Tiu Bon Sin, et al. vs. Collector of Internal Ns Revenue ‘

X• •

'UI L LIC OF TIW

,_...

PIN~

COUlU' 01· I \

l .PJ.:.ALS

MANILA

P t t oner.

• ver us -

c.t.A. c

spondent.

------- -- -

• 286

Th s s an appeal fro a decfa on of respon ent

·o lector of Internal avenue a es ng agafnat and

de and ng fr

petft•oner T u on

n t

au s of

penalty, for t e per od fro

r 31, 1954,

nclus ve, an

too r 1, 19~3 to ec•

5.00 as alle ed de•

f cfency percentage tax, surchar

an co pro

• P n•

alty or th f rat quarter of 1 _55.

In h

au pole•

ental ettt on for rev~ew , pet t oner seeks

r fund

of 125.

hfch was all• edly unlawfully collected

as percentage tax for the first quarter of 195~ .

n 19551

nvesttgat on c nduct!d by ~nternal

revenue exa ner uneart e

rr ul r t ea in the pay•

nt of taxes tn •

•

• of lh e nvest at ons

nvolved the case of petft o er.

etftfoner '• t e sole propr etor of t

a pa•

guita oap an

andle f ctory,

•tuated •n th C ty

of Ce u.

It appears that the a unts writt n •n

figured fn the dupl•cat • tr pl cate an

ua upl cat

50

DECISION «

GTA. CASE NO, 286

- 2

copfes of the official receipts as ‘nternal revenue

taxes were actually pa‘d and turned to the provta-

cfal treasury of Cebu. However, the amaants shown

tn the original receipts then issued to and in the

hands of petittoner were greater than those indi-

cated fn the duplicate, trfplfcate and quadruplicate

copies. The discrepancies fn the orfginal and other

copies oi offictal receipts of taxes paid ay peit-

tioner are tabulated as follows:

693568 le20-04

693564 1-20-54 oo

699020 4-20-54 144.90 44.90 100,00

704222 720-54 218.69 18. 69 200.00

TOQOLS 10-20-54 214.00 i(it‘«éidi OD 200,00

206801 1-31-55 176096 78.96 100, 00

218114 4220-55 117.60 17.80 | 10.00

The differences between the amounts appearing fa the

original offtctal recefpts and those indicated tn the

duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate cepies constf-

tute the basis for the deficiency assessments of per-

centage tax demanded of petitioner, together with cor-

responding surcharge and compromise penalty.

An exaufnatfon of the recefpts tnvolved here

shows that the handwritten words and figures, not found

in the dupl‘cate, trtpl‘cate and quadrupl’cate coptes

of the official recetpts were added to the original

copfes, These addfttons could not have been wrftten

by the person who wrote the signatures F. B, Pareja

and the tnfttals 3%, These stgnatures and inftfals,

em ee a A Se Re A el NO i RE” army” as em

EC

I

•

C. T .A. CASE

O. 286

- 3 - ·

wh1eh appear ~n all eop •• of the receipts ~r•

a

ttedly wrftt!n thereon by

artol

~~ Baguio, who,

aa cht!f of the internal revenue_d,vtaton and de•

puty_e ty treasurer of Cebu ••• in charge of col•

lect ng t!x•• thereat.

~ur~ng the perf

for which t e deffefency _

t~x•• fn quest .on are •

ght to be collected, pet •

tioner generally caused h•s taxes to ba pa

•t the

T~eaaurer•s Off ee qf C bu Cttv thru on _ tan Chuan

L ong wbe •• a buatneaa agent of pettt oner. lt

&PP.eara also t at Tan Qhuan L!ong bad any other

cl enta for

he pa d taxes an4 by v rtue thereof,

and such pa~nta were aade, ba_waa pe

tted by

Bartol~ _Baguto to aeeo _pl s~ n the latter's booth

the offtc•al rece pte ev~denc ng the P.aymants of taxes

due froa the former'• clients, •

l~df~g petittoner.

The ~ntervent on of aguto in the f 11 ng up of he

rece pta ••• 1 m t e to h s ~·~~~g tbereo t • a gna•

turea •F. • Pareja• and hfa •n t•al$ • 2~. Aa afore•

stated~ the IQOU~t· appear~ng n_the or ~~nal cop•••

of off1c al recetpta as taxes P-lid are d f erent fro•

ana greater t an tho!• &tated fn the upl(eate, trt-

pllcate and ~adl'upl cate eop ••· Hence, respondent

assessed pettttonar for the ~nderpaymenta o~ the

theory tha~ the latter wa lfable for _th~ d1acre~

P!DCY• this_is tha subject of tbe pr nc pal pat •

t on for rev ew.

j!

5 2

tl

£Ctsl

•

C. t . A. CASE o. 286

• 4 -

The supple

ntel _P!t1t~on for revfa covers

the

ount pa d by pet t

~n!r on May 10, 1956 n

t he su ot: s 125.00 as def c • eney tax and surcharge

f or the firat quarter of 1955.

Thereafter, he r •

quested respondent for the r efund of this

ount on

t he grou

that same was unlawfully collected. Th s

request for refund was den d.

The saues ra sed by the part~es boJl do n to

the followings

1.

hether or not ~pet1ttoner ts !fable

f or the respecttve a ounts of 1, 125.00 and

145.00 aa alleged d f•c•ency taxes, sur•

charge or eo pr ••• penaltyJ and

2.

ether or not the su of 125.

allege ly unla fully collecte

rom pet~­

t~oner a

t x and surcharge for the ftrst

q~&rt!r of 195~ may e _refund d. _

elatfve o the first issue, ft 1s the conten-

tion ~f petit o~er that he has fully paid t he t xes

due htm for the year

19~4 and 1955, and, ~onse ently,

the a se&$ •• ent and demen

hereof app aled t

unlawf'!l•

Petitioner r 1·es pr.Jnc·pally upon t

ortgfnal cope

of the off c :tal r ce~.pt;,;J ev deneing the alleged true

an correct amounts of taxe

pafd y h • Upon the

other _hand, r spondent d nt s that paym nt h s b en

mad

~n full. H

a•nta•ns that the short payments

!r• t~aceable to th _ acts of Tan Chuan L~ong , thereby

t plytno that pot t !oner should b r \h bur en o

cover~ng up shor~ payments or tax def cf nc

s.

A tax r ce•Qt ts presu ~tfve evJdence of pay-

nt of taxes nd·cated therein (s e Cooley, On Taxa•

53

.Jo

• 286

t tt ts not con•

clua•v• ev dence of such payment, . a~ the adve.rse

party ay prove by any eo

tent evidence that pay•

ment has not aetu~lly

en

""• (see ~l A • Jur. sec.

96Q, p. 842}.

This nconclus v~ nature of

t!x _re•

ce pt must equally be conceded in ~ases of d~!'cf ncy

par-ent .

And as a ~oro~lary to th

c ncess on, _tho

adverse party ay lfkew • prove

y co petent ev dence

that payment

as not full and complete.

!n the caee at bar, respondent '!•k to p~o~e

by t~e or 1gfnal copies of t~ tax rece pta (off cf l

rece pta) and th correspon

~g abstra~t of coll c-

tt~ns in r lat!on to the dupl catep2p es of the re•

ce pta that t • taxes due fro petit oner have not

been fully and co pletely pa d.

• shall no deter•

mtne whether or n~t th re • a ~uch full an co plete

pa~ent .

Upon ~h s 4eter nat on depends the reso-

lut on of the_f•rst ssue.

An ex

nat on of the or gfnal cop es of the

offic al recetpts (Exhtbits "A• •e•

~· ~· •E•

-

-

-

t

•

-

•

,

•F•) ,

n c;.onj.unct ton wtth th .. "~ .... correap~nd•ng du•

pl cate, tr•plfca~e and qua~uplt.c;.a~e co

ads

us to the eonclua on that sa•~ ~r•g•nal copies have

been au tly

d fted and fals•fted. It s abundantly

evtqent that the f~gures •20• , respect•vely arked as

xh b ts •5- • and ·~..o· in ~xf!

t •A • _and t~• _words

•two hun~ed•;

ked as Exh btt ·~ • n_Bxb bft_•A•J

the ft;ures •1•, arked as Exh{ ti •7~ ~ in Exhfb t

• •1 and the 'word ~seventy• ,

arked 'Ex tb t _•!- •

Exhtb t •B•J the f!gures •1• ,

arke as Exhtb t •10- •

DECTS ION e

C.T.A. CASE NO, 286

~~ 2

a)

in Exhfb‘t "C" and the words"one hundred", marked as

Exhtbtt "10-B" 4n Exhib!t "C"; the figures "2", marked

as Exhtbit “13-A" tn Exhibit "D" and the words “two

hundred", marked as Exhibit *13-8" tn Exhtb#t "D";_

the figures "2", merked as Exhtbit "15—=A" tn Exhibit

“E* and the words “two hundred", marked as Exhtb{t

#13-B" {n Exhtbit "D",; the figures "2", marked as

Exhibit “15-A" tn Exhibit "E" and the words "two hun-

dred, marked as Exhtbit "15-3" in Exhtbtt "E"; the

figures "1", marked as Exhibtt "17-A* tn Exhib{t “F*

and the words “one hundred“, marked as Exhtbit "17D"

in Exhfbit “F"; and the figures “1" and the words

“ene hundred" in Exhibit "J", which figures and words

are not written ‘n the subsequent copies ofthe off?-

cfal recetpts, have been fraudulently added. iihtle

we are at a loss as to who autheréd these fraudulent

additions, however, as test{ffed to by handwr'fting ex=

pert, Feltpe P. Logan, these addftfons could not have

been written by Bartolome Jagute who wrete the stgna-

tures "F, B, Pareja” and the {nittals "B?" appeartng

at the foot of Exhtbits "A" to "F*, There *s no ev?-

dence on hand sat{sfactory to esteblish er _tndfcete

that Bartolome Baguto supplied these add‘ftfons, BSar-

tolome Baguio himself has test*fted that the hand-

writing on the recefpts were not made by him, Aather,

the recetpts were fflled out by petftfoner's agent

Tan Chuan Liong. Pet‘ftfoner has not presented hs

agent Tan Chuan Liong te rebut the testfmony of De-

puty Treasurer Baguio, The fact that the writings

DEC.ISIOO •

C. T. A. CASE NO. 286

-

7 -

on th dupltcate ~ecetpts a~d _those o~ the ~rfg,nal

rece•pts, •nclud•ng the add't ' ons or fn~erttons on

the latter are ade _by the same pers~n ~~ co~robo•

rated by the handwr.ft ~g _exp rt. Th•s fact •s fu~·

ther not denfed by pet-rt-r~n~r .

However, the latter

merely arques that t he wr ttnqs could not have b~en

ade by hf nor h•s agent Tan Chuan Tfon • Cons-fder-

•ng _that the te~t mony of Treasurer Bagu~o •a cate•

gor ~ Cal or part'cular on th"s potnt,

hereas ~·t"~

~•oner • s argum nt •s m rely specul ttve _and, cons~der•

tng that pet•t•oner' s ayent Tan Chuan ~•ong has not

•!n presented, we belteve that the w •oht of the

ev•dence •s strongly 1 n favor of respond!nt ~n rela•

t,Yon thereto.

• are further susta•ned _•n thts res•

pect Q.y the handwr t"ng expert who test.ff•ed that the

~dd-ftfoas

11 the or 1ginal copte& _of the r ee-rpts then

n the hands of petit~oner

er~ •nserte~ subse ent

to the Pteparat~on of the dupl eate, tr•plteate and

qua

upl~c!te coptea th reof.

e f nd therefore that th ortg•nal rece~pts do

not ~t ate correctly th~ ~ount& p •d as taxes and the

falatty of tl.e sa!d or.fgfnal has or ed to de troy

the preaumpt•on of_a _full and co plete p

ent of th

taxes due fr9.

~ ft~ ~er .

•

re thus c o~vfnced that

the a ounts nd•cated in the upl.feate, trtpl!_eate and

the quadruplicat

copies of tha of{ eial receipts and

entered n the a •tract ot collect•ons trul represent

the payments ct lly ade.

All th

entr~es were

ade

..

56

j

11

..,.., ~ "'"""' -

C. T. A. CASE NO. 286

• 8 -

1n tho ord nary course of publtc bus n••• ancl are

ent tl!d _to we

ht and credence.

Hance, w !r! of

the op n•on and &o h~ld t. t_t ere W!S a ef c~ ncy

tn ~h~ pay. !Dt ~f the tax!S n

estion for wntch

pettt oner

s t•abl .

en

le th r

r ,

t

necessar ly follows th t the

pos•t on oft • 2o

surcharge for late pa~ent t hereof •s proper

d

lawful.

As regards the c mpro ise penalties a ounttng

to 70.00, wh•ch ~espondent a!s•s ed ag tnst and

-

aan ed fro p$t ttoner but hfch t h latt er _ha! n~t

accepted

hold th t ·h s ~ourt has no jur sd c

on

to co pel pa ent ther of (s e r

as v.

ollec o

of Internal evenu , C.T •• No. 16, Septe or 14 1

19~~~ Central Azuc rer d Tarl c ~ . Coll ctor of

internal Rev nue, C.T.A. to. 90, July 9, 19561

-

nlto Co ercf.al tne. v. Col lector of Intern 1 evenue,

c.r.A.

o. 218, Oetob r

~ . 1956s

ohol Land Tr ns-

portat on v. Coll ctor of tnt n 1 avenue, C.T ••

o. 216,

epte er 2 ,

19~7).

Hav•n ruled that pet toner •• 1 able or _t h

pa

_nt of the eficfeney taxes no

_n que!ti n n-

clu 'ny •urc ar • •

t !ollo a hat hfs c!•!m for th

refund of_t

of

1~. 00 p d ••-

f•e ency t~x

for t • f• st quarter of 195

h ch s of th s

character ana_.nature •• the tax f •rat

bove eonteste ,

should

en e •

57

|

f

|