This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,[5] the Court declared Sections 2(i) and 4 of RR No. 02-94 as erroneous because these contravene RA 7432,[6] thus:RA 7432 specifically allows private establishments to claim as tax credit the amount of discounts they grant. In turn, the Implementing Rules and Regulations, issued pursuant thereto, provide the procedures for its availment. To deny such credit, despite the plain mandate of the law and the regulations carrying out that mandate, is indefensible. | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| For abandonment to exist, the following requisites must concur: (1) a clear intent to abandon; and (2) an external act showing such intent.[37] The term is defined as the "willful failure of the ARB, together with his farm household, to cultivate, till, or develop his land to produce any crop, or to use the land for any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years."[38] It entails, among others, the relinquishment of possession of the lot for at least two (2) calendar years and the failure to pay the amortization for the same period.[39] "What is critical in abandonment is intent which must be shown to be deliberate and clear."[40] The intent must be established by the factual failure to work on the landholding absent any valid reason[41] as well as a clear intent, which is shown as a separate element. | |||||