A+ A A-

CIR vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. - Minimum Corporate Income Tax

FACTS:


PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. had zero taxable income for 2000 but would have been liable for Minimum Corporate Income Tax based on its gross income. However, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. did not pay the Minimum Corporate Income Tax using as basis its franchise which exempts it from “all other taxes” upon payment of whichever is lower of either (a) the basic corporate income tax based on the net taxable income or (b) a franchise tax of 2%.

ISSUE:

Is PAL liable for Minimum Corporate Income Tax?



HELD:

NO. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.’s franchise clearly refers to "basic corporate income tax" which refers to the general rate of 35% (now 30%). In addition, there is an apparent distinction under the Tax Code between taxable income, which is the basis for basic corporate income tax under Sec. 27 (A) and gross income, which is the basis for the Minimum Corporate Income Tax under Section 27 (E). The two terms have their respective technical meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. Not being covered by the Charter which makes PAL liable only for basic corporate income tax, then Minimum Corporate Income Tax is included in "all other taxes" from which PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. is exempted.

 

The CIR also can not point to the “Substitution Theory” which states that Respondent may not invoke the “in lieu of all other taxes” provision if it did not pay anything at all as basic corporate income tax or franchise tax. The Court ruled that it is not the fact tax payment that exempts Respondent but the exercise of its option. The Court even pointed out the fallacy of the argument in that a measly sum of one peso would suffice to exempt PAL from other taxes while a zero liability would not and said that there is really no substantial distinction between a zero tax and a one-peso tax liability. Lastly, the Revenue Memorandum Circular stating the applicability of the MCIT to PAL does more than just clarify a previous regulation and goes beyond mere internal administration and thus cannot be given effect without previous notice or publication to those who will be affected thereby.

 

Minimum Corporate Income Tax


CIR vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. - Minimum Corporate Income Tax

FACTS:


PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. had zero taxable income for 2000 but would have been liable for Minimum Corporate Income Tax based on its gross income. However, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. did not pay the Minimum Corporate Income Tax using as basis its franchise which exempts it from “all other taxes” upon payment of whichever is lower of either (a) the basic corporate income tax based on the net taxable income or (b) a franchise tax of 2%.

ISSUE:

Is PAL liable for Minimum Corporate Income Tax?



HELD:

NO. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.’s franchise clearly refers to "basic corporate income tax" which refers to the general rate of 35% (now 30%). In addition, there is an apparent distinction under the Tax Code between taxable income, which is the basis for basic corporate income tax under Sec. 27 (A) and gross income, which is the basis for the Minimum Corporate Income Tax under Section 27 (E). The two terms have their respective technical meanings and cannot be used interchangeably. Not being covered by the Charter which makes PAL liable only for basic corporate income tax, then Minimum Corporate Income Tax is included in "all other taxes" from which PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. is exempted.

 

The CIR also can not point to the “Substitution Theory” which states that Respondent may not invoke the “in lieu of all other taxes” provision if it did not pay anything at all as basic corporate income tax or franchise tax. The Court ruled that it is not the fact tax payment that exempts Respondent but the exercise of its option. The Court even pointed out the fallacy of the argument in that a measly sum of one peso would suffice to exempt PAL from other taxes while a zero liability would not and said that there is really no substantial distinction between a zero tax and a one-peso tax liability. Lastly, the Revenue Memorandum Circular stating the applicability of the MCIT to PAL does more than just clarify a previous regulation and goes beyond mere internal administration and thus cannot be given effect without previous notice or publication to those who will be affected thereby.

 

Minimum Corporate Income Tax


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Dole Philippines, I…

Is Art. 1155 of the Civil Code providing that the prescription of actions is interrupted by the making of an extrajudicial written demand by the creditor applicable also to actions brought under the COGSA?   No, written claims does not toll the run...

Read more

Liability of genera…

Liability of general indorser - Negotiable InstrumentsSec. 66. Liability of general indorser. - Every indorser who indorses without  qualification,  warrants  to  all  subsequent  holders  in  due course: (holders in good faith)        (a) The matter...

Read more

DE LUNA VS. JUDGE A…

FACTS:De Luna donated a portion of a 75 sq. m. lot to the Luzonian University Foundation. The donation was embodied in a Deed of Donation Intervivos and was subject to certain terms and conditions. In case of violation or non-compliance, the property...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook