University of The Philippines College of Law

University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D
Topic Separate juridical personality

Case No. G.R. No. 109289 October 3, 1994
Case Name Tan vs Del Rosario (Sec. of Finance), Ong (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue)
Carag et al vs Del Rosario, Ong
Ponente VITUG, j.
These 2 consolidated special civil actions for prohibition.
G.R. No. 109289: Tan challenges the constitutionality of RA 7496, Simplified Net Income Taxation
Scheme ("SNIT"), amending certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code
[THE MORE RELEVANT CASE FOR PARTNERSHIP] G.R. No. 109446: Carag et al challenge the
validity of Section 6, Revenue Regulations No. 2-93, promulgated by Sec. of Finance Del Rosario and
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Ong pursuant to said law.
RELEVANT FACTS
Tan and Carag et al claim to be taxpayers adversely affected by the continued implementation of the
amendatory legislation.
[RELEVANT] In G.R. No. 109446, Carag et al assailing Section 6 of Revenue Regulations No. 2-93,
argue that Del Rosario and Ong have exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT to
general professional partnerships.
[NOT SO RELEVANT] In G.R. No. 109289, Tan asserts that the enactment of RA 7496 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.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
G.R. No. 109446 Argument of Carag et al: The Regulation places in an unequal footing
the income tax treatment of professionals who practice their respective
W/N Sec. Del Rosario and professions individually and of those who do it through a general
Commissioner Ong have professional partnership.
exceeded their rule-making
authority in applying SNIT NO.
CPE, 1-D
to general professional The questioned regulation reads:

partnerships?
Sec. 6. General Professional Partnership — The general
professional partnership (GPP) and the partners comprising the
GPP are covered by R. A. No. 7496.
Thus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the

direct costs mentioned in said law are to be deducted from
partnership income.
Also, the expenses paid or incurred by partners in their

individual capacities in the practice of their profession which are
not reimbursed or paid by the partnership but are not considered
as direct cost, are not deductible from his gross income.
The real objection of Carag et al is focused on the administrative

interpretation of the Secretary and Commissioner that would apply SNIT
to partners in GPPs. They cite deliberations in Congress during its
enactment of RA 7496 which clearly say that the SNIT seeks to increase
income tax collections only to individuals and professionals and does
not apply to corporations and partnerships.
The Court, first of all, should like to correct the apparent

misconception that GPPs are subject to the payment of income tax or
that there is a difference in the tax treatment between individuals
engaged in business or in the practice of their respective professions and
partners in GPPs.
The fact of the matter is that a GPP, unlike an ordinary business

partnership (which is treated as a corporation for income tax purposes
and so subject to the corporate income tax), is not itself an income
taxpayer. The income tax is imposed not on the professional
partnership, which is tax exempt, but on the partners themselves in
their individual capacity. This is explicit from section 23 of the Tax Code,
which has not been amended at all by RA 7496 (see notes).
There is no distinction in income tax liability between a person who

practices his profession alone or individually and one who does it through
partnership (whether registered or not) with others in the exercise of a
common profession.
To elaborate a little, the phrase "income taxpayers" is an all-embracing

term used in the Tax Code, and it practically covers all persons who
derive taxable income.
In the process, the Code classifies taxpayers into four main groups,
namely: (1) Individuals, (2) Corporations, (3) Estates under Judicial
Settlement and (4) Irrevocable Trusts (irrevocable both as to corpus and
as to income).
CPE, 1-D
Partnerships are, under the Tax Code, either "taxable partnerships" or

"exempt partnerships."
Ordinarily, partnerships, no matter how created or organized, are

subject to income tax (and thus alluded to as "taxable partnerships")
which, for purposes of the above categorization, are by law assimilated
to be within the context of, and so legally contemplated as,
corporations.
Obviously, SNIT is not intended to cover corporations and partnerships

which are independently subject to the payment of income tax.
"Exempt partnerships," upon the other hand, are not similarly identified
as corporations nor even considered as independent taxable entities
for income tax purposes. A GPP is such an example.
Here, the partners themselves, not the partnership are liable for the
payment of income tax in their individual capacity computed on their
respective and distributive shares of profits. In fine, under the Tax Code
on income taxation, the GPP is deemed to be no more than a mere
mechanism or a flow-through entity in the generation of income by, and
the ultimate distribution of such income to, respectively, each of the
individual partners.
Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 did not alter, but merely
confirmed, the above standing rule as now so modified by RA 7496 on
basically the extent of allowable deductions applicable to all individual
income taxpayers on their non-compensation income.
There is no evident intention of the law, either before or after the

amendatory legislation, to place in an unequal footing the income tax
treatment of professionals who practice their respective professions
individually and of those who do it through a GPP.
G.R. No. 109289
NOTE: I’ll just go through the issues quickly since it’s consti and not really
about partnership.
1. W/N the title of the House Bill is deficient for merely saying “Simplified
Net Income Taxation Scheme for the Self-Employed and Professionals
Engaged in the Practice of their Profession? NO.
Article VI, Section 26(1), of the Constitution has been envisioned so as
(a) to prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite the members

of the legislature who favor any one of unrelated subjects in
support of the whole act, (b) to avoid surprises or even fraud upon
the legislature, and
CPE, 1-D
(c) to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its

proceedings as are usually made, of the subjects of legislation.
The above objectives have been sufficiently met. Anything else would
be to require a virtual compendium of the law which could not have been
the intendment of the constitutional mandate.
2. W/N the law violated the requirement that taxation shall be uniform
and equitable since the law would now attempt to tax single
proprietorships and professionals differently from the manner it imposes
the tax on corporations and partnerships? NO
Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred 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.
What may instead be perceived to be 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. We certainly do not view this classification to
be arbitrary and inappropriate.
3. W/N it violates Due Process? NO
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 to us.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. No special pronouncement on costs.

SO ORDERED.
NOTES
Section 23 of the Tax Code:
Sec. 23. Tax liability of members of general professional partnerships. — (a) Persons exercising
a common profession in general partnership shall be liable for income tax only in their
individual capacity, and the share in the net profits of the general professional partnership to
which any taxable partner would be entitled whether distributed or otherwise, shall be returned
for taxation and the tax paid in accordance with the provisions of this Title. xxx

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

University of The Philippines College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Separate juridical personality

These 2 consolidated special civil actions for prohibition.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

to general professional The questioned regulation reads:

Thus, in determining the net profit of the partnership, only the

Also, the expenses paid or incurred by partners in their

The real objection of Carag et al is focused on the administrative

The Court, first of all, should like to correct the apparent

The fact of the matter is that a GPP, unlike an ordinary business

There is no distinction in income tax liability between a person who

To elaborate a little, the phrase "income taxpayers" is an all-embracing

Partnerships are, under the Tax Code, either "taxable partnerships" or

Ordinarily, partnerships, no matter how created or organized, are

Obviously, SNIT is not intended to cover corporations and partnerships

There is no evident intention of the law, either before or after the

Article VI, Section 26(1), of the Constitution has been envisioned so as

(a) to prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite the members

(c) to fairly apprise the people, through such publications of its

Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection,

What may instead be perceived to be apparent from the amendatory law

3. W/N it violates Due Process? NO

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. No special pronouncement on costs.

You might also like