2/4/22, 6:42 PM G.R. No.

L-28896

Today is Friday, February 04, 2022 Constitution Statutes Executive

Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,

CRUZ, J.:
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with
law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the
taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00
deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary
issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was
made on time and in accordance with law.

We deal first with the procedural question.

The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering,
construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of
P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of
protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2
On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty.
Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest. 3 A search of the protest in the
dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon
Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the BIR was not
taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought to
be served.5 Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the decision of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals.6

The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may
be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged. 7It is true that as a rule the warrant of
distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders hopeless a request for reconsideration," 9
being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request deemed rejected." 10 But there is a special
circumstance in the case at bar that prevents application of this accepted doctrine.

The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its
letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed,
such protest could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of
the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was
premature and could therefore not be served.

As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11the protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and was
based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the
reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The period started
running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the
said protest and the warrant was finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days
of the reglementary period had been consumed.

Now for the substantive question.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l_28896_1988.html 1/4
2/4/22, 6:42 PM G.R. No. L-28896
The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an
ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with
Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered.
The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of
the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the
Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company.

Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees to be personal
holding company income 12 but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court rejecting this assertion. 13 In fact,
as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the persons among whom it was distributed
It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its
agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto
Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the
Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it. 14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely
through the promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. 15 For this sale, Algue
received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the P75,000.00 promotional fees
were paid to the aforenamed individuals.16

There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income tax returns and
paid the corresponding taxes thereon.17 The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after examining the evidence, that no
distribution of dividends was involved.18

The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in
control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in
cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an
attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction.

We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and
the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in
different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where
strict business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end
of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or
her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was
understandable, however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.

We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission
paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent was P125,000.00. 21 After deducting the
said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was
60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically
everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar
Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code:

SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions
—

(a) Expenses:

(1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for
personal services actually rendered; ... 22

and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows:

SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or
other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of
compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This
test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in
fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be further stated and
illustrated as follows:

Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of services, is not
deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock.
This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw
salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the
excessive payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers of
employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but the
excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30
O.G. No. 18, 325.)

It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor were they its
controlling stockholders. 23

The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the claimed
deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private
respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by
the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve
themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently
recompensed.

It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack
of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard
earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the
government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended
to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the
rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the
seat of power.

But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes
that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a
right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may
still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.

We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the
respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private
respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the
petitioner.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 28-29. 2 Ibid., pp. 29; 42. 3 Id., p. 29. 4 Respondent's Brief, p. 11. 5 Id., p. 29.

6 Id, 7 Sec. 11. 8 Phil. Planters Investment Co. Inc. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 1266, Nov.
11, 1962; Rollo, p. 30. 9 Vicente Hilado v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 1266, Oct. 22,1962;
Rollo, p. 30. 10 Ibid. 11 Penned by Associate Judge Estanislao R. Alvarez, concurred by Presiding Judge
Ramon M. Umali and Associate Judge Ramon L. Avanceña. 12 Rollo, p. 33. 13 Ibid., pp. 7-8; Petition, pp. 2-3.
11 Id., p. 37. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Respondents Brief, pp. 25-32. 20 Ibid., pp. 30-32. 21 Rollo, p. 37. 22
Now Sec. 30, (a)(1)-(A.), National Internal Revenue Code.

23 Respondent's Brief, p. 35.