100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 33 pages.
Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 – March 2016)A compilation continued by the Philippine Association of LawSchools (PALS) & Ateneo de Davao for the 2016 Bar OperationsTaxationGENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION"Time and again, the Court has held that it is a necessary judicial practice that when a court has laiddown a principle of law as applicable to a certain facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it toall 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 sakeof certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts aresubstantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principleof justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decidedalike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by theparties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the ruleof stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue." The Court has pronounced inRepublic of the Philippines v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada " that under the Tax Codealthough respondent is a cooperative, registration with the CDA is not necessary in order for it to beexempt from the payment of both percentage taxes on insurance premiums, under Section 121; anddocumentary stamp taxes on policies of insurance or annuities it grants, under Section 199." TheCTA observed that the factual circumstances obtaining in Sunlife and the present case aresubstantially the same. Hence, the CTA based its assailed decision on the doctrine enunciated by theCourt in the said case. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. THE INSULAR LIFEASSURANCE CO. LTD., G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014, J. ReyesFor Double taxation to take place, the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for thesame purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxingperiod; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. Because Section 21 of the RevenueCode of Manila imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade orbusiness 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 servicesin the course of trade or business but only identified such person with particularity, namely, thewholesaler, distributor or dealer (Section 15), and the retailer (Section 17), all the taxes – beingimposed on the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the taxpayerscontribute to the city’s revenues – were imposed on the same subject matter and for the samepurpose.NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.;H&B, INC.; SUPPLIES STATION, INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC.vs. ANTHONYACEVEDO, in his capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF MANILA, G.R. No.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 33 pages?
Jurisprudence, G.R. No., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, internal revenue, Philippine Association of Law