I.

ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS, INC v CIR
GR NO. 179115, September 26, 2012

FACTS:
AIA is duly organized corporation operating within the Subic Special Economic
Zone. It is engaged in the importation of used motor vehicles and heavy equipment
which it sells to the public through auction. The former received a Formal letter of
demand dated July 9, 2004 from CIR containing assessment for deficiency value
added tax and excise tax in the amounts of P102,535,520.00 and P 4,334,715.00,
respectively, or a total amount of P 106,870,235.00, inclusive of penalties and
interest, for auction sales conducted on February 5, 6, 7, and 8, 2004. Prompted AIA
to file a letter protest through registered mail on August 30, 2004 to CIR but latter
did not act on the protest. Thus, AIA filed petition for review before CTA. CTA first
division ruled in favour of CIR, granting its motion to dismiss the case. CTA en Banc
affirms the ruling of the CTA first division.
ISSUE:
i.

ii.

Government Argument:
CIR argued that AIA is disqualified under Section 8 (a) of RA 9480 from
availing itself of the Tax Amnesty Program because it is deemed a
withholding agent for deficiency taxes.
Taxpayer Argrument:
AIA contended that BIR issued a Certification of Qualification in favour to
them, stating that “it has availed and is qualified for Tax amnesty for the
Taxable Year 2005 and prior years pursuant to RA 9480” otherwise known
as the Tax amnesty Act of 2007

Whether AIA’s availment of the Tax Amnesty Program under RA 9480 the
outstanding deficiency taxes of it are deemed fully satisfied
HELD:
Yes. A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the State
of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of violating a tax
law. It partakes of an absolute waiver by the government of its right to collect what
is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean
slate.
The Tax Amnesty Program under RA 9480 may be availed of by any person except
those who are disqualified under Section 8 thereof, to wit:
Section 8. Exceptions. The tax amnesty provided in Section 5 hereof shall not
extend to the following persons or cases existing as of the effectivity of this Act:
(a) Withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities; x x x
xxxx

are different from withholding taxes. such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. like VAT and excise tax. the incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity. is never favored or presumed in law. the tax due from income payments to entities arising from certain transactions 27and remits the same to the government.The argument that AIA is "deemed" a withholding agent for these deficiency taxes is fallacious. the statutory taxpayer. RA 9480 does not exclude from its coverage taxpayers operating within special economic zones. in case of withholding taxes. the incidence of taxation falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person. by withholding. The grant of a tax amnesty. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who merely collects. As long as it is within the bounds of the law. a taxpayer has the liberty to choose which tax amnesty program it wants to avail. Indirect taxes. . In indirect taxes. must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Personal End Note: A tax amnesty. much like a tax exemption. More so. On the other hand. similar to a tax exemption.

Taxpayer Argument: Petitioner stresses that the tax exemption granted to educational stock corporations which have converted into non-profit foundations was broadened to include any other charges imposed by the Government as one of the incentives for such conversion. The Court of Appeals. the respondents refuse to issue the building permit. it is not exempt from the payment of regulatory fees. ii. holding that while petitioner is a tax-free entity. petitioner through letters claimed that it is exempted from the payment of the building permit and local clearances fees. petitioner filed a complaint before RTC seeking the refund of the said amount. non-profit education foundation under the provisions of RA no. Government Argument: Respondents argue that petitioner is not exempt from the payment of the building permit and related fees since the only exemptions provided in the National Building Code are public buildings and traditional indigenous family dwellings. that it is exempted from the payment of the building permit and other fees and finding respondent to reimburse the said amount to petitioner. June 27. petitioner was granted exemption only from income tax derived from its educational activities and real property used exclusively for educational purposes. Petitioner applied for a building permit to the Respondents City Treasurer for the construction of an 11-storey building of Angeles University Foundation Medical Center. citing legal opinions rendered by the DOJ. that under R.II. RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore. 662. Respondent City Treasurer denied the claim of refund. 189999.A. These incentives necessarily included exemption from payment of . No. However. Thus.99. reversed the ruling of the RTC. A fee is generally imposed to cover the cost of regulation as activity or privilege and is essentially derived from the exercise of police power. Hence. Further. ISSUE: i. 6055. They also point out that a building permit is classified under the term fee. ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v CITY OF ANGELES GR NO. petitioner paid under protest amounting to 826. 6055. Petitioner formally requested the respondents to refund the fees it paid under protest. however. 2012 FACTS: Petitioner Angeles University Foundation AUF is an educational institution and was converted into a non-stock.

