Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PINEDA
21 SCRA 105 / GR No. L-22734, September 15, 1967
FACTS: Atanasio Pineda died, survived by his wife, FelicisimaBagtas, and 15 children,
the eldest of whom is Atty. Manuel Pineda. Estate proceedings were commenced in
Court so that the estate was divided among and awarded to the heirs. Atty Pineda's
share amounted to about P2,500.00. After the estate proceedings were closed, the BIR
investigated the income tax liability of the estate for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948
and it found that the corresponding income tax returns were not filed. Thereupon, the
representative of the Collector of Internal Revenue filed said returns for the estate
issued an assessment and charged the full amount to the inheritance due to Atty.
Pineda who argued that he is liable only to extent of his proportional share in the
inheritance.
ISSUE: Can BIR collect the full amount of estate taxes from an heir's inheritance.
HELD: Yes. The Government can require Atty. Pineda to pay the full amount of the
taxes assessed.
The reason is that the Government has a lien on the P2,500.00 received by him from the
estate as his share in the inheritance, for unpaid income taxes for which said estate is
liable. By virtue of such lien, the Government has the right to subject the property in
Pineda's possession to satisfy the income tax assessment. After such payment, Pineda
will have a right of contribution from his co-heirs, to achieve an adjustment of the
proper share of each heir in the distributable estate.
All told, the Government has two ways of collecting the tax in question. One, by going
after all the heirs and collecting from each one of them the amount of the tax
proportionate to the inheritance received; and second, is by subjecting said property of
the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the payment of the tax due.
This second remedy is the very avenue the Government took in this case to collect the
tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue should be given, in instances like the case at bar,
the necessary discretion to avail itself of the most expeditious way to collect the tax as
may be envisioned in the particular provision of the Tax Code above quoted, because
taxes are the lifeblood of government and their prompt and certain availability is an
imperious need.
Held: Sales tax are paid by the manufacturer or producer who must make a true and
complete return of the amount of his, her or its gross monthly sales, receipts or earnings
or gross value of output actually removed from the factory or mill, warehouse and to
pay the tax due thereon. The tax imposed by Section 186 of the Tax Code is a tax on the
manufacturer or producer and not a tax on the purchaser except probably in a very
remote and inconsequential sense. Accordingly, its levy on the sales made to taxexempt entities like the Napocor is permissible. On the other hand, there is nothing in
the language of the Military Bases Agreement to warrant the general exemption granted
by General Circular V-41 (1947). Thus, the expansive construction of the tax exemption
is void; and the sales to the VOA are subject to the payment of percentage taxes under
Section 186 of the Tax Code. Therefore, tax exemption is strictly construed and
exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted
clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention.
Issue: Whether the company can recover the sales tax paid.
Held: The sales tax is by law imposed directly, not on the thing sold, but on the act
(sale) of the manufacturer, producer, or importer, who is exclusively made liable for its
timely payment. Where the tax money paid by the company came from is really no
concern of the Government, but solely a matter between the company and its
customers. Once recovered, the company must hold the refunded taxes in trust for the
individual purchasers who advanced payment thereof, and whose names must appear
in company records. Herein, the company sales between 24 August 1956 (approval of
RA 1612) to 22 June 1957 (when RA 1856 restored the exemption of agricultural
products whether in their original form or not) were properly taxed. Such amount
corresponding to the period are not recoverable.
Issue: Whether Gotamco is likewise from the contractors tax in lieu of WHOs
exemption from indirect taxes.
Held: Direct taxes are those that are demanded from the very person who, it is intended
or desired, should pay them; while indirect taxes are those that are demanded in the
first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the
burden to someone else. Herein, the contractors tax is payable by the contractor but it is
the owner of the building that shoulders the burden of the tax because the same is
shifted by the contractor to the owner as a matter of self-preservation. Such tax is an
indirect tax on the organization, as the payment thereof or its inclusion in the bid
price would have meant an increase in the construction cost of the building. Hence, the
Contractees (WHO) exemption from indirect taxes implies that contractor (Gotamco)
is exempt from contractors tax.
Held: Internal revenue taxes, such as forest charges, cannot be the subject of set-off or
compensation. A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is
allowed to be set-off under the statutes of setoff, which are construed uniformly, in the
light of public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of the
State or municipality to one who is liable to the State or municipality for taxes. Neither
are they subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or transaction
sued on. Taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the parties but grow out of a
duty to, and are the positive acts of the government, to the making and enforcing of
which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required.
HELD: The court having jurisdiction of the Estate had found that the claim of the Estate
against the Government has been recognized and an amount of P262,200 has already
been appropriated by a corresponding law (RA 2700). Under the circumstances, both
the claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for
services rendered have already become overdue and demandable as well as fully
liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance
with Article 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the
concurrent amount.
Issue: Whether the expropriation payment may compensate for the real estate taxes due.
Held: There can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have
against the government. A person canot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the
government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The
collection of a tax annot await the results of a lawsuit against the government. Internal
revenue taxes cannot be the subject of compensation. The Government and the taxpayer
are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other under Article 1278 of the Civil
Code and a claim of taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is
allowed to be set-off.
GASCON V. ARROYO
G.R. No. 78389 October 16, 1989
FACTS:
The Lopez family owned 2 television stations. When martial law was
declared, the stations were seized by the military. Thereafter the facilities were taken
over by Kanlaon Broadcasting System and operated it as commercial TV stations. In
1978, the facilities were taken over by the . the National Media Production Center and
operated as the Maharlika Broadcasting System TV 4 After the Marcos regime was
toppled, the Presidential Committee on Good Governance (PCGG) sequestered / seized
the stations. April 1986, Mr Lopez requested the return of the stations. An agreement to
arbitrate was entered into regarding this matter. Thereupon, petitioners as taxpayers
sought to set aside the agreement to arbitrate. On. April 17, 1986, the Lopez family
requested Pres. Aquino to order to return to them Chs. 2 and 4. On October 18 1986, Ch
2 was returned to the Lopez family. Upon the Lopez family's request, the respondent
Executive Secretary, by the authority of the President, entered into with ABS-CBN,
represented by its Pres. Eugenio Lopez, Jr., an "Agreement to Arbitrate" Arbitration
Committee was created composed of Atty. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., for RP and Atty.
Pastor del Rosario for ABS-CBN, and retired Justice Vicente Abad Santos as Chairman
ISSUE: Whether petitioners as taxpayers have legal standing to sue
HELD: No. Petitioners have not shown that they have a legal interest in the TV
stations and that they would be adversely affected if and when the station is returned to
the Lopez family. The present case is not an action to question the constitutionality or
validity of a law.
payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for
service.