Philippine Law Library

www.BATASnatin.com
Search

Law Library
Law Firm
Legal Forum
Law MCQuizzer
Notes Vault
The Bar
Legal Forms
Free Legal Advice
Jurisprudence

COLLECTOR VS. HENDERSON- Rental and Travel Allowance are not Part of
Taxable Income
Details
Category: Income Taxation

Las Vegas Tax Debt Relief

attorneysfortaxrelief.com/LasVegas

Solve Your IRS Problems Today! Don't Wait, Get Your Free Consult.
Like

Tweet 0

Share

Share

Rental allowances and travel allowances by a company are not part of taxable income.

FACTS:
Sps. Arthur Henderson and Marie Henderson filed their annual income tax with the BIR. Arthur is president of American International Underwriters for the
Philippines, Inc., which is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of general non-life insurance, and represents a group of American insurance
companies engaged in the business of general non-life insurance.
The BIR demanded payment for alleged deficiency taxes. In their computation, the BIR included as part of taxable income: 1) Arthurs allowances for
rental, residential expenses, subsistence, water, electricity and telephone expenses 2) entrance fee to the Marikina Gun and Country Club which was paid
by his employer for his account and 3) travelling allowance of his wife
The taxpayers justifications are as follows:
1) as to allowances for rental and utilities, Arthur did not receive money for the allowances. Instead, the apartment is furnished and paid for by his employercorporation (the mother company of American International), for the employer corporations purposes. The spouses had no choice but to live in the expensive
apartment, since the company used it to entertain guests, to accommodate officials, and to entertain customers. According to taxpayers, only P 4,800 per
year is the reasonable amount that the spouses would be spending on rental if they were not required to live in those apartments. Thus, it is the amount
they deem is subject to tax. The excess is to be treated as expense of the company.
2) The entrance fee should not be considered income since it is an expense of his employer, and membership therein is merely incidental to his duties of
increasing and sustaining the business of his employer.
3) His wife merely accompanied him to New York on a business trip as his secretary, and at the employer-corporations request, for the wife to look at
details of the plans of a building that his employer intended to construct. Such must not be considered taxable income.

The Collector of Internal Revenue merely allowed the entrance fee as nontaxable. The rent expense and travel expenses were still held to be taxable. The
Court of Tax Appeals ruled in favor of the taxpayers, that such expenses must not be considered part of taxable income. Letters of the wife while in New
York concerning the proposed building were presented as evidence.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

ISSUE: Whether or not the rental allowances and travel allowances furnished and given by the
employer-corporation are part of taxable income?
HELD: NO. Such claims are substantially supported by evidence.
These claims are therefore NOT part of taxable income. No part of the allowances in question redounded to their personal benefit, nor were such amounts
retained by them. These bills were paid directly by the employer-corporation to the creditors. The rental expenses and subsistence allowances are to be
considered not subject to income tax. Arthurs high executive position and social standing, demanded and compelled the couple to live in a more spacious
and expensive quarters. Such subsistence allowance was a SEPARATE account from the account for salaries and wages of employees. The company did
not charge rentals as deductible from the salaries of the employees. These expenses are COMPANY EXPENSES, not income by employees which are
subject to tax.

COLLECTOR V. HENDERSON- Rental and Travel Allowance are not Part

of Taxable Income

VA Debt Collection
Lawyer
fairfaxbusinesslawyer.com

We Help Clients Recoop Funds

Quickly, Legally, & Efficiently

< Prev

Next >

Latest
HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. et. al. v. SERVACIO and GO G.R. No. 157537, September 7, 2011
QUIAO v. QUIAO G.R. No 176556, July 04, 2012- Forfeiture of the Share (Properties) of the Guilty Spouse in Legal Separation Cases
FLORES v. LINDO G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011
SPOUSES AGGABAO v. PARULAN, JR. AND PARULAN G.R. No. 165803, September 1, 2010
AGUETE v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK G.R. No. 170166, April 6, 2011
DELA PENA v. AVILA G.R. No. 187490, February 08, 2012
Fuentes vs. Roca G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010
Inheritance is Paraphernal Property - Munoz v. Ramirez G.R. No. 156125, August 25, 2010
Earnest Efforts, Well Grounded Belief in Declaration of Presumptive Death
TEVES v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011

Login Form
Username
Password
Remember Me
Log in
Create an account
Forgot your username?
Forgot your password?

Political and International Law

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Labor and Social Legislation

Civil Law
Taxation Law
Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Remedial Law
Legal Ethics
Terms
Privacy
2014 Philippine Laws Library | BATASnatin - Filipino's Comprehensive Online Law Resource and Community

Back to Top

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com