Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 1827
Ri. | BLUIC OF THE PHILIPPINIS
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
AVACILLA BUILDING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
COMMISSIONGR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, / Res ponent, 4?
\0 ee |
PSLISIOA
Petitioner is seeking the refund of ¥9,572.69 which i+ paié ag contractor's pereentege tex fer the perio’ from “eptember, 196% to Jeptembver, 1966. Payments were nade as foliows:
Oetoper 20, 196% ..ceccese P2I9.00 November 15," —sevevcove 354.00 December 19, “ cancccese 35%.00 Jarmary 19, 1965 weccssese 304.00 Pebruery 17," caccccese 35% 200 Merch 17, eT TETIT TTT EY ot et) April 20, *" seeseeves 3F%e0 May 19, " seeceesee 39%,00 June 16, © secccccee 399200 July 19, " eeecccees 399.
August 17, “= = sscvesces 399-0 September 20," .ccsesses 399.00 Oetober 1b, “ ceccccoee 399.0 November 18," svesecces 399.00 December 15," ccecreces 210.1)
DBCISION -
CoPede CASE NO. 1827 -2-« January 19, 1966 sesseeeee 210,00 February 15, “ cosccccee 623.43 Mareh 15, 4 eooscccee 416.71 April 13, 4 covccccee 416.71 September 19," socccose 15%56.40 Oe? over B, ad eeoneene a 2582s TOTAL soccsvczces £9:572..69 The written claim for refunt “eted Decenber 5, 1966 wee aetually filed with the office of respontent on Necenber 6, 1966. Without waiting fer the decision of respontert, petitioner filed the instant appeal on Yebruary 2, 1967.
“he pertinent facts are state? in the semo-~ ranéum of counsel for respon“ent, to wits Petitioner is a domestic corporetion engaged in the butiress of “general en- gineering end contrecting of sil Kinds ef construstions an’ structures; employing an? contreeting with erehiteets, engineers, surveyors, chemists, an? ether technieal men, *o perform Ineer ing am architec- . *ural work, inclu? the preperetion of surveys, olens, specifications, estimates, ete. and to act as consulting and/or super- Vising engineers on? architects, z x x in eonmection with the saf¢@ eontraecting and buflding business." (ixh. “1-A", Respondent, De 13%, B. Tol. Fecs.).
For the period from September, 196% to September, 1966, inclusive, petitioner wea Ppetaine’ for a fixe? monthAly fee as “work engineers” by ae een Nat fonal Bark, Teve Bank of the Philippines an’ the ‘oeiel security “ysten to render, among others, the following services in. generals 259
DECTSYION «
Co" eke CATR WO. 1827 a i i. “echnical experts in the construction ef office buildings to earefully check an# fully super- Vise the work of the contractors engaged by the owner (Philippine National Bark) in the eonstruction of the bullding. (See p. F2, BF.F.
2, Provide the necessery resi- dent wee or tae on and inspection on dehalf of the owner (evelopment _ Bark of the Philippines) over the eonatruction undertaken by the ap- 1g eontraetors (See p. 7, > rees 4
3. Provite the services of technics] experts in the eonstruction of the building ent to fully super- Vise the work of the contractors en- age’ by the owner (Soctal Security System) in the construction of +he latter's office building (See po. Sl, Tt ig untisputed thet petitioner 417 pot perform eny eonstruction work for the Phalippine National Bank, “evelopment Bank of the Philippines ant the Seefal Security System. Tt was hired ‘) merely to supervise the construction of bail “ings by the Duil+tag contractors which were contracted ) by seif¢ government corpora*ti: ns to construct pafldings for thea.
Section 191 of the Betionsl Internal hevenue Cofe fmposes « tax of 32 on the gross receipts of | "“Roa’, balling, Lrrigetfen, artesian weil, vater- works, om’ other cx struction work contractors, filling cOntrectors, demolition an‘ salvage work * 260 CePehs CAULK MO, 1827 ~ & « contreetors; x x x and other indepemfent con- tractors x x x." “the work performed wy peti- tioner for the sei* government corporations “oes pot come un*er any of the businesses specifically enumerated in Section 191 of the Revenue Cote. However, respomient contends that petitioner shoule be taxed as an “intepentent contractor.” We have had occasion to pass upon the same f{esue im a case involving a transfer agent whoee work consists mainly in aeting a» agents ef eor- porations in the issuance an¢ cancellatien of shares of stock which are bought an? sold in stoek exchanges, In thet ease it was held thet an-“inéepentent contractor" was taxable under Section 191 of the Revenue code? af the business engaged in br it was simtler to any of the business- es enumerated in sai¢ seetion. o quote from our dee ision in Stock Transfer Service, Inc. v. Com- missioner of Internal Revenue, C.7.A. Case lo, 2003, July 29, 19719" Seetion = of the Revenue Code en- umerates the of contractors who are subject to tax ant af¢ds to the Mist “other independent contractors." xix x Tt is a settle? rule of statutory construction thet where general words follow the ¢esig- nation of perticuler things or classes of persons or subjects, the general words are to be construe? os ‘neluding only the Pees A ee Before &¢ts emendment by '.D. No. 69. 2 Core. dented in Gok. No. La34502, January 25, 261
DEC TSION «
CeMeche CATE wo, 18297 - § « persons or subjects of the seme class or general nature as those s Bes pager geet A emmerete¢. “his is a e of statutory eenstructi on known as ° (olade ve C.* eley »” Crawfora The Construction of eresess 326-527.) When rae gr acted “other ianeaient eontracter the end of the enumeration of sereene ~)- are sub- ject to the contractors’ tax, the same sheuld be construe? te ‘nelute enly those who are engage’ in businesses sinfier te those enwner sted, f
x x x x
"he arganuent thet the ef4ition of “other independent contractors" to the list of basinesses taxable uncer yh & 192 was inten‘’e? to tax any and all in- depentent contrectors ig not justified by the werding of the lew. It wiil be no- tea that the term “other independent con- tractors” was ade? to the list ef taxa- ble businesses unter Section 191 of the Hevenue Code by Section 12 of “epubl ie rele No. Esra > whieh became effective on 1856 Sei’ amendstory Act add- o oatthe felincies businesses to those pre~ viously taxeble unter Section 191, rar with “other {ndepencent contrectors" ) femelition and salvage work seeareralons
(2) = Nye hogy (3) persons 4 ing water ) plastte idadnotion establish- ments 3 A ee vulcanizing an’? recapping e« cna/er greasing. 2 establishments for enohing ené/or e of motor wetiehona (7) bat- tery charging; (8 tay er surfacing and reeutting of lumber, (9) sawmills un‘*er contrest to saw ont ter eut logs belonging to others; (19) leuntries using —_ machines; (11) shoe repeiring by machine or any whchankoal gouty’ g ant (12) businesa agents. ged, Congress inten4te? to tax wi gp Pe oontractors irrespective of — nature or Kind of the business engage? in, there was ahsolutely m> nee for the afé@ition of the twelve businesses mentione? above. That Congress saw fit to add particular Kinds of business- eg to the texable list along with “other
DRCIZIOR «
TePeAe CADA HO, 1827 o & « in'epenfent contractors” is an ¢laquent proof thet it was intende¢ to limit the application of the generel words to businesses of the same kind an’ category es those enamerated, x z Zz _ We may also a*¢ *het tf, as alleged, any pergon performing service for another 9s an infepencdent contractor is taxable, *hen a surgeon who performs 2» surgieai opera- tion on a patient woule be texable. The same rule woul? apply +o a dentist who extracts feeayed teeth from = patient; or to « lawyer who prepares «a “ee? 0” sale b. any sinfiler instrument for his elient,; or to « priest or minister who celebrates mass for the fect, “here ean be no question thot these persgont may be regar“e? as in“e~ pendent eontrestors in the oroed sense, and shoul? be subject to the contregt- or's tax, if res ondent is to be believed. That such a result is not in keeping with the legislative purpose is too apparent to require further elucidation.
Gur opinion in the ease of Stoek Transfer Services, Ince,y SURE, Wa reiterate in Philip- pine Psychological Corporetioen v. Commissioner of Inter nal Revenue, Ce™ele Case No. 2329, Ietober 295 1975. | Follewing the ruling lai@ “own in the two eases cite’ sbove, we are of the opinion that petitioner, during the period in question, was not an intependent contrector within the meaning ef Section 191 of the Revernue Code, with respect to its business in furnishing technical services im the construction of buildings, an’ {2 not sub- ject to the tax provide therein. It appears, 263
DECISION «
CeTeAe GABE RO. 1827
-7J-
however, thet the payments made by petitioner in the months of October, November, and Secenber, 1964, an? January, 1965, in the aggregate amount of 71,371.% , vere mate more than two years before this appeal was file# on Pebruery 2, 1967. <Aceord- ingly, the Pight te the refund Of sai? emount has prescribed, so that petitioner is entitle- te the refun¢ of the sum of 76,291.69, instese? of the sum of 79,572.69. (Bee. 306, Nev. Cove, Oibbs v. Coal- lector, 107 Phil. 232.)
IN View OF "Hs FPORSGOTNG, respontent is hereby ordered to refun4 to petitioner the afore- seid sum of 96,201.69. Without pronouncement es ¢o costs, 60 ORDSRED.
vuezgon City, November 10, 1975.
ROMAN M. UMALI
Presiding Juge
ROP ANTOLAO ee Associate Ju’ ge
RW 7 A
RAMOP L. AVARCBNA