6055.A.A. non-profit educational foundations. which is already provided under the Constitution (1) whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of building permit and related fees imposed under the National Building Code (2) whether the parcel of land owned by petitioner which has been assessed for real property tax is likewise exempt. petitioners claim for exemption rests solely on its interpretation of the term other charges imposed by the National Government in the tax exemption clause of R. Petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that its real property is actually. Note that the other charges mentioned in Sec. 6055 granted tax exemptions to educational institutions like petitioner which converted to non-stock. assessments. No. Section 8 of said law provides: SECTION 8. The Foundation shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes. No. directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. R. directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. No. Not being expressly included in the enumeration of structures to which the building permit fees do not apply.A. While there is no allegation or proof that petitioner leases the land to its present occupants. and other charges imposed by the Government on all income derived from or property.building permit and related fees as otherwise there would have been no incentives for educational foundations if the privilege were only limited to exemption from taxation. HELD: No. No. 6055 is qualified by the words imposed by the Government on all x x x property used exclusively for the . real or personal. used exclusively for the educational activities of the Foundation Exempted from the payment of building permit fees are: (1) public buildings and (2) traditional indigenous family dwellings. The respondents correctly assessed the land for real property taxes for the taxable period during which the land is not being devoted solely to petitioner educational activities Personal End Note: A charge is broadly defined as the price of. import duties. still there is no compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement that said real property is actually. or rate for. while the word fee pertains to a charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government. 8 of R. something.

1823. CA affirm the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of QC (CBAA) that it is not exempt from real property taxes in reason that it was not a charitable institution and that its real properties were not actually. 2004 FACTS: Petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity by virtue of PD no. While it may be argued that the fees relate to particular properties. alter. Both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real property taxes by the City Assessor of Quezon City. LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES v QUEZON CITY GR No. i. renovate or demolish the same. it was denied. In the middle of the lot. Hence.. III. However. directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. their real property is not exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under PD no. Government Argument: Petitioner is not a charitable institution and the subject property is not actually. the hospital was erected and the big space at the ground floor is being leased to private parties for canteen and small stores and to medical practitioners who use the same as their private clinic. This is evident from the provisions of the National Building Code. they are not impositions from which petitioner is exempt. buildings and structures. Petitioner filed a claim for exemption from real property taxes as it is a charitable institution. Since building permit fees are not charges on property. The petitioner contends that it is a charitable institution and. Thus. 1823 Whether the real properties of the petitioner are exempt from real property taxes . they are actually imposed on certain activities the owner may conduct either to build such structures or to repair. It owns a parcel of land covered by TCT of the Registry of Deeds of QC.e. ii. On the right side of the building was leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as Elliptical orchids and Garden Center. directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. as such.educational activities of the foundation. Taxpayer Argument: It averred that a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds are exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. June 29. Building permit fees are not impositions on property but on the activity subject of government regulation. is exempt from real property taxes as accordance to Section 2 of PD No. ISSUE: i. 144104. The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients and also renders services to out-patient.

DIRECTLY andEXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. 191109. and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution Even if petitioner is a charitable institution. by clear and unequivocal proof. As a general principle. that (a) it is a charitable institution. It is no doubt that petitioner is a charitable institution. directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. 1084 and by virtue of EO no.HELD: No. PEA was designated as the agency primarily responsible for all reclamation projects on behalf of the Government. a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients. those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually. the petitioner is burdened to prove.Under 1987 Constitution. Personal End Note The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power. 380 transforming PEA into PRA which shall perform all the powers and functions of the PEA relating to reclamation activities. REPUBLIC v CITY OF PARANAQUE GR No. whether out-patient. Then President GMA issued EO No. in order to be entitled to the exemption. Hence. or receives subsidies from the government.[26] IV. 1084. The effect of an exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve. and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLY. The real properties of the petitioner are not exempt from real property taxes. 2012 FACTS: The Public Estate Authority is a government corporation created by virtue of PD no. however. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. ISSUE: i. By virtue of its mandate. a claim for exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. 525 issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos. Government Argument: . PRA filed a case to RTC which ruled in favor of the respondent as PRA was not exempt from payment of real property taxes because it was a GOCC under PD no. including those located in Paranque City which issued warrants of levy on PRA’s reclaimed properties as based on assessment for delinquent real property taxes for tax years 2001 and 2002. or confined in the hospital. July 18. Hence. PRA reclaimed several portions of the foreshore areas of Manila Bay.

