Work did not necessarily mean a full eight (8) hour day for the petitioners. However, work,at times, exceeded the eight (8) hour day and necessitated work on Sundays and holidays. For this, they were neither paid overtime nor compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. Petitioners were paid every ten (10) days on a piece rate basis, that is, according to the number of cartons and wooden shells they were able to load, unload, or pile. The group leader notes down the number or volume of work that each individual worker has accomplished. This is then made the basis of a report or statement which is compared with the notes of the checker and warehousemen as to whether or not they tally. Final approval of report is by officer-in-charge Camahort. The pay check is given to the group leaders for encashment, distribution, and payment to the petitioners in accordance with payrolls prepared by said leaders. From the total earnings of the group, the group leader gets a participation or share of ten (10%) percent plus an additional amount from the earnings of each individual. The petitioners worked exclusive at the SMC plant, never having been assigned to other companies or departments of SMC plant, even when the volume of work was at its minimum. When any of the glass furnaces suffered a breakdown, making a shutdown necessary, the petitioners work was temporarily suspended. Thereafter, the petitioners would return to work at the glass plant. Sometime in January, 1969, the petitioner workers numbering one hundred and forty (140) organized and affiliated themselves with the petitioner union and engaged in union activities. Believing themselves entitled to overtime and holiday pay, the petitioners pressed management, airing other grievances such as being paid below the minimum wage law, inhuman treatment, being forced to borrow at usurious rates of interest and to buy raffle tickets, coerced by withholding their salaries, and salary deductions made without their consent. However, their gripes and grievances were not heeded by the respondents. On February 6, 1969, the petitioner union filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members who were allegedly castigated for their union membership and warned that should they persist in continuing with their union activities they would be dismissed from their jobs. Several conciliation conferences were scheduled in order to thresh out their differences, On February 12, 1969, union member Rogelio Dipad was dismissed from work. At the scheduled conference on February 19, 1969, the complainant union through its officers headed by National President Artemio Portugal Sr., presented a letter to the respondent company containing proposals and/or labor demands together with a request for recognition and collective bargaining. San Miguel refused to bargain with the petitioner union alleging that the workers are not their employees. On February 20, 1969, all the petitioners were dismissed from their jobs and, thereafter, denied entrance to respondent company's glass factory despite their regularly reporting for work. A complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice was filed by the petitioners. The case reaches us now with the same issues to be resolved as when it had begun.

The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists in a certain situation continues to bedevil the courts. Some businessmen try to avoid the bringing about of an employer-employee relationship in their enterprises because that judicial relation spawns obligations connected with workmen's compensation, social security, medicare, minimum wage, termination pay, and unionism. (Mafinco Trading Corporation v. Ople, 70 SCRA 139). In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It. is the called "control test" that is the most important element (Investment Planning Corp. of the Phils. v. The Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924; Mafinco Trading Corp. v. Ople, supra, and Rosario Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72). Applying the above criteria, the evidence strongly indicates the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner workers and respondent San Miguel Corporation. The respondent asserts that the petitioners are employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an independent labor contracting firm. The facts and evidence on record negate respondent SMC's claim. The existence of an independent contractor relationship is generally established by the following criteria: "whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment" (56 CJS Master and Servant, Sec. 3(2), 46; See also 27 AM. Jur. Independent Contractor, Sec. 5, 485 and Annex 75 ALR 7260727) None of the above criteria exists in the case at bar. Highly unusual and suspect is the absence of a written contract to specify the performance of a specified piece of work, the nature and extent of the work and the term and duration of the relationship. The records fail to show that a large commercial outfit, such as the San Miguel Corporation, entered into mere oral agreements of employment or labor contracting where the same would involve considerable expenses and dealings with a large number of workers over a long period of time. Despite respondent company's allegations not an iota of evidence was offered to prove the same or its particulars. Such failure makes respondent SMC's stand subject to serious doubts. Uncontroverted is the fact that for an average of seven (7) years, each of the petitioners had worked continuously and exclusively for the respondent company's shipping and warehousing department. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked with the respondent company, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the respondent, and the petitioners are, therefore regular employees (Phil. Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 112 SCRA 159 and RJL Martinez Fishing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 127 SCRA 454). As we have found in RJL Martinez Fishing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission (supra): ... [T]he employer-employee relationship between the parties herein is not coterminous with each loading and unloading job. As earlier shown, respondents are engaged in the business of fishing. For this purpose, they have a fleet of fishing vessels. Under this situation, respondents' activity of catching fish is a continuous process and could hardly be considered as seasonal in nature. So that the activities performed by herein complainants, i.e. unloading the catch of tuna fish from respondents' vessels and then loading the same to refrigerated vans, are necessary or desirable in the business of respondents. This circumstance makes the employment of complainants a regular one, in the sense that it does not depend on any specific project or seasonable activity. (NLRC Decision, p. 94, Rollo).
lwphl@it

