Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 198756 2015-01-13	BANCO DE ORO v. REPUBLIC LEONEN, J.
"The definition of gross income is broad enough to include all passive incomes subject to specific tax rates or final taxes."[197] Hence, interest income from deposit substitutes are necessarily part of taxable income. "However, since these passive incomes are already subject to different rates and taxed finally at source, they are no longer included in the computation of gross income, which determines taxable income."[198] "Stated otherwise . . . if there were no withholding tax system in place in this country, this 20 percent portion of the 'passive' income of [creditors/lenders] would actually be paid to the [creditors/lenders] and then remitted by them to the government in payment of their income tax."[199]
	GR No. 179800 2010-02-04	REPUBLIC v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES PERALTA, J.
It is worthy to note that the sole issue raised by petitioner in this case has already been settled in a similar case entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines,[17] penned by then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. This was the same case upon which the CTA En Banc Decision was based.
	GR No. 180043 2009-07-14	CIR v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner filed an appeal with the CTA en banc, docketed as CTA EB No. 221. The latter promulgated its Decision[13] on 9 August 2007 denying petitioner's appeal. The CTA En Banc found that Presidential Decree No. 1590 does not provide that only the actual payment of basic corporate income tax or franchise tax by respondent would entitle it to the tax exemption provided under Section 13 of the latter's franchise. Like the CTA First Division, the CTA en banc ruled that by providing for net loss carry-over, Presidential Decree No. 1590 recognized the possibility that respondent would end up with a net loss in the computation of its taxable income, which would mean zero liability for basic corporate income tax. The CTA En Banc further cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.[14] (PAL case) to support its conclusions. In the said case, this Court declared that despite the fact that respondent did not pay any basic corporate income tax, given its net loss position for the taxable years concerned, it was still exempted from paying all other taxes, including final withholding tax on interest income, pursuant to Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590. Lastly, the CTA en banc sustained the finding of the CTA First Division that respondent was only able to establish its claim for OCT refund in the amount of P126,243.80.
	GR No. 180066 2009-07-07	CIR v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
First, Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 refers to "basic corporate income tax." In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[17] the Court already settled that the "basic corporate income tax," under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, relates to the general rate of 35% (reduced to 32% by the year 2000) as stipulated in Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997.
	GR No. 168852 2008-09-30	SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPS. PERFECTO C. TAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law[24] and that this intent must be effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.
	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a legislative enactment. In construing statutes the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the legislature.[57]