owned by the State and. it is not authorized to distribute dividends. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover. PRA is exempted from the payment of real property tax. Hence.City of Paranaque. Article XII of the Constitution. PRA was not organized either as a stock or a non-stock corporation. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. namely: (1) that it has capital stock divided into shares. Being an incorporated government instrumentality. PRA cannot be considered a non-stock corporation either because it does not have members. Instead. Personal End Note: The government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16. not exempted from the payment of real property tax ii. Two requisites must concur before one may be classified as a stock corporation. it is exempt from payment of real property tax. It cannot be considered as a stock corporation because although it has a capital stock divided into no par value shares. PRA is not a GOCC either under the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code or under Section 16. Instead. they must have members and must not distribute any part of their income to said members In the case at bench. PRA is not a GOCC because it is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation. it is a governmental instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing an essential public service. The first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. and (2) that it is authorized to distribute dividends and allotments of surplus and profits to its stockholders. therefore. Whether PRA exempted from the payment of real property tax HELD: Yes. surplus allotments or profits to stockholders. Further. PRA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing an essential public service. respondent. Taxpayer Argument: PRA argues that it is not a GOCC under Administrative Code neither is it a GOCC under the 1987 Constitution because it is not required to meet the test of economic viablitiy. the subject reclaimed lands are still part of the public domain. as an incorporated instrumentality of the national Government. Under Corporation Code. . As for non-stock corporations. Hence. it cannot be properly classified as a stock corporation. argues that PRA’s very own charter declared it to be a GOCC and that is has entered into several thousands of contracts where it represented itself to be a GOCC. it is exempt from payment of real property taxes when the beneficial use of the real property is granted to a taxable person. If only one requisite is present. Neither was it created by Congress to operate commercially and compete in the private market. exempt from payment of real estate taxes.

Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good — meaning for economic development purposes — these government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations.The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. .

Section 27(B) of the NIRC imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of (1) proprietary non-profit educational institutions and (2) proprietary non-profit hospitals.V. The only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit. Luke's. with all the . Government Argument: The BIR argued before the CTA that Section 27(B) of the NIRC. that Section 27(B) of the present NIRC does not apply to St. officers and employees directly benefit from its profits and assets. It argued that the making of profit per se does not destroy its income tax exemption. and withholding tax on compensation and expanded withholding tax. 2012 FACTS: St. Moreover. Lukes Medical Center is a hospital organized as a non stock and non-profit corporation. CIR v St. Lukes Medical Center GR No. following the definition of a "proprietary educational institution" as "any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or groups" with a government permit. Luke is a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution covered by Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC which would exempt all income derived by St. St. Luke’s filed an administrative protest with the BIR against the deficiency tax assessments for the year 1998. Luke's maintained that it is a non-stock and non-profit institution for charitable and social welfare purposes under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. Taxpayer Argument. "Non-profit" means no net income or asset accrues to or benefits any member or specific person. 195909. ii. ISSUE: i. "Proprietary" means private. comprised of deficiency income tax. CTA ruled that St. It further ruled. Whether St. Luke's claimed that its income does not inure to the benefit of any individual. should be applicable to St. which imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of proprietary nonprofit hospitals. Luke's. Luke is liable to its tax deficiency HELD: Yes. September 26. St. Luke's from services to its patients. St. the hospital's board of trustees. whether paying or non-paying. value-added tax.

Article VI of the Constitution requires that a charitable institution use the property "actually. respondent St. Luke's fails to meet the requirements under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC to be completely tax exempt from all its income. Luke's is organized as a non-stock and non-profit charitable institution. Luke is liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC. is merely subject to income tax. this does not automatically exempt St. Luke's from paying taxes. Section 28(3)." . as a proprietary non-profit hospital. However. Therefore. St. There is no dispute that St. at the preferential 10% rate pursuant to Section 27(B). An institution under Section 30(E) or (G) does not lose its tax exemption if it earns income from its for-profit activities. are not ipso facto entitled to a tax exemption. subject to the constitutional provision that "[n]o law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress. Such income from for-profit activities. Congress can create tax exemptions. it remains a proprietary non-profit hospital under Section 27(B) of the NIRC as long as it does not distribute any of its profits to its members and such profits are reinvested pursuant to its corporate purposes. St. Personal Note: The requirements for a tax exemption are specified by the law granting it. however.net income or asset devoted to the institution's purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit. Luke's. is entitled to the preferential tax rate of 10% on its net income from its for-profit activities. an organization must meet the substantive test of charity. "Non-profit" does not necessarily mean "charitable. The Constitution exempts charitable institutions only from real property taxes. Charitable institutions." To be a charitable institution. To be exempt from real property taxes. However. Luke's is a corporation that is not "operated exclusively" for charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying patients are concerned. however. The power of Congress to tax implies the power to exempt from tax. directly and exclusively" for charitable purposes and "operated exclusively" for social welfare. St.

DIAGEO PHIL. ISSUE: i. ii. 2012 FACTS: Petitioner Diageo Philippines. Diageo filed with the BIR an applications for tax refund/issuance of tax credit certificates corresponding to the excise taxes which its supplier paid but passed on to it as part of the purchase price of the subject raw alcohol invoking Section 130(D) of the Tax Code. However. November 12. The supplier imported the raw alcohol and paid the related excise taxes thereon before the same were sold to the petitioner. Diageo purchased raw alcohol from its supplier for use in the manufacture of its beverage and liquor products. Government Argument: CIR argued that Diageos lack of legal personality to institute the claim for refund because it was not the one that paid the alleged excise taxes but its supplier. Hence. It contends that the tax privilege under Section 130(D) applies to every exporter provided the conditions therein set forth are complied with. Inc. 183553. respondent CIR did not act to it. CTA ruled in favor of the CIR because Diageo is not the real party in interest to file claim for refund. Petitioner Diageo files a petition for review before the CTA. Within two (2) years from the time the supplier paid the subject excise taxes. Inc v CIR GR No. (Diageo) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Philippines and it is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as an excise tax taxpayer. namely. Taxpayer Argument: Diageo claims to be a real party in interest entitled to recover the subject refund or tax credit because it stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit.VI. (1) the goods are exported either in their original state or as ingredients or part of any manufactured goods or .

Accordingly. when the excise taxes paid by the supplier were passed on to Diageo. or seek a refund of. not the liability to pay it. Personal Note: The proper party to question. The right to claim a refund or be credited with the excise taxes belongs to its supplier. he. Indirect taxes are defined as those wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted to another person. The phrase "any excise tax paid thereon shall be credited or refunded" requires that the claimant be the same person who paid the excise tax. Excise taxes imposed under Title VI of the Tax Code are taxes on property which are imposed on "goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported. the purchaser. what was shifted is not the tax per se but an additional cost of the goods sold. the same partake of the nature of indirect taxes when it is passed on to the subsequent purchaser. Thus. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer. . shifts the tax burden. the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another”. and (3) the exporter likewise submits proof of receipt of the corresponding foreign exchange payment Whether Diageo has the legal personality to file aclaim for refund or tax credit for the excise taxes paid by its supplier on the raw alcohol it purchased and used in the manufacture of its exported goods. (2) the exporter submits proof of exportation. No. an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer.products. the supplier remains the statutory taxpayer even if Diageo. to the purchaser as part of the price of goods sold or services rendered. in effect. HELD: Excise taxes partake of the nature of indirect taxes." Though excise taxes are paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from the place of production or by the owner or importer before the release of imported articles from the customshouse. actually shoulders the burden of tax.

respondent filed a petition for review before CTA. 188497 April 25. CTA En Banc affirm . treating and refining petroleum for the purpose of producing marketable products and the subsequent sale thereof. Thus. Respondent filed to the BIR a claim for refund or tax credit in representing excise taxes it allegedly paid on sales and deliveries of gas and fuel oils to various international carriers. CTA’s First division ruled that respondent is entitled to the refund of excise taxes.CIR v Pilipinas Shell Petroleum GR No. However petitioner BIR did not act on the claim. 2012 FACTS: Respondent is engaged in the business of procession.

Said provisions merely allows the international carriers to purchase said product w/out excise tax component as an added cost in the price fixed by the manufacturers or distributors/sellers. ii. Thus. to which the goods the tax attaches. as well as foreign oil company who likewise bought petroleum products from local manufacturers and later sold these to international carriers. Taxpayer Argument: Respondent maintains that since petroleum products sold to qualified international carriers are exempt from excise tax. An excise tax is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the purchaser. Whether taxpayer argument is correct HELD: No. hence it must be denied. and absent any provision in the Code authorizing the refund or crediting such excise taxes paid. and there being no express grant under NIRC of exemption from payment of excise tax to local manufacturers of petroleum products sold to international carriers. Consequently. it should be construed as prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to the international carriers who buys the said product to local manufacturers. ISSUE: i. whether in the hands of international carriers or the petroleum manufacturer or producer. the oil companies which sold such petroleum . a foreign airline company who purchased locally manufactured petroleum products for use in its international flights. Considering that respondent failed to prove an express grant of right to a tax refund such claim cannot be implied. no taxes should be imposed on the article. The statutory taxpayer. have no legal personality to file a claim for tax refund or credit of excise taxes previously paid by the local manufacturers even if the latter passed on the said buyers the tax burden in the form of additional amount in the price. Government Argument: BIR argues that the respondent must shoulder the excise taxes it previously paid on petroleum products which it later sold to international carriers because it cannot pass on the tax burden to the said international carriers which have been granted exemption under NIRC. the local manufacturer of the petroleum products who is directly liable for the payment of excise tax on the said goods. is the proper party to seek a tax refund.the ruling of CTA’s First Division pointed out the specific exemption mentioned under Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 of petroleum products carriers such as respondents clients.

products to Int’l carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise taxes previously paid on the goods. the the too the Personal End Note: Excise tax. it never presumed nor be allowed solely on ground of equity. These taxes are imposed in addition to the VAT. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result loss of revenue for government. Upon the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and categorical to be misinterpreted. . An excise tax is basically an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer ultimately pays for it. refer to taxes applicable to certain specified goods or articles manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported in the Philippines. as the term used in the NORC.

No. Article III of the Constitution. No. otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997. 9337 HELD: . No. simultaneous to its creation.D. 1430. 172087. No.D. the Social Security System.D. ii. Whether or not PAGCOR is still exempt from corporate income tax with the enactment of R. However. but it was later restored by a Letter of Instruction No. was issued exempting PAGCOR from the payment of any type of tax. No. took effect. 9337. certain sections of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 were amended. ISSUE: i. Government Argument: Under Section 1 of R. The particular amendment is excluding PAGCOR from the enumeration of GOCCs that are exempt from payment of corporate income tax. supplementing P.A. 1067-A. No.A. except petitioner PAGCOR. P. But with the enactment of R. Thereafter. 9337. 1931. 1067-B . P. R. amending Section 27 (c) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. the Government Service and Insurance Corporation. and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. Taxpayer Argument: Petitioner argues that such omission is unconstitutional. as it is violative of its right to equal protection of the laws under Section 1. except a franchise tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue. March 15. PAGCOR assail the constitutionality of RA no.D. PAGCOR's tax exemption was removed through P.A. No.A. which provides that government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall pay corporate income tax.PAGCOR v BIR GR No. Thus. 1399 was issued expanding the scope of PAGCOR's exemption. No. petitioner is no longer exempt from corporate income tax as it has been effectively omitted from the list of GOCCs that are exempt from it. 8424. 2011 FACTS: PAGCOR. 9337. the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.

28 Personal End note: As a rule. 9337 amended Section 27 (c) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 by omitting PAGCOR from the exemption. in fact.27 Thus. The legislative intent is to require PAGCOR to pay corporate income tax. thing.A. covered by the exemption so claimed. expressed in the maxim: exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis. Exemptions must be shown to exist clearly and categorically. hence. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person. The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is. and supported by clear legal provision. 26 . the omission or removal of PAGCOR from exemption from the payment of corporate income tax. No. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. tax exemptions are construed strongly against the claimant. PAGCOR failed to prove that it is still exempt from the payment of corporate income tax. petitioner PAGCOR must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general rule that GOCCs shall pay corporate income tax. act. Not being excepted.No. considering that Section 1 of R. In this case. the express mention of the GOCCs exempted from payment of corporate income tax excludes all others.