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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 191 views

    Collector Vs Benipayo

    Uploaded by

    Arnold Jose
    The respondent owned a movie theater in Lucena, Quezon. An internal revenue agent investigated the respondent's amusement tax liability from 1952 to 1953. Based on attendance ratios from 1949 to 1951, the agent concluded without evidence that the respondent fraudulently sold two tax-free children's tickets instead of one adult ticket, avoiding tax payment. The petitioner issued a tax assessment of over P12,000 based on this presumption. However, the court found the assessment had no factual basis and presumptions could not be made without evidence. Fraud also requires clear proof which was lacking. The assessment was annulled.

    Copyright:

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

    Collector Vs Benipayo

    Uploaded by

    Arnold Jose
    191 views2 pages
    The respondent owned a movie theater in Lucena, Quezon. An internal revenue agent investigated the respondent's amusement tax liability from 1952 to 1953. Based on attendance ratios from 1949 to 1951, the agent concluded without evidence that the respondent fraudulently sold two tax-free children's tickets instead of one adult ticket, avoiding tax payment. The petitioner issued a tax assessment of over P12,000 based on this presumption. However, the court found the assessment had no factual basis and presumptions could not be made without evidence. Fraud also requires clear proof which was lacking. The assessment was annulled.

    Original Title

    Collector vs Benipayo.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?

    The respondent owned a movie theater in Lucena, Quezon. An internal revenue agent investigated the respondent's amusement tax liability from 1952 to 1953. Based on attendance ratios from 1949 to 1951, the agent concluded without evidence that the respondent fraudulently sold two tax-free children's tickets instead of one adult ticket, avoiding tax payment. The petitioner issued a tax assessment of over P12,000 based on this presumption. However, the court found the assessment had no factual basis and presumptions could not be made without evidence. Fraud also requires clear proof which was lacking. The assessment was annulled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    191 views2 pages

    Collector Vs Benipayo

    Uploaded by

    Arnold Jose
    The respondent owned a movie theater in Lucena, Quezon. An internal revenue agent investigated the respondent's amusement tax liability from 1952 to 1953. Based on attendance ratios from 1949 to 1951, the agent concluded without evidence that the respondent fraudulently sold two tax-free children's tickets instead of one adult ticket, avoiding tax payment. The petitioner issued a tax assessment of over P12,000 based on this presumption. However, the court found the assessment had no factual basis and presumptions could not be made without evidence. Fraud also requires clear proof which was lacking. The assessment was annulled.

    Copyright:

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

    193. Collector vs.

    Benipayo (4 SCRA 182)


    Facts:
    Respondent is the owner and operator of the Lucena Theater located in the municipality
    of Lucena, Quezon. On October 3, 1953 Internal Revenue Agent Romeo de Guia
    investigated respondent's amusement tax liability in connection with the operation of said
    theater during the period from August, 1952 to September, 1953. His finding was that
    during the years 1949 to 1951 the average ratio of adults and children patronizing the
    Lucena Theater was 3 to 1, i.e., for every three adults entering the theater, one child was
    also admitted, while during the period in question. the proportion was reversed—three
    children to one adult. From this he concluded that respondent must have fraudulently sold
    two tax-free 20-centavo tickets, in order to avoid payment of the amusement tax
    prescribed in Section 260 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
    On July 14, 1954. petitioner issued a deficiency amusement tax assessment against
    respondent, demanding from the latter the payment of the total sum of P12,152.93 within
    thirty days from receipt thereof. On August 16, 1954, respondent filed the corresponding
    protest with the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
    Issue:
    Whether or not there is sufficient evidence in the record showing that respondent, during
    the period under review, sold and issued to his adult customers two tax-free 20-centavo
    children's tickets, instead of one 40-centavo ticket for each adult customer; to cheat or
    defraud the Government.
    Held:
    The assessment has no factual bases. Assessments should not be based on mere
    presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. Assuming
    arguendo that the average ratio of adults and children patronizing the Lucena Theater
    from 1949 to 1951 was 3 to 1, the same does not give rise to the inference that the same
    conditions existed during the years in question (1952 and 1953). The fact that almost the
    same ratio existed during the month of July, 1955 does not provide a sufficient inference
    on the conditions in 1952 and 1953. x x x
    "In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual
    facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be
    made to rest on another presumption that the circumstances in 1952 and 1953 are
    presumed to be the same as those existing in 1949 to 1951 and July 1955. In the case
    under consideration there are no substantial facts to support the assessment in question. x
    x x."
    Fraud is a serious charge and, to be sustained, it must be supported by clear and
    convincing proof which, in the present case, is 'lacking.

    You might also like