Tus Tastlar Life Assurawcr Etl Company, et al. vs. Sel'Shs Case Ho, et al.

Decision -

GTA CASE Bo, 1963 3 subject to the documentary stamp tax Of *Us30 exch Lam posed by Section 22) of the Aatiousl Internal Aevenne Code.

Petitioner coatemis that the medicel repert at- tached to every applic«tion for life insurance is oot | the “eortifieste” subject to the Gocusentary steap tax imposed by Section 225 of the Revenue Code. in sup- port of its stand, petitioner relied om section /6 of Revenue Regulations ilo, 26 of the Department of Finance, otherwise known as the Documentary btemp fax Regula- tions, whieh provides thet “only those certificates 1s- sued by « public officiai or a person acting in a pub- lic capacity are subject to the documentary stamp tex.” Petitioner farther contents thst the metical examiner's report attache’ to every eppiicstion fer life insurance constitutes an integras part of the insurence policy issued by petitioner. [t is, therefore, argued that, | inasmuch as the insurance policy is already subject to the Gocumentary stamp tax, the Imposition of sacther documentary stamp tax on the medical certificate would amount te double taxation.

Respondent, however, contends that the phrase “cortifiecate of any deseription required by law, or by rules or regulations of » public office, or whieb is issued for the purpose of giving inferwation, or eetabishing proof of » fact . . .” found io section

BRCisIon «~

CTA Case Wo, 1963 y 225 of the Revenue Coe inclwtes the melitend certifieate in question, im line with Section 109 of the Scumentary Stamp Tax Regulations, as amenied by Yegulations .iio. G01 dated september 31, 1927, whieh provides as fol- seltee a Steheamed of the papehoah fom, — of any person ars subject to this On the basis of the foregoing provisions of the Deoumentary Stamp Tax Hogulations, raspenient contents that gection 76 thereof relied upon by petitioner ts not &@ pplicable to « acdicel certificate which iv covered by a Cifferent.section of the said regulations, e<« spondent argues that the documentary stamp tax Imposed on life insurances policies under Seetion 220 of the Revenue Gode is distinct end differant from the stamp tex on certificates imposed umier Section 225 of the Sate Code, which provides as followss SM. 225.

On each certifr and by e no ef any *oseription required law or whieh is iceued for informs or act, and aot ctherwice there shall be stamp tax

DWisiuy -

CTA CASE io, 15963 5 ficates, there aball be collected « dvcu- mnenitery, stemp tex of fifteen pesos on each certificate for a first class passen-.

fer; eight pesos for » second or tourist Class passenger, ani two pesos for a third Class or steerage passenger. (As -anended by sec, 14%, epublie act No. 40.)

Umier the said provisions of the fevenge Code, the follow!ng certificates are each subject to the ‘docunentary stamp tax of 0,30, namelys

(1) Certificate of damage, or otherwise;

(2), Certifieate or document iesued by:

a) Customs officer iS Marine curveyer ¢) Person acting as custom: of- "icer or morine surveyor;

(3) Certificate tesacd by = notary publics (+) Certifieste of any 4escripticn re- by law, ov by vules and | Feguletion: of a public office; or

(5) Certifioete of any description issued e of giving inform- tion, or etteblishing proof of +» _ +The word “certificate” is Gefined in Kevenue ‘Regulations Wo, 26 of the Department of Finance as fol- lows ‘. + meg dy a ney are is a scatenens os wr ergon ving a ‘public or - shatae eonsarnion thin 299

DBCISION «

CTA CASE Mo, 1963 found in Section 225 of the Revenue Code and section 75 of the Documentary Stomp “ox Yeguistions which in- plemented the statutory provisions, shows that the documents subject to the stemp tex are not limited to “only those certificates issued by « public official or person acting in » public cepecity* but they include a certificate of ony Seccription “which 1s issued for the purpose of giving information, or establishing proof of ‘a fact" not otherwise speelfied in said see~ tion 225 of the “evenue Code. In sthert, the provisions contained in section 76 of Aevente Regulations fe, 26 ef the Departzent of Finance, which were invoked ant relied upon by the petitioner, constitute the general Pule whiis the certificate of any desortption issusd for ths purpose of giving information, or establishing © proof of a fact eubodied in dection 75 of the same ~ regulations is the exception to the general rule, The said exeeptios is evident from tho enuseration of the taxable certificates contained in section 225 of the Revenue Code a® impienented by Section 109 of the Docue - montary Stump Tax Neguletions of the Department of Fi-~ nance, as amended, whieh provides that “medical certi- ficates containing a statement of the physical condition of any person are subject to this tex” (meaning doeu- mentary stamp tax Of 00,30 each). ») \ 300

OoCIsION «

CTA CASE Ho. 1963 rf The previsious ei Section 76 ef the Documentary temp Tax Kegiiations oi tue vepartuent of Finance stating that “omy U.oee certificates issGed by « public officiel oF a pervon acting du « puvlic cape-~ eity «re subject to the documentary stamp tax" ave not exclusive and ali-embracing in scope ant operation.

Por instance, Section 225 of the Hevemie Code provides that “on each certificate of dumage, or otherwise” there shahl be esliseted 2 documentary stamp tax of 80.30, vonsequently, « certificate of any ceserlp- tlon issue by a private individéwal is subject to the Gocuuentary stamp Geax provided that tue said certifi- eate or report is listed, enumerated, or described ane der Section 225 of the Heveuue code.

Moreover, 40 is a Garcimal cule in taxation that in case of ¢oaflict between the statutory provisicas —_ . and the iaplesenting regulatioas, the ¢lear language of | the etetute should be Upheld. Us stress our point, the term “certificate” as define unser section 75 of Jcveuue Regulations No, 26 of the Departueat of Finance, suet, incdades “a writing by which testinony is given that & feet hes er has not taken place,” Neither the lew nor the regulation requires that the said certificate or report be issued by a public official or person acting. in a public capacity, In the sase manner, Section 109 pecIsros - CTA CasB Ne. 1963 of the Documentary Stem Tax Negulations of the le- parteent of Finance which prevides that “mediea, cere tifieates contaiaing a statement of the physical eon~ Gition ef any person are subject te this tax” doses net require that the sald certifieste be issued by a public official or person acting in a mun capacity “fim order te be taxable.

with respect to petitioner's allegation that the medical certificate is basically ane actually a part Of the insurance contract taxable unser section 220 of the Neveaue Code and that the imposition of the ©0.30 docuneatary stamp tax thereon cons titutesdouble taxation arising out of the sane transaction, suffice it to state thet there are two (2) documents involved in this case, that is, the ipenpanee policy which is taxable ander Section 220 ef the Revenue Code ani the noties) certicicete taxable under Section 225 of the same Code, As the amount agi basis of the documentary etemp tax are distinet and different from each other, the defense ef inequitous imposition of double taxa- tion on the seme transaction is not applicable in this | case, Horeover, our suprese Court in e number of exses held that there is no prohibition against double or @ultiple taxation in this jurisdiction, (Munwfecturer's - 30.2.

cm cl eT

Die IelOh =

CTA CASE Boe 1963 : \

9 Life Ins. Co. ve. Meer, Gels Boy 1-2910, June 29, 19525 89 whil, 3575 City of #anile va, Interisland das fer- view, GeR. No. 18799, Auge 31, 29565 99 Phil, 85%, Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs, liswaiian-Phil. Coes Gee Ho. Ln 1G325, Nay 30, 196% Villanueva vs. City of Thotlo, © .%. No. 26521, Dee. 28, 1968; Pepsi Cole fottling Go. vs, City of Putuen, 4A. Mo. 122819, Aur. M8, 1968.) , WERTRFORR, the anpesled decision of respondent Commiesioner of Internal Revenue ts sffirmed. Petie tioner ts hereby omiersd to pay se14 responient or his duly anthorinet collection agent the sum of 96,780.30 Peprasenting the documentary stan tax due on the modi- cal sertifteates Isauet by vetitioner's medical sxamin- ers in 1961. ‘ithout pronouncement as to ensts.

50 ORDEWD. | quezon City, Setcber 7, 2979.

. ; Lhe |

Seseciate Juige

I CONCURs

—— RAKOR L, AVauCrha auSoviate Juwge Presiding Judge Ronen %. Umali who is on leave took no part - 303