This is in acco rdance wi th t he ru le t ha t on a specific matter, th e special law shall prevail over th e ge n era l l aw, which shall be reso r ted to only to s uppl y deficiencies in th e former. In a dd ition, where th ere are t wo st atu tes, the ear li er special an d th e later general - the t erms of th e gen era l broad eno u gh to inclu de t he ma tt er pr ovid ed for in t he special- t he fact th at one is special and the ot her is general crea tes a pr es umpti on th at th e special is to be c on s id e red as remai ni ng an except ion to the ge neral, on e as a gen era l l aw of th e lan d, the o th er as th e l aw of a p ar ticul ar case. Considering respondent's failure to prove that the exemption granted to petitioner under P.O. No. 1590 was already repealed by RA No . 9334, the Court shall proceed to determine whether petitioner is entitled to be refunded of the amount claimed on the basis of the exemption granted under its franchise .' (Emphasis supplied)" 23 Bo th th e Petitions for R eview fi l ed by th e CIR and COC cite the case of Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Court of Tax Appeals (" Cagayan Electric case"). 2 4 However, th e Cou rt En Bane agrees to the discu ssion of the Court in Division as to th e no n-a ppli cability of this to t he presen t case, citing t he case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs,2 5 which held as follows: "In t he af oresaid case of Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Re venue the Supreme Co urt, in its n arration of facts of the case s t a t ed ~ 2~ Rollo, CT A EB Case No . 928, pp. 55-63. 2< G. R. No. L-60126, Sep tem ber 25, 1985,198 SCRA 629. 25 CTA Case Nos. 7665 an d 7713, Resolution dated J un e 28, 2012.
DECISION CT A EB CASE NOS. 928 a nd 929 (CT A Case No. 784 3) Page 16 of 18 that RA 5431 amended [S]ection 24 of the Tax Code by n1aking liable for income tax all corporate taxpayers not specifically exempt under paragraph (c)(1) of said section and [S]ection 27 of the Tax Code notwithstanding the 'provisions of existing special or general laws to the contrary.' As regards the effect of RA 5431, the Supreme Court ruled as follows: 'Republic Act No. 5431, in amending section 24 of the Tax Code by subjecting to income tax all corporate taxpayers not expressly exempted therein and in [S]ection 27 of the Code, had the effect of withdrawing petitioner's exemption to income tax.' The foregoing pronouncement would show that the reason of the Supreme Court in considering RA No. 5431 as amending Section 24 of the Tax Code is not merely because of the use by Congress of the proviso 'the provision of any special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding,' but rather, it is for the reason that RA 5431 specifically subjected to income tax all corporate taxpayers not expressly exempted therein and in section 27 of the Code. In other words, there was express repeal in the above-cited case because RA 5431 identified or designated the acts that are intended to be repealed.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 40 pages?
- Fall '16
- Taxation in the United States