so as it with petitioners in the case at bar. In fact, despite past shutdowns of the glass plant for repairs, the petitioners, thereafter, promptly returned to their jobs, never having been replaced, or assigned elsewhere until the present controversy arose. The term of the petitioners' employment appears indefinite. The continuity and habituality of petitioners' work bolsters their claim of employee status vis-a-vis respondent company, Even under the assumption that a contract of employment had indeed been executed between respondent SMC and the alleged labor contractor, respondent's case will, nevertheless, fail. Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides: Job contracting. There is job contracting permissible under the Code if the following conditions are met: (1) The contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof; and (2) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his business. We find that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. The premises, tools, equipment and paraphernalia used by the petitioners in their jobs are admittedly all supplied by respondent company. It is only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply, suggesting the existence of a "labor only" contracting scheme prohibited by law (Article 106, 109 of the Labor Code; Section 9(b), Rule VIII, Book III, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code). In fact, even the alleged contractor's office, which consists of a space at respondent company's warehouse, table, chair, typewriter and cabinet, are provided for by respondent SMC. It is therefore clear that the alleged contractors have no capital outlay involved in the conduct of its business, in the maintenance thereof or in the payment of its workers' salaries. The payment of the workers' wages is a critical factor in determining the actuality of an employer-employee relationship whether between respondent company and petitioners or between the alleged independent contractor and petitioners. It is important to emphasize that in a truly independent contractor-contractee relationship, the fees are paid directly to the manpower agency in lump sum without indicating or implying that the basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker multiplied by the number of workers assigned to the company. This is the rule in Social Security System v. Court of Appeals (39 SCRA 629, 635). The alleged independent contractors in the case at bar were paid a lump sum representing only the salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at by adding the salaries of each worker which depend on the volume of work they. had accomplished individually. These are based on payrolls, reports or statements prepared by the workers' group leader, warehousemen and checkers, where they note down the number of cartons, wooden shells and bottles each worker was able to load, unload, pile or pallet and see whether they tally. The amount paid by respondent company to the alleged independent contractor considers no business expenses or capital outlay of the latter. Nor is the profit or gain of the alleged contractor in the conduct of its business provided for as an amount over and above the workers' wages. Instead, the alleged contractor receives a percentage from the total earnings of all the workers plus an additional amount corresponding to a percentage of the earnings of each individual worker, which, perhaps, accounts for the petitioners' charge of unauthorized deductions from their salaries by the respondents. Anent the argument that the petitioners are not employees as they worked on piece basis, we merely have to cite our rulings in Dy Keh Beng v. International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines (90 SCRA 161), as follows: "[C]ircumstances must be construed to determine indeed if payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation. Units of time . . . and units of work are in establishments like respondent (sic) just yardsticks whereby to

determine rate of compensation, to be applied whenever agreed upon. We cannot construe payment by the piece where work is done in such an establishment so as to put the worker completely at liberty to turn him out and take in another at pleasure." Article 106 of the Labor Code provides the legal effect of a labor only contracting scheme, to wit: ... the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him. Firmly establishing respondent SMC's role as employer is the control exercised by it over the petitioners that is, control in the means and methods/manner by which petitioners are to go about their work, as well as in disciplinary measures imposed by it. Because of the nature of the petitioners' work as cargadores or pahinantes, supervision as to the means and manner of performing the same is practically nil. For, how many ways are there to load and unload bottles and wooden shells? The mere concern of both respondent SMC and the alleged contractor is that the job of having the bottles and wooden shells brought to and from the warehouse be done. More evident and pronounced is respondent company's right to control in the discipline of petitioners. Documentary evidence presented by the petitioners establish respondent SMC's right to impose disciplinary measures for violations or infractions of its rules and regulations as well as its right to recommend transfers and dismissals of the piece workers. The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the company's control over the petitioners. That respondent SMC has the power to recommend penalties or dismissal of the piece workers, even as to Abner Bungay who is alleged by SMC to be a representative of the alleged labor contractor, is the strongest indication of respondent company's right of control over the petitioners as direct employer. There is no evidence to show that the alleged labor contractor had such right of control or much less had been there to supervise or deal with the petitioners. The petitioners were dismissed allegedly because of the shutdown of the glass manufacturing plant. Respondent company would have us believe that this was a case of retrenchment due to the closure or cessation of operations of the establishment or undertaking. But such is not the case here. The respondent's shutdown was merely temporary, one of its furnaces needing repair. Operations continued after such repairs, but the petitioners had already been refused entry to the premises and dismissed from respondent's service. New workers manned their positions. It is apparent that the closure of respondent's warehouse was merely a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who were then agitating the respondent company for benefits, reforms and collective bargaining as a union. There is no showing that petitioners had been remiss in their obligations and inefficient in their jobs to warrant their separation. As to the charge of unfair labor practice because of SMC's refusal to bargain with the petitioners, it is clear that the respondent company had an existing collective bargaining agreement with the IBM union which is the recognized collective bargaining representative at the respondent's glass plant. There being a recognized bargaining representative of all employees at the company's glass plant, the petitioners cannot merely form a union and demand bargaining. The Labor Code provides the proper procedure for the recognition of unions as sole bargaining representatives. This must be followed. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The San Miguel Corporation is hereby ordered to REINSTATE petitioners, with three (3) years backwages. However, where reinstatement is no longer possible, the respondent SMC is ordered to pay the petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 147188. September 14, 2004]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. THE ESTATE OF BENIGNO P. TODA, JR., Represented by Special Co-administrators Lorna Kapunan and Mario Luza Bautista, respondents. DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

This Court is called upon to determine in this case whether the tax planning scheme adopted by a corporation constitutes tax evasion that would justify an assessment of deficiency income tax. The petitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals of 31 January 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57799 affirming the 3 January 2000 Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in C.T.A. Case No. 5328, which held that the respondent Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr. is not liable for the deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation (CIC) in the amount of P79,099,999.22 for the year 1989, and ordered the cancellation and setting aside of the assessment issued by Commissioner of Internal Revenue Liwayway Vinzons-Chato on 9 January 1995.
[1] [2] [3]

The case at bar stemmed from a Notice of Assessment sent to CIC by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for deficiency income tax arising from an alleged simulated sale of a 16-storey commercial building known as Cibeles Building, situated on two parcels of land on Ayala Avenue, Makati City. On 2 March 1989, CIC authorized Benigno P. Toda, Jr., President and owner of 99.991% of its issued and outstanding capital stock, to sell the Cibeles Building and the two parcels of land on which the building stands for an amount of not less than P90 million.
[4]

On 30 August 1989, Toda purportedly sold the property for P100 million to Rafael A. Altonaga, who, in turn, sold the same property on the same day to Royal Match Inc. (RMI) for P200 million. These two transactions were evidenced by Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on the same day by the same notary public.
[5]

For the sale of the property to RMI, Altonaga paid capital gains tax in the amount of P10 million.
[6]

On 16 April 1990, CIC filed its corporate annual income tax return for the year 1989, declaring, among other things, its gain from the sale of real property in the amount of P75,728.021. After crediting withholding taxes of P254,497.00, it paid P26,341,207 for its net taxable income of P75,987,725.
[7] [8]

On 12 July 1990, Toda sold his entire shares of stocks in CIC to Le Hun T. Choa for P12.5 million, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Shares of Stocks. Three and a half years later, or on 16 January 1994, Toda died. On 29 March 1994, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) sent an assessment notice and demand letter to the CIC for deficiency income tax for the year 1989 in the amount of P79,099,999.22.
[10]

[9]

The new CIC asked for a reconsideration, asserting that the assessment should be directed against the old CIC, and not against the new CIC, which is owned by an entirely different set of stockholders; moreover, Toda had undertaken to hold the buyer of his stockholdings and the CIC free from all tax liabilities for the fiscal years 1987-1989.
[11]

On 27 January 1995, the Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr., represented by special co-administrators Lorna Kapunan and Mario Luza Bautista, received a Notice of Assessment dated 9 January 1995 from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for deficiency income tax for the year 1989 in the amount of P79,099,999.22, computed as follows:
[12]

Income Tax 1989 Net Income per return Add: Additional gain on sale of real property taxable under ordinary corporate income but were substituted with individual capital gains (P200M 100M) Total Net Taxable P175,987,725.00 per investigation Tax Due thereof at 35% Less: Payment already made 1. Per return P26,595,704.00 2. Thru Capital Gains Tax made by R.A. Altonaga 10,000,000.00 36,595,704.00 Balance of tax due Add: 50% Surcharge 12,499,999.88 25% Surcharge 6,249,999.94 Total 43,749,999.57 Add: Interest 20% from 4/16/90-4/30/94 (.808) 35,349,999.65 P75,987,725.00

100,000,000.00 Income

P 61,595,703.75

P 24,999,999.75

TOTAL AMT. 79,099,999.22 ============

DUE

&

COLLECTIBLE

The Estate thereafter filed a letter of protest.

[14]

[13]

In the letter dated 19 October 1995, the Commissioner dismissed the protest, stating that a fraudulent scheme was deliberately perpetuated by the CIC wholly owned and controlled by Toda by covering up the additional gain of P100 million, which resulted in the change in the income structure of the proceeds of the sale of the two parcels of land and the building thereon to an individual capital gains, thus evading the higher corporate income tax rate of 35%. On 15 February 1996, the Estate filed a petition for review with the CTA alleging that the Commissioner erred in holding the Estate liable for income tax deficiency; that the inference of fraud of the sale of the properties is unreasonable and unsupported; and that the right of the Commissioner to assess CIC had already prescribed.
[15]

In his Answer and Amended Answer, the Commissioner argued that the two transactions actually constituted a single sale of the property by CIC to RMI, and that Altonaga was neither the buyer of the property from CIC nor the seller of the same property to RMI. The additional gain of P100 million (the difference between the second simulated sale for P200 million and the first simulated sale for P100 million) realized by CIC was taxed at the rate of only 5% purportedly as capital gains tax of Altonaga, instead of at the rate of 35% as corporate income tax of CIC. The income tax return filed by CIC for 1989 with intent to evade payment of the tax was thus false or fraudulent. Since such falsity or fraud was discovered by the BIR only on 8 March 1991, the assessment issued on 9 January 1995 was well within the prescriptive period prescribed by Section 223 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which provides that tax may be assessed within ten years from the discovery of the falsity or fraud. With the sale being tainted with fraud, the separate corporate personality of CIC should be disregarded. Toda, being the registered owner of the 99.991% shares of stock of CIC and the beneficial owner of the remaining 0.009% shares registered in the name of the individual directors of CIC, should be held liable for the deficiency income tax, especially because the gains realized from the sale were withdrawn by him as cash advances or paid to him as cash dividends. Since he is already dead, his estate shall answer for his liability.
[16] [17]

In its decision of 3 January 2000, the CTA held that the Commissioner failed to prove that CIC committed fraud to deprive the government of the taxes due it. It ruled that even assuming that a pre-conceived scheme was adopted by CIC, the same constituted mere tax avoidance, and not tax evasion. There being no proof of fraudulent transaction, the applicable period for the BIR to assess CIC is that prescribed in Section 203 of the NIRC of 1986, which is three years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return. Thus, the governments right to assess CIC prescribed on 15 April 1993. The assessment
[18]

issued on 9 January 1995 was, therefore, no longer valid. The CTA also ruled that the mere ownership by Toda of 99.991% of the capital stock of CIC was not in itself sufficient ground for piercing the separate corporate personality of CIC. Hence, the CTA declared that the Estate is not liable for deficiency income tax of P79,099,999.22 and, accordingly, cancelled and set aside the assessment issued by the Commissioner on 9 January 1995. In its motion for reconsideration, the Commissioner insisted that the sale of the property owned by CIC was the result of the connivance between Toda and Altonaga. She further alleged that the latter was a representative, dummy, and a close business associate of the former, having held his office in a property owned by CIC and derived his salary from a foreign corporation (Aerobin, Inc.) duly owned by Toda for representation services rendered. The CTA denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting the Commissioner to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
[19] [20] [21]

In its challenged Decision of 31 January 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA, reasoning that the CTA, being more advantageously situated and having the necessary expertise in matters of taxation, is better situated to determine the correctness, propriety, and legality of the income tax assessments assailed by the Toda Estate.
[22]

Unsatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Commissioner filed the present petition invoking the following grounds:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT COMMITTED NO FRAUD WITH INTENT TO EVADE THE TAX ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES OF CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DISREGARDING THE SEPARATE CORPORATE PERSONALITY OF CIBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION.

II.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO ASSESS RESPONDENT FOR DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 1989 HAD PRESCRIBED.

The Commissioner reiterates her arguments in her previous pleadings and insists that the sale by CIC of the Cibeles property was in connivance with its dummy Rafael Altonaga, who was financially incapable of purchasing it. She further points out that the documents themselves prove the fact of fraud in that (1) the two sales were done simultaneously on the same date, 30 August 1989; (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale between Altonaga and RMI was notarized ahead of the alleged sale between CIC and Altonaga, with the former registered in the Notarial Register of Jocelyn H. Arreza Pabelana as Doc. 91, Page 20, Book I, Series of 1989; and the latter, as Doc. No. 92, Page 20, Book I, Series of 1989, of the same Notary Public; (3) as early as 4 May 1989, CIC received P40 million from RMI, and not from Altonaga. The said amount was debited by RMI in its trial balance as of 30 June 1989 as investment in Cibeles Building. The substantial portion of P40 million was withdrawn by Toda through the declaration of cash dividends to all its stockholders.

For its part, respondent Estate asserts that the Commissioner failed to present the income tax return of Altonaga to prove that the latter is financially incapable of purchasing the Cibeles property. To resolve the grounds raised by the Commissioner, the following questions are pertinent:
1. 2. 3. Is this a case of tax evasion or tax avoidance? Has the period for assessment of deficiency income tax for the year 1989 prescribed? and Can respondent Estate be held liable for the deficiency income tax of CIC for the year 1989, if any?

We shall discuss these questions in seriatim. Is this a case of tax evasion or tax avoidance? Tax avoidance and tax evasion are the two most common ways used by taxpayers in escaping from taxation. Tax avoidance is the tax saving device within the means sanctioned by law. This method should be used by the taxpayer in good faith and at arms length. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a scheme used outside of those lawful means and when availed of, it usually subjects the taxpayer to further or additional civil or criminal liabilities.
[23]

Tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors: (1) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due; (2) an accompanying state of mind which is described as being evil, in bad faith, willfull,or deliberate and not accidental; and (3) a course of action or failure of action which is unlawful.
[24]

All these factors are present in the instant case. It is significant to note that as early as 4 May 1989, prior to the purported sale of the Cibeles property by CIC to Altonaga on 30 August 1989, CIC received P40 million from RMI, and not from Altonaga. That P40 million was debited by RMI and reflected in its trial balance as other inv. Cibeles Bldg. Also, as of 31 July 1989, another P40 million was debited and reflected in RMIs trial balance as other inv. Cibeles Bldg. This would show that the real buyer of the properties was RMI, and not the intermediary Altonaga.
[25] [26]

The investigation conducted by the BIR disclosed that Altonaga was a close business associate and one of the many trusted corporate executives of Toda. This information was revealed by Mr. Boy Prieto, the assistant accountant of CIC and an old timer in the company. But Mr. Prieto did not testify on this matter, hence, that information remains to be hearsay and is thus inadmissible in evidence. It was not verified either, since the letter-request for investigation of
[27]

Altonaga was unserved, Altonaga having left for the United States of America in January 1990. Nevertheless, that Altonaga was a mere conduit finds support in the admission of respondent Estate that the sale to him was part of the tax planning scheme of CIC. That admission is borne by the records. In its Memorandum, respondent Estate declared:
[28]

Petitioner, however, claims there was a change of structure of the proceeds of sale. Admitted one hundred percent. But isnt this precisely the definition of tax planning? Change the structure of the funds and pay a lower tax. Precisely, Sec. 40 (2) of the Tax Code exists, allowing tax free transfers of property for stock, changing the structure of the property and the tax to be paid. As long as it is done legally, changing the structure of a transaction to achieve a lower tax is not against the law. It is absolutely allowed. Tax planning is by definition to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, a tax. Surely petitioner [sic] cannot be faulted for wanting to reduce the tax from 35% to 5%.[29] [Underscoring supplied].

The scheme resorted to by CIC in making it appear that there were two sales of the subject properties, i.e., from CIC to Altonaga, and then from Altonaga to RMI cannot be considered a legitimate tax planning. Such scheme is tainted with fraud. Fraud in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another.
[30]

Here, it is obvious that the objective of the sale to Altonaga was to reduce the amount of tax to be paid especially that the transfer from him to RMI would then subject the income to only 5% individual capital gains tax, and not the 35% corporate income tax. Altonagas sole purpose of acquiring and transferring title of the subject properties on the same day was to create a tax shelter. Altonaga never controlled the property and did not enjoy the normal benefits and burdens of ownership. The sale to him was merely a tax ploy, a sham, and without business purpose and economic substance. Doubtless, the execution of the two sales was calculated to mislead the BIR with the end in view of reducing the consequent income tax liability. In a nutshell, the intermediary transaction, i.e., the sale of Altonaga, which was prompted more on the mitigation of tax liabilities than for legitimate business purposes constitutes one of tax evasion.
[31]

Generally, a sale or exchange of assets will have an income tax incidence only when it is consummated. The incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a transaction. The tax consequences arising from gains from a sale of property are not finally to be determined solely by the means employed to transfer legal title. Rather, the transaction must be viewed as a whole, and each step from the commencement of negotiations to the consummation of the sale is relevant. A sale by one person cannot be transformed for tax purposes into a
[32]

sale by another by using the latter as a conduit through which to pass title. To permit the true nature of the transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the effective administration of the tax policies of Congress.
[33]

To allow a taxpayer to deny tax liability on the ground that the sale was made through another and distinct entity when it is proved that the latter was merely a conduit is to sanction a circumvention of our tax laws. Hence, the sale to Altonaga should be disregarded for income tax purposes. The two sale transactions should be treated as a single direct sale by CIC to RMI.
[34]

Accordingly, the tax liability of CIC is governed by then Section 24 of the NIRC of 1986, as amended (now 27 (A) of the Tax Reform Act of 1997), which stated as follows:
Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. (a) Tax on domestic corporations.- A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, and partnerships, no matter how created or organized but not including general professional partnerships, in accordance with the following: Twenty-five percent upon the amount by which the taxable net income does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos; and Thirty-five percent upon the amount by which the taxable net income exceeds one hundred thousand pesos.

