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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    TAN Vs DEL ROSARIO

    Uploaded by

    Kath Leen
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) law and its implementing rules. Petitioners argue SNIT violates the single subject rule for bills, the uniformity clause on taxation, and the due process clause. The Court held that SNIT is constitutional and does not violate due process or equal protection. Uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment for similarly situated taxpayers. The Court found the classifications in SNIT were not arbitrary and were germane to the legislative purpose.

    Copyright:

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

    TAN Vs DEL ROSARIO

    Uploaded by

    Kath Leen
    1K views3 pages
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) law and its implementing rules. Petitioners argue SNIT violates the single subject rule for bills, the uniformity clause on taxation, and the due process clause. The Court held that SNIT is constitutional and does not violate due process or equal protection. Uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment for similarly situated taxpayers. The Court found the classifications in SNIT were not arbitrary and were germane to the legislative purpose.

    Original Title

    TAN vs DEL ROSARIO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) law and its implementing rules. Petitioners argue SNIT violates the single subject rule for bills, the uniformity clause on taxation, and the due process clause. The Court held that SNIT is constitutional and does not violate due process or equal protection. Uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment for similarly situated taxpayers. The Court found the classifications in SNIT were not arbitrary and were germane to the legislative purpose.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views3 pages

    TAN Vs DEL ROSARIO

    Uploaded by

    Kath Leen
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) law and its implementing rules. Petitioners argue SNIT violates the single subject rule for bills, the uniformity clause on taxation, and the due process clause. The Court held that SNIT is constitutional and does not violate due process or equal protection. Uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment for similarly situated taxpayers. The Court found the classifications in SNIT were not arbitrary and were germane to the legislative purpose.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    TAN vs DEL ROSARIO

    237 SCRA 324

    OCTOBER 3, 1994

    FACTS:

    The two consolidated cases assail the validity of RA 7496 or the Simplified Net

    Income Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), which amended certain provisions of the NIRC, as

    well as the Rules and Regulations promulgated by public respondents pursuant to said

    law.

    Petitioners posit that RA 7496 is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates the

    following provisions of the Constitution:

    Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall

    embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
    Article VI, Section 28(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and

    equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.


    Article III, Section 1 No person shall be deprived of . . . property without

    due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of

    the laws.

    Petitioners contended that public respondents exceeded their rule-making

    authority in applying SNIT to general professional partnerships. Petitioner contends that

    the title of HB 34314, progenitor of RA 7496, is deficient for being merely entitled,

    "Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed and Professionals

    Engaged in the Practice of their Profession" when the full text of the title actually reads,
    'An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed

    and Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21

    and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code,' as amended. Petitioners also contend it

    violated due process.

    The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by public respondents. The

    Court has given due course to both petitions.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the tax law is unconstitutional for violation of due process and

    equal protection clause?

    HELD:

    The tax law is not unconstitutional. The due process clause may correctly be

    invoked only when there is a clear contravention of inherent or constitutional limitations

    in the exercise of the tax power. No such transgression is so evident in herein case.

    Uniformity of taxation, like the concept of equal protection, merely requires that

    all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in

    privileges and liabilities. Uniformity does not violate classification as long as: (1) the

    standards that are used therefor are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the categorization

    is germane to achieve the legislative purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal,
    to both present and future conditions, and (4) the classification applies equally well to all

    those belonging to the same class.

    What is apparent from the amendatory law is the legislative intent to increasingly

    shift the income tax system towards the schedular approach in the income taxation of

    individual taxpayers and to maintain, by and large, the present global treatment on

    taxable corporations. The Court does not view this classification to be arbitrary and

    inappropriate.

    You might also like