PALS-TAX-LAW-ADDU 2016-final - Recent Jurisprudence(April 2014 March 2016 Taxation A compilation continued by the Philippine Association of Law

PALS-TAX-LAW-ADDU 2016-final - Recent Jurisprudence(April...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 33 pages.

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 – March 2016) A compilation continued by the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) & Ateneo de Davao for the 2016 Bar Operations Taxation GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION "Time and again, the Court has held that it is a necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere, stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue." The Court has pronounced in Republic of the Philippines v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada " that under the Tax Code although respondent is a cooperative, registration with the CDA is not necessary in order for it to be exempt from the payment of both percentage taxes on insurance premiums, under Section 121; and documentary stamp taxes on policies of insurance or annuities it grants, under Section 199." The CTA observed that the factual circumstances obtaining in Sunlife and the present case are substantially the same. Hence, the CTA based its assailed decision on the doctrine enunciated by the Court in the said case. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD., G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014, J. Reyes For Double taxation to take place, the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. Because Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade or business based on a certain percentage of his gross sales or receipts in the preceding calendar year, while Section 15 and Section 17 likewise imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade or business but only identified such person with particularity, namely, the wholesaler, distributor or dealer (Section 15), and the retailer (Section 17), all the taxes – being imposed on the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the taxpayers contribute to the city’s revenues – were imposed on the same subject matter and for the same purpose. NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B, INC.; SUPPLIES STATION, INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC. vs . ANTHONY ACEVEDO, in his capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF MANILA, G.R. No.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 33 pages?

  • Winter '20
  • Law, Jurisprudence, G.R. No., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, internal revenue, Philippine Association of Law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture