Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 232 views

    Lincoln Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    NeNe Dela LLana
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that stock dividends involving shares with par value are subject to documentary stamp tax based on book value rather than par value. The Court found that under Section 224 of the tax code, the documentary stamp tax is levied on the certificates of stock, not the shares themselves. Further, stock dividends are not a distinct class of shares and instead are simply shares of stock represented by certificates. Therefore, if the certificates for stock dividends indicate a par value, there is no reason to use actual value rather than par value to determine the documentary stamp tax amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lincoln Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    NeNe Dela LLana
    232 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that stock dividends involving shares with par value are subject to documentary stamp tax based on book value rather than par value. The Court found that under Section 224 of the tax code, the documentary stamp tax is levied on the certificates of stock, not the shares themselves. Further, stock dividends are not a distinct class of shares and instead are simply shares of stock represented by certificates. Therefore, if the certificates for stock dividends indicate a par value, there is no reason to use actual value rather than par value to determine the documentary stamp tax amount.

    Original Description:

    corp

    Original Title

    Lincoln vs CA Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that stock dividends involving shares with par value are subject to documentary stamp tax based on book value rather than par value. The Court found that under Section 224 of the tax code, the documentary stamp tax is levied on the certificates of stock, not the shares themselves. Further, stock dividends are not a distinct class of shares and instead are simply shares of stock represented by certificates. Therefore, if the certificates for stock dividends indicate a par value, there is no reason to use actual value rather than par value to determine the documentary stamp tax amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    232 views2 pages

    Lincoln Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    NeNe Dela LLana
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that stock dividends involving shares with par value are subject to documentary stamp tax based on book value rather than par value. The Court found that under Section 224 of the tax code, the documentary stamp tax is levied on the certificates of stock, not the shares themselves. Further, stock dividends are not a distinct class of shares and instead are simply shares of stock represented by certificates. Therefore, if the certificates for stock dividends indicate a par value, there is no reason to use actual value rather than par value to determine the documentary stamp tax amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LINCOLN PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

    (now JARDINE-CMG LIFE


    INSURANCE CO. INC.), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
    [G.R. No. 118043. July 23, 1998]
    Facts:
    Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the life insurance business. In 1984, it
    issued 50,000 shares of stock as stock dividends, with a par value of P100 or a total of P5
    million. Petitioner paid documentary stamp taxes on each certificate on the basis of its par
    value. The question in this case is whether in determining the amount to be paid as
    documentary stamp tax, it is the par value of the certificates of stock or the book value of
    the shares which should be considered. The pertinent provision of law is Sec. 224 of the
    NIRC.
    The Commissioner of Internal Revenue took the view that the book value of the shares,
    amounting to P19,307,500.00, should be used as basis for determining the amount of the
    documentary stamp tax. Accordingly, respondent Internal Revenue Commissioner issued a
    deficiency documentary stamp tax assessment in the amount of P78,991.25 in excess of the
    par value of the stock dividends.
    Together with another documentary stamp tax assessment which it also questioned,
    petitioner appealed the Commissioners ruling to the Court of Tax Appeals. On March 30,
    1993, the CTA rendered its decision holding that the amount of the documentary stamp tax
    should be based on the par value stated on each certificate of stock.
    In turn, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed to the Court of Appeals
    which, on November 18, 1994, reversed the CTAs decision and held that, in assessing the
    tax in question, the basis should be the actual value represented by the subject shares on
    the assumption that stock dividends, being a distinct class of shares, are not subject to the
    qualification in the law as to the type of certificate of stock used (with or without par value).
    The appellate court reversed the appealed decision with respect to the deficiency tax
    assessment on the stock dividends, but affirmed with regards to the assessment on the
    Insurance Policies. Hence, this petition.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the CA erred in holding that stock dividends involving shares with par
    value are subject to documentary stamp tax based on the book value of said shares
    which ruling is contrary to what is clearly provided by Sec. 224 (now Sec.175) of the Tax
    Code?
    Held:
    The petition has merit.
    The Court of Appeals apparently treats stock dividends as distinct from ordinary shares of
    stock for purposes of the then 224 of the National Internal Revenue Code. There is,
    however, no basis for considering stock dividends as a distinct class from ordinary shares of
    stock since under this provision only certificates of stock are required to be distinguished
    (into either one with par value or one without) rather than the classes of shares themselves.
    Indeed, a reading of the then 224 of the NIRC as quoted earlier, starting from its heading,
    will show that the documentary stamp tax is not levied upon the shares of stock per se but
    rather on the privilege of issuing certificates of stock.
    Moreover, a stock certificate is merely evidence of a share of stock and not the share itself.

    This distinction is clear in the Corporation Code under Sec. 63 on Certificate of stock and
    transfer of shares.
    From the foregoing, it is clear that stock dividends are shares of stock and not certificates of
    stock which merely represent them. There is, therefore, no reason for determining the actual
    value of such dividends for purposes of the documentary stamp tax if the certificates
    representing them indicate a par value.

    You might also like