Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Basilan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Reinier Jeffrey Abdon
    Basilan Estates, Inc. filed tax returns for 1953 claiming deductions for depreciation of assets based on their reappraised value rather than acquisition cost. The CIR disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond what was previously determined based on acquisition cost. Basilan Estates appealed, arguing it was entitled to depreciate assets based on their reappraised value. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the tax code, depreciation must be determined based on the asset's acquisition cost, not a reappraised value, as deductions are a privilege defined by law rather than an implied right. Therefore, the CIR properly disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond the acquisition cost.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Basilan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Reinier Jeffrey Abdon
    102 views2 pages
    Basilan Estates, Inc. filed tax returns for 1953 claiming deductions for depreciation of assets based on their reappraised value rather than acquisition cost. The CIR disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond what was previously determined based on acquisition cost. Basilan Estates appealed, arguing it was entitled to depreciate assets based on their reappraised value. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the tax code, depreciation must be determined based on the asset's acquisition cost, not a reappraised value, as deductions are a privilege defined by law rather than an implied right. Therefore, the CIR properly disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond the acquisition cost.

    Original Description:

    basilan v cir

    Original Title

    Basilan v CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Basilan Estates, Inc. filed tax returns for 1953 claiming deductions for depreciation of assets based on their reappraised value rather than acquisition cost. The CIR disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond what was previously determined based on acquisition cost. Basilan Estates appealed, arguing it was entitled to depreciate assets based on their reappraised value. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the tax code, depreciation must be determined based on the asset's acquisition cost, not a reappraised value, as deductions are a privilege defined by law rather than an implied right. Therefore, the CIR properly disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond the acquisition cost.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    102 views2 pages

    Basilan V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Reinier Jeffrey Abdon
    Basilan Estates, Inc. filed tax returns for 1953 claiming deductions for depreciation of assets based on their reappraised value rather than acquisition cost. The CIR disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond what was previously determined based on acquisition cost. Basilan Estates appealed, arguing it was entitled to depreciate assets based on their reappraised value. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the tax code, depreciation must be determined based on the asset's acquisition cost, not a reappraised value, as deductions are a privilege defined by law rather than an implied right. Therefore, the CIR properly disallowed the excess depreciation claimed beyond the acquisition cost.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BASILAN ESTATES, INC. vs.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


    FACTS:
    A Philippine corporation engaged in the coconut industry, Basilan Estates, Inc., with principal
    offices in Basilan City, filed on March 24, 1954 its income tax returns for 1953 and paid an
    income tax of P8,028.
    The CIR, per examiners' report of February 19, 1959, assessed Basilan Estates, Inc., a
    deficiency income tax of P3,912 for 1953 and P86,876.85 as 25% surtax on unreasonably
    accumulated profits as of 1953 pursuant to Section 25 of the Tax Code.

    What happened here was this:


    Basilan Estates, Inc. claimed deductions for the depreciation of its assets up to 1949 on the
    basis of their acquisition cost. As of January 1, 1950 it changed the depreciable value of said
    assets by increasing it to conform with the increase in cost for their replacement.
    From 1950 to 1953 it deducted from gross income the value of depreciation computed on the
    reappraised value.
    In 1953, the year involved in this case, taxpayer claimed the following depreciation deduction:

    CIR found that the reappraised assets depreciated in 1953 were the same ones upon which
    depreciation was claimed in 1952. And for the year 1952, the Commissioner had already
    determined, with taxpayer's concurrence, the depreciation allowable on said assets to be
    P36,842.04, computed on their acquisition cost at rates fixed by the taxpayer. Hence, the
    Commissioner pegged the deductible depreciation for 1953 on the same old assets at
    P36,842.04 and disallowed the excess thereof in the amount of P10,500.49.
    On non-payment of the assessed amount, a warrant of distraint and levy was issued but the
    same was not executed because Basilan Estates, Inc. succeeded in getting the Deputy-CIR to
    order the Director of the district in Zamboanga City to hold execution and maintain constructive
    embargo instead.
    Because of its refusal to waive the period of prescription, Basilans request for reinvestigation
    was not given due course, and on December 2, 1960, notice was served the corporation that
    the warrant of distraint and levy would be executed.
    December 20, 1960: Basilan Estates, Inc. filed before the CTA a petition for review of the
    Commissioner's assessment, alleging the ff:
    1. prescription of the period for assessment and collection
    2. error in disallowing claimed depreciations, travelling and miscellaneous expenses

    3. error in finding the existence of unreasonably accumulated profits and the imposition of 25%
    surtax thereon.
    October 31, 1963, the CTA found that there was no prescription and affirmed the deficiency
    assessment.
    Basilan appealed to the SC.
    ISSUE:
    Relevant to syllabus topic: Depreciation
    W/N depreciation shall be determined on the acquisition cost or on the reappraised value of the
    assets. On the Reappraised Value.
    HELD:
    Depreciation is the gradual diminution in the useful value of tangible property resulting from
    wear and tear and normal obsolescense. The term is also applied to amortization of the value of
    intangible assets, the use of which in the trade or business is definitely limited in duration.
    Depreciation commences with the acquisition of the property and its owner is not bound to see
    his property gradually waste, without making provision out of earnings for its replacement. It is
    entitled to see that from earnings the value of the property invested is kept unimpaired, so that
    at the end of any given term of years, the original investment remains as it was in the beginning.
    It is not only the right of a company to make such a provision, but it is its duty to its bond and
    stockholders, and, in the case of a public service corporation, at least, its plain duty to the
    public.
    Accordingly, the law permits the taxpayer to recover gradually his capital investment in wasting
    assets free from income tax. Precisely, Section 30 (f) (1) allows a deduction from gross income
    for depreciation but limits the recovery to the capital invested in the asset being depreciated.
    The income tax law does not authorize the depreciation of an asset beyond its acquisition
    cost. Hence, a deduction over and above such cost cannot be claimed and allowed. The reason
    is that deductions from gross income are privileges, not matters of right. They are not created by
    implication but upon clear expression in the law.
    Moreover, the recovery, free of income tax, of an amount more than the invested capital in an
    asset will transgress the underlying purpose of a depreciation allowance. For then what the
    taxpayer would recover will be, not only the acquisition cost, but also some profit. Recovery in
    due time thru depreciation of investment made is the philosophy behind depreciation allowance;
    the idea of profit on the investment made has never been the underlying reason for the
    allowance of a deduction for depreciation.
    Accordingly, the claim for depreciation beyond P36,842.04 or in the amount of P10,500.49 has
    no justification in the law. The determination, therefore, of the CIR disallowing said amount,
    affirmed by the CTA, is correct.
    (There were other issues but I only focused on depreciation.)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy