Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners argue that we have previously ruled in Central Luzon Drug Corporation[37] that the 20% discount is an exercise of the power of eminent domain, thus, requiring the payment of just compensation. They urge us to re-examine our ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[38] which allegedly reversed the ruling in Central Luzon Drug Corporation.[39] They also point out that Carlos Superdrug Corporation[40] recognized that the tax deduction scheme under the assailed law does not provide for sufficient just compensation.
	GR No. 170257 2011-09-07	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations, Inc. v. The Executive Secretary,[32] the Court has explained that the purpose of the withholding tax system is three-fold: (1) to provide the taxpayer with a convenient way of paying his tax liability; (2) to ensure the collection of tax, and (3) to improve the government's cashflow. Under the withholding tax system, the payor is the taxpayer upon whom the tax is imposed, while the withholding agent simply acts as an agent or a collector of the government to ensure the collection of taxes.[33]