CIC is therefore liable to pay a 35% corporate tax for its taxable net income in 1989. The 5% individual capital gains tax provided for in Section 34 (h) of the NIRC of 1986 (now 6% under Section 24 (D) (1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1997) is inapplicable. Hence, the assessment for the deficiency income tax issued by the BIR must be upheld.
[35]

Has the period of assessment prescribed? No. Section 269 of the NIRC of 1986 (now Section 222 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997) read:
Sec. 269. Exceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes.-(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court after the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for collection thereof .

Put differently, in cases of (1) fraudulent returns; (2) false returns with intent to evade tax; and (3) failure to file a return, the period within which to assess tax is ten years from discovery of the fraud, falsification or omission, as the case may be. It is true that in a query dated 24 August 1989, Altonaga, through his counsel, asked the Opinion of the BIR on the tax consequence of the two sale transactions. Thus, the BIR was amply informed of the transactions even prior to the execution of the necessary documents to effect the transfer. Subsequently, the two sales were openly made with the execution of public documents and the declaration of taxes for 1989. However, these circumstances do not negate the existence of fraud. As earlier discussed those two transactions were tainted with fraud. And even assuming arguendo that there was no fraud, we find that the income tax return filed by CIC for the year 1989 was false. It did not reflect the true or actual amount gained from the sale of the Cibeles property. Obviously, such was done with intent to evade or reduce tax liability.
[36]

As stated above, the prescriptive period to assess the correct taxes in case of false returns is ten years from the discovery of the falsity. The false return was filed on 15 April 1990, and the falsity thereof was claimed to have been discovered only on 8 March 1991. The assessment for the 1989 deficiency income tax of CIC was issued on 9 January 1995. Clearly, the issuance of the correct assessment for deficiency income tax was well within the prescriptive period.
[37]

Is respondent Estate liable for the 1989 deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation? A corporation has a juridical personality distinct and separate from the persons owning or composing it. Thus, the owners or stockholders of a corporation may not generally be made to answer for the liabilities of a corporation and vice versa. There are, however, certain instances in which personal liability may arise. It has been held in a number of cases that personal liability of a corporate director, trustee, or officer along, albeit not necessarily, with the corporation may validly attach when:
1. He assents to the (a) patently unlawful act of the corporation, (b) bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or (c) conflict of interest, resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders, or other persons; 2. He consents to the issuance of watered down stocks or, having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto; 3. He agrees to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or

4. He is made, by specific provision of law, to personally answer for his corporate action.[38]

It is worth noting that when the late Toda sold his shares of stock to Le Hun T. Choa, he knowingly and voluntarily held himself personally liable for all the tax liabilities of CIC and the buyer for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989. Paragraph g of the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stocks specifically provides:
g. Except for transactions occurring in the ordinary course of business, Cibeles has no liabilities or obligations, contingent or otherwise, for taxes, sums of money or insurance claims other than those reported in its audited financial statement as of December 31, 1989, attached hereto as Annex B and made a part hereof. The business of Cibeles has at all times been conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. SELLER undertakes and agrees to hold the BUYER and Cibeles free from any and all income tax liabilities of Cibeles for the fiscal years 1987, 1988 and 1989.[39] [Underscoring Supplied].

When the late Toda undertook and agreed to hold the BUYER and Cibeles free from any all income tax liabilities of Cibeles for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, he thereby voluntarily held himself personally liable therefor. Respondent estate cannot, therefore, deny liability for CICs deficiency income tax for the year 1989 by invoking the separate corporate personality of CIC, since its obligation arose from Todas contractual undertaking, as contained in the Deed of Sale of Shares of Stock. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals of 31 January 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57799 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one is hereby rendered ordering respondent Estate of Benigno P. Toda Jr. to pay P79,099,999.22 as deficiency income tax of Cibeles Insurance Corporation for the year 1989, plus legal interest from 1 May 1994 until the amount is fully paid. Costs against respondent. SO ORDERED.