THR Rcman Catholic Aachbis Hop Uy. Cf Cebu, et al. vs. « Case No, et al.

DECISION

This {£6 an actfon brought by petitioner te recover from respondent the sum of #5,201,.52, paid as income taxes for the years 1955 and 1956, ine cluding surcharge and interests.

The records show that on February 21, 1956, petitioner, in behalf of the Reman Catholic Church of Cebu, filed an income tax return fer 1955, ree porting a gross income of:

From sales or exchanges of Capital aseers cecccscessece # 465.00 From rentals and reyalties ... 8,969.96 From dfvidends received secves _ 922.60 Petitioner cleimed deductions fer deprecietion ef the followings .

Archbishop's Paleée butléing.. # 4,477.65 Major Seminary ceecscccccrevccs 10,451.55 Minor Seminery ececcccccscceecs 39363. 33 Furniture & Fixtures ccscsecee de 2.56 TOTAL SeCeoeoseeoe es eeeeeeoese # 19,898.09 On February 18, 1957, petitioner, in behalf of the Komen Catholic Church In Cebu, filed an income 310 -

DECTs IG «

CTA. CASE Mh, 366 tax return for 1956, showing the following gross in- come:

From sales ce exchanges of Capital s8sets covecsscceces © 2,090.0 From reatals and royalties ... 11,954.64 Prom dividends received .eosse _ 4,811,598 TOTAL 9286008868006 0600089880 * 18,886.42 Petitioner claimed deductions for depreciation ef the following properties:

—_ Palace

Building

aeocvceceesovecsne © 4,477.65 Major Seminary sescscccvcceese lig451.55 Miner SOMINATY ccccccevacscces 3,936.33 Furniture & Fixtures cccocccee _ dedi G2 TOTAL ccccccscccvecscccss # Mig 226.15 On the theery that the gress incomes in 1955 and 1956 were realized independently ef the use of the buildings, furniture and fixtures, respondent tebally disallowed the deductions for depreciation, thereby determining against petitioner, on July 15, 1957 and March 30, 1957, income tax liabilities for 1955 and 1956 in the respective amounts of # 1,825.00 and #2,493.00 (Exhibits "1-8" & "2=b", pp. 17 & 3, BIR rec.). Gn May 10 and 14, 1957, petitioner re- quested fer the recensideration ef the determina-~- tienes (Exhibits "G" & “N*, pp.iS-16 & 12-13, 81K rec.), which requeste were denied by respondent in a letter dated July 18, 1957, wherein he demanded the payment of #©1,825.CO and $2,493.00, including 4% surcharge and ls legal interest on the latter amount (Exhibit "3°, pp. 18-23, BI rec.). mr August 2, 1957, peti- 311 ae 3h wae YP ew aoe 35

DEC ION «

GeTeAe CME NG, KS

a Je

tioner requested tor the reconsideration of the de- niel and the cancellation of the assessments (Exhi- bits "J", pp. 4-30, SIA vrec.). nm November §, i957, respondent denied this request for reconsi- Gepation end demanded the payment of #4,316.00, plus delinquency pensities incident to late payment (Zxhi- bit "4", pp. 36-37, BIR vrec.). Ageing on November 23, 1957, petitioner requested for the reconsidere- tion and cancellation of the assessments (Exhibit "K", PP. 38-44, OTK roc.), Wich request wes denied on Jamary 2%, 1956, with « demand “for the last time x x x te pay the totel aue of 4,316.00 plus celin- quency penalties incident to late payment tmmed{etely upon receipt hereof in order thet no drastic action aay be taken by this office on the matter® (Exhibit "S"5 pp. 45-46, ST rec.).

Meanwhile, on December 4, 1957, respondent issued 4 werrent of distraint and levy egeinst the preperties of the Roman Catholic Church of D, Jako-~ salem St., Cobu City, to satisfy the sums of #1,916, 27 and 2,617.69 a8 deficiency income tex and surcharge gue for 1955 and 1956, On February 7, 19564, petitioner paid under pro- test the totel esount of ©5,201,.52 as income tax for the years 1955 and 1956, including surcharge and in- terests. And on February 19, 1958, he filed before this Court his petition for review.

312 ~~ gl?

ee — — ee eee

DECI Ii «

GeT.A. CSE NO, OS The issues ares l, Whether or mot this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal; and if in the effirwa- tive «- 2 Whether or not the claine for depreciation deductions are slloweble under the law. | telative te the first issue, it is contended on behalf of respondent thet this Court has ne juris- Giction to entertain the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not file a claim for refund with the tormex before interposing said appeal. /etitioner, however, did not make @_discussion on this issue tn his weaorendum, 313 4

DECIS ICN «

GeT.Ae CHE AG, SOS

=a Be

comes to this Court to seek the recovery thereof, But a claim for refund must be filed with the Col- lector. The filing of euch ciaim fur refund {is mane éatoary and a prerequisite or e¢encdition prececent for the recovery of texes said to have seen errcneously or Lllegally collected. fafiure te comply therewf{th wars and 1s fetal te the action (Johnston Lueber <o,, Inc. v8. Court ef Tax Appeals, et Glee, Ge He NO. La 9292, April 25, 157).

The present case felis squarely uncer section 306 of the Tax. code. fetitioner paid the taxes in question. Later, he elected te appesl to this Court without first filing with respondent 2 clein for the wefund therect, From « perusal of the petition for review, it 1s clear that petitioner is seexing to re- Gover the amount he paic 45 texes. “uae failure to file with respondent e claim ter the refund thereof bars and is fatal to this action, Consequently, this | Court has no jurisdiction to taxe cognizance of this appeal.

ta view ef our resolution on the first issue, we find {t unnecessary to pass upon the issue oi whee ther er not the clains for deprectation deduct Long are allowable under the Law.

WHEAEPOAL, the vetttion for review, filed on Fepruary 19, 1955, {s hereby dismissed for isck of 314

DECTS IGN «

C.T.A. GABE NU. S05

= 6 Sad

jurisdiction, with costs ayainst petitioners. &O CADENED, Manila, Philippines, Cctebor 21, 1959. a ? ;

® 7

Presiding Judge

WE CONCUa:

Soc iate Judge xe ROMAN M, LMLALT ‘

Associate Judge

315