Supreme Court decision · Taxation Law
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Jose Cojuangco
G.R. No. L-13255 · Promulgated September 29, 1960 · Ponente: Reyes
In brief
This case is about the liability for deficiency sales taxes assessed against Jose Cojuangco in connection with the purchase and sale of surplus goods from the Surplus Property Commission.
Sales Tax, Deficiency Tax, Surplus Property Commission, Tax Liability, Taxpayer
Related cases
- G.R. No. L-12781 Philippine Racing Club, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue (Previous decision in Taxation Law)
- G.R. No. L-14930 Marli Plywood and Veneer Corp. v. Jose Arañas (Next decision in Taxation Law)
Full text
|
|||||||||||
Total sales subject to 7% | |||||||||||
| Sales from Sept. 23, 1950 to March, 1952 (with invoices) | P75,033.33 | ||||||||||
| Sales with deed of sales, Feb., 1951 to June 1952 ..... | P300,000.00 | ||||||||||
| Total ....................................................................................... | P375,033.33 | ||||||||||
| 7% on P375,033.33 ............................................................ | P26,252.33 | ||||||||||
| Total taxes due .................................................................... | P34,285.10 | ||||||||||
| Less: Compensating Tax paid under O.R. No. A-690575, dated May 28, 1948 ........................ | P4,500.00 | ||||||||||
| Tax still due .......................................................................... | 29,785.102 | ||||||||||
| 25% ....................................................................................... | 7,446.23 | ||||||||||
| Compromise penalty for violation of the Bookkeeping Regulations ........................................................................ | 300.00 | ||||||||||
| Total tax liability still due ................................................... | P37,531.33 | ||||||||||
As a consequence, Cojuangco filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition, which was later amended, praying that the Collector be ordered to cancel said assessment. To this petition, petitioner herein (respondent in the Tax Court) filed his answer on July 2, 1955. Based on the facts already stated, the lower court rendered judgment, dated October 30, 1957, reversing the Collector's stand, on theory that only Villa-Abrille could be held liable for the deficiency percentage taxes.
Not agreeable with the decision, the Collector of Internal Revenue brought this petition for review.1awphîl.nèt
The legal issues in the case may be boiled down to the following: (1) Whether or not liability for the percentage (sales) taxes under Section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code arose on account of the sale made to Villa-Abrille of the surplus goods in question by the Surplus Property Commission, and (2) whether or not respondent Jose Cojuangco could be held liable by the Collector for the payment of said taxes, should the same be held assessable.
Anent the first issue, we have already held in Co Cheng Tee vs. Meer, 87 Phil., 18; 47 Off. Gaz. (Supp. No. 12) 269 1 , that a purchaser of certain commodities from the Surplus Property Commission and the Foreign Liquidation Office is an importer within the purview of the Tax Code.
As such importer, the purchaser may be held liable either for compensating taxes or percentage (sales) taxes under Section 183 (B) of the Revised Internal Revenue Code in connection with Section 186 of the same code, depending on whether the things bought were acquired exclusively for personal use or for mercantile or commercial purposes. In the first case, the importer is liable for compensating taxes, and in the second, he is liable for percentage or sales tax. In this instance, the tax liability is for percentage taxes, considering that the acquisition of the surplus goods in question was for commercial purposes or resale. This fact is not seriously disputed by the parties in this appeal.
The resolution of the second issue hinges principally on the question of who should be considered as the importer, and thus be held accountable for the percentage taxes. The Collector urges that the importation of the surplus goods was made for and in behalf of the association between Jose Cojuangco and Villa-Abrille, so that anyone of the members thereof may be held liable for the tax, while Cojuangco maintains that it was Villa-Abrille solely who caused the same. The respondent's position was sustained by the Court of Tax Appeals.
We find no reversible error in the decision appealed from. There is no provision in the agreement between Cojuangco and Villa- Abrille (which is the sole reliance of the collector) that indicates any joint interest in the acquisition of the goods from the Surplus Property Commission. It is not denied that the bid of Villa-Abrille was accepted (and the contract of sale in his favor thereby perfected) on April 22, 1948, more than one month before the contract with Cojuangco, and that in SPC Invoice No. 1770 wherein the conditions of the sale appear, only Villa-Abrille's name mentioned. Coincidentally, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the agreement with Cojuangco stipulate that "the First Part (Villa- Abrille) . undertakes to pay the Surplus Property Commission, Manila, the total sum of P94,500.00 in full payment of the surplus properties", and that "the First Part undertakes to repair and recondition . all the surplus properties . and to sell them for profit at the best prevailing market price". Note that the express stipulation is that Villa-Abrille is to repair and sell the same, clearly implying that Cojuangco acquired no title to or direct interest in the goods themselves, and only Villa-Abrille was intended to deal with third persons in connection with the acquisition and disposition of said goods. The business was only Villa-Abrille's; and Cojuangco undertook no obligation in connection therewith.
These facts support the conclusion of the Tax Court that, at the most, Cojuangco was a mere contributor to a joint enterprise with Villa-Abrille, and that the business remained exclusively the latter's, so that only Villa-Abrille became in law the buyer, importer, and seller of the goods, and the one liable for sales taxes thereon (V. Aldecoa and Co. vs. Warner Barnes and Co., 30 Phil., 153).
The Collector calls attention to the agreement's provisions that "in case of conflict the decision of the Second Part (Cojuangco) shall prevail" (paragraph 9); that he was to be furnished an inventory of the of the goods acquired, and was to be consulted "regarding the sales price" (p. 11); that the proceeds of the sale were to be deposited in a joint "and/or" bank account, and to be withdrawn by checks under joint signature (p.12). These conditions, when considered with paragraphs 3 and 4, heretofore quoted, appear to be mere measures designed to protect the investment of Cojuangco and secure proper payment of his fifty per cent of the net profit; but they do not establish that he had any joint interest in the surplus properties themselves, nor in the purchase, reconditioning or sale thereof.
The Collector warns that agreements of this sort could be used to defraud the government of taxes due it. No such fraud is shown in this case, and the desire to forestall future deceit does not justify the imposition of a tax on the wrong person. There is no showing that the taxes sought to be recovered can not be collected from Villa-Abrille. On the other hand, whether Cojuangco's right to half of the net profit involves prior deduction of all taxes as part of the costs of operation is not in issue at present and need not be decided.
We agree with the Tax Court that respondent Jose Cojuangco is not personally liable for the sales taxes now sought to be recovered, and, therefore, affirm the decision under appeal. No costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1See also Saura vs. Meer, 88 Phil., 199 and A. Soriano y Cia, vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue, 97 Phil., 505; 51 Off. Gaz. (9) 4548.