This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Again, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[18] this Court ruled that "the legislative intent to apply the term in its ordinary meaning may also be surmised from a historical perspective of the levy on gross receipts. From the time the gross receipts tax on banks was first imposed in 1946 under R.A. No. 39 and throughout its successive reenactments, the legislature has not established a definition of the term 'gross receipts.' Absent a statutory definition of the term, the BIR had consistently applied it in its ordinary meaning, i.e., without deduction. On the presumption that the legislature is familiar with the contemporaneous interpretation of a statute given by the administrative agency tasked to enforce the statute, subsequent legislative reenactments of the subject levy sans a definition of the term 'gross receipts' reflect that the BIR's application of the term carries out the legislative purpose."[19] | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The concept of a withholding tax on income obviously and necessarily implies that the amount of the tax withheld comes from the income earned by the taxpayer. Since the amount of the tax withheld constitutes income earned by the taxpayer, then that amount manifestly forms part of the taxpayer's gross receipts. Because the amount withheld belongs to the taxpayer, he can transfer its ownership to the government in payment of his tax liability. The amount withheld indubitably comes from income of the taxpayer, and thus forms part of his gross receipts. (Emphasis supplied) Further elaboration was made by the Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[18] in this wise:Receipt of income may be actual or constructive. We have held that the withholding process results in the taxpayer's constructive receipt of the income withheld, to wit: | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether the 20% FWT on a bank's interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts for the purpose of computing the 5% GRT is no longer novel. This has been previously resolved by this Court in a catena of cases, such as China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[15] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation,[16] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of Commerce,[17] and the latest, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands.[18] | |||||