143-Western Minolco Corp. v. CIR, Et. Al. 124 SCRA 121
143-Western Minolco Corp. v. CIR, Et. Al. 124 SCRA 121
L-61632 1 of 6
and taxes on mining claims, improvement thereon and mineral products, whereas the 35%
transaction tax is levied on transactions pertaining to commercial papers issued in the primary
money market as principal instruments; in other words, Sections 52 and 53 of P.D. 463 do not apply
to this case of petitioner.
After due hearing but before the respondent court could render its decision, the petitioner filed a pleading entitled
"Request for Judicial Notice and Request for Admission" alleging that the subject tax was paid in the nature of a
business tax, that petitioner's claim for refund is based on its exemption from business taxes, and that its exemption
is protected by existing tax exemptions granted it under the mining law.
On January 29, 1982, the respondent court denied the petitioner's "Request for Judicial Notice and Request for
Admission. "
On May 21, 1982, the respondent court rendered its decision dismissing the petition for review for lack of merit.
The petitioner raised the following assignments of errors:
Assignment of error No. 1
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED BY SUPPORTING RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE 35% TRANSACTION TAX ON COMMERCIAL
PAPER (INVOLVED IN THIS CASE) IS AN INCOME TAX IMPOSED UPON THE INTEREST
EARNINGS OF THE MONEY LENDER WHO (ACCORDING TO THE TAX COURT) IS
ACTUALLY THE TAX PAYER ON WHOSE INCOME THE 35r7(, TAX IS IMPOSED.
Assignment of Error No. 2
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRED IN THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS CONTRAVENE THE
MANDATES IN SAID P.D. No. 1154 (particularly SEC. 2 OF WHICH) AMENDING SECTION
291b) OF THE 1977 REVENUE CODE BY EXCLUDING FROM GROSS INCOME' THE
'INTEREST EARNED ON COMMERCIAL PAPER ISSUED IN THE PRIMARY MARKET
(WHICH) SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF GROSS INCOME OF
THE LENDER FOR PURPOSES OF INCOME TAXATION
Assignment of Error No. 3
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRED IN CONFUSING TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE
ASPECTS OF THE TAXATION AND THE PERSONS OF THE TAX PAYER AS IF THEY ARE
ONE AND THE SAME PERSON, WHEN THE LAW TREATS THEM AS TOTALLY DISTINCT
AND SEPARATE PERSONS AND ASPECTS THEREOF.-NAMELY: (A) THE INCIDENCE OF
THE TAX AND THE PERSON LEGALLY LIABLE FOR THE TAX; AND THE (B) 'ACTUAL
PAYOR' OR 'RESULTING PAYOR' OF THE 35, of TRANSACTION TAX.
Assignment of Error No. 4
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE 35% TRANSACTION TAX IS AN
INCOME TAX FROM WHICH MINOLCO IS NOT EXEMPT AND NOT A BUSINESS TAX.
Assignment of Error No. 5
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRED IN CONFUSING THE 'INCIDENT OF THE TAX AND THE
ACTUAL PAYOR' OR 'RESULTING PAYOR' OF THE 35% TRANSACTION TAX; THAT
CONFUSION OF THE TWO SEPARATE PERSONS HAS RESULTED INTO THE ERRONEOUS
CONCLUSION THAT THE 35% TRANSACTION TAX IS AN INCOME TAX IMPOSED UPON
THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE MONEY LENDER INVOLVED IN THE ISSUANCE OF
THE COMMERCIAL PAPER UPON WHICH INTEREST INCOME IS PAID OR COLLECTED:
THAT THIS ERROR HAS RESULTED IN RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER'S AND SHE TAX
COURT'S) VIEW THAT PETITIONER MINOLCO IS A WITHHOLDING AGENT IN RESPECT
OF THE INCOME TAX DUE TO BE WITHHELD ON INTEREST INCOME OF MONEY
LENDER.
Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. v. CIR G.R. No. L-61632 3 of 6
The petitioner also submits that the 35% transaction tax is a business tax because it is imposed under Title V,
entitled -,Taxes on Business" and classified specially under Chapter II, entitled "Tax on Business."
The location of the 35%, tax in the Tax Code does