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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Tan vs. Del Rosario, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Kate Domingo
    The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that amended tax provisions. The petitioners claimed the law violated uniformity of taxation and equal protection principles. The court ruled that the law did not violate due process because uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment, and the classifications in the law were not arbitrary.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan vs. Del Rosario, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Kate Domingo
    13 views2 pages
    The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that amended tax provisions. The petitioners claimed the law violated uniformity of taxation and equal protection principles. The court ruled that the law did not violate due process because uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment, and the classifications in the law were not arbitrary.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that amended tax provisions. The petitioners claimed the law violated uniformity of taxation and equal protection principles. The court ruled that the law did not violate due process because uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment, and the classifications in the law were not arbitrary.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan vs. Del Rosario, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Kate Domingo
    The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that amended tax provisions. The petitioners claimed the law violated uniformity of taxation and equal protection principles. The court ruled that the law did not violate due process because uniformity of taxation only requires similar treatment, and the classifications in the law were not arbitrary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CASE: Tan vs. Del Rosario, Jr.

    DOCTRINE: Uniformity of taxation merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation similarly
    situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities.

    FACTS: The case involves a special civil action assailing the constitutionality of RA 7496 or the Simplified
    Net Income Taxation Scheme (SNIT) which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue
    Code.

    Petitioners claims that they are taxpayers adversely affected by the continued implementation of the
    amendatory legislation. They asserted 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 x x x property without due process of law, nor shall
    any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    The petitioners contend that the title of House Bill No. 34314, progenitor of RA 7496, is a misnomer or ,
    at least, 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.

    The petitioners claims that RA 7496 desecrates the constitutional requirement that taxation “shall be
    uniform and equitable” in that the law would now attempt to tax single proprietorships and
    professionals differently from the manner it imposed the tax on corporations and partnerships.

    ISSUE: Whether the RA 7496 is unconstitutional for violating due process.

    RULING: No. The contention clearly forgers that such system of income taxation has long been the
    prevailing rule even prior to RA 7496.

    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 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. Uniformity
    does not forfend 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 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. The court does not view this classification to be arbitrary and inappropriate.

    With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent
    (rate), coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation. This court cannot freely delve into those matters
    which, by constitutional fiat, rightly rest on legislative judgment. Of course, where a tax measure
    becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate
    to strike it down, for, despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override constitutional
    proscriptions.

    You might also like