Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,[26] the Court has discussed the nature of indirect taxes in the following manner:[I]ndirect taxes are those that are demanded, in the first instance, from, or are paid by, one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. Stated elsewise, indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer, he, in effect, shifts the tax burden, not the liability to pay it, to the purchaser, as part of the price of goods sold or services rendered.[27]
	GR No. 188497 2012-04-25	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An excise tax is basically an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are those that are demanded, in the first instance, from, or are paid by, one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. Stated elsewise, indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. When the seller passes on the tax to his buyer, he, in effect, shifts the tax burden, not the liability to pay it, to the purchaser as part of the price of goods sold or services rendered.[25]
	GR No. 184398 2010-02-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We do not agree. The distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax is relevant to this issue. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,[20] this Court explained: Based on the possibility of shifting the incidence of taxation, or as to who shall bear the burden of taxation, taxes may be classified into either direct tax or indirect tax.
	GR Nos. 171383 & 172379 2008-11-14	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR CARPIO, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Company,[47] the Court explained the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax:Based on the possibility of shifting the incidence of taxation, or as to who shall bear the burden of taxation, taxes may be classified into either direct tax or indirect tax.
	GR No. 173594 2008-02-06	SILKAIR PTE v. CIR CARPIO MORALES, J.
Silkairs's argument does not persuade. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,[41] this Court clarified the ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., viz:It may be so that in Maceda vs. Macaraig, Jr., the Court held that an exemption from "all taxes" granted to the National Power Corporation (NPC) under its charter includes both direct and indirect taxes. But far from providing PLDT comfort, Maceda in fact supports the case of herein petitioner, the correct lesson of Maceda being that an exemption from "all taxes" excludes indirect taxes, unless the exempting statute, like NPC's charter, is so couched as to include indirect tax from the exemption. Wrote the Court:
	GR NO. 168557 2007-02-16	FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.[55] The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.[56] Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity.