1. X and Y are partners in a certain business, X being the managing partner.

Z
owes X P 5,000 and the partnership P 10,000, and both credits are
demandable. Z pays X P 3,000 and the latter issues a receipt in his name.
Should X collect the entire amount? Would the results be the same if the
receipt is in the name of the partnership? Explain.

Answer:

Both No will be the answer. X should not collect the entire amount, because the amount
will be applied in proportion to both credits. Also, if the receipt is in the name of the
partnership the entire amount will be fully applied in the partnership and not in
proportionate. Under Article 1792, If a partner authorized to manage collects a
demandable sum, which was owed to him in his own name, from a person who owed
the partnership another sum also demandable, the sum thus collected shall be applied
to the two credits in proportion to their amounts, even though he may have given a
receipt for his own credit only; but should he have given it for the account of the
partnership credit, the amount shall be fully applied to the latter. So, if a person is
separately indebted to the partnership and to the managing partner at the same time,
any sum received by the managing partner shall be applied to the two credits in
proportion to their amounts, except where he received it for the account of the
partnership, in which case the whole sum shall be applied to the partnership credit only
which was supported under Article 1792. Therefore, if X issues a receipt for his own
credit, then the P3, 000 should be applied proportionately that is P1, 000 (5,000/15,000
x 3,000) will be applied to his own credit and the balance of P2, 000 (10,000/15,000 x
3,000) will be applied to the credit of the partnership. But if X gives a receipt for the
account only of the partnership credit, the amount of P3, 000.00 will be fully applied to
the credit of the partnership.

2. In a previously assigned case entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue

vs. William J. Suter and the Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. L-25532
February 28, 1969, was the partnership dissolved as decided by the
Supreme Court? Explain why or why not.

Answer:

No, the partnership was not dissolved because the respondent company was not a
universal partnership but a particular one. The first evidence was the contributions of
the partners were fixed sums of money, P20, 000.00 by William Suter andP18, 000.00
by Julia Spirig and neither one of them was an industrial partner which does not fall
under Article 1779-1780. It shows that a universal partnership requires either that the
object of the association be all the present property of the partners, as contributed by
them to the contributed by them to the common fund, or else all that the partners ma
acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership which clearly
supports the evidence above. Also, the firm was not a partnership that spouses were
forbidden to enter according to Article 1782; wherein it states that persons who are
prohibited from giving each other any donation or advantage cannot enter into a
universal partnership. A husband and wife, however, may enter into a particular
partnership or be members thereof. Therefore, the partnership was not dissolved as
decided by the Supreme Court because it was not prohibited under the law.

3. Annette and Benet are co-owners of inherited properties. They agreed to

use the said common properties and the income derived therefrom as a
common fund with the intention to produce profits for them in proportion
to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project of
partition. Is there a partnership created between Annette and Benet?
Discuss.

Answer:

Yes, the co-ownership by Annette and Benet is automatically converted into a

partnership for tax purposes. It was converted into 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 which falls under Article 1767. As we can see in the case above, Annette
and Benet agreed to use the said common properties and the income derived therefrom
as a common fund with the intention to produce profits for them in proportion to their
respective shares in the inheritance as determined in a project of partition. If, after such
partition, an heir allows his shares 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. A
partnership, whether registered or not, other than a general professional partnership, is
now considered for tax purposes a corporation and the partners are considered
stockholders under Sec. 26, The National Internal Revenue Code. Thus, there is a
partnership which is unregistered partnership created between Annette and Benet for
tax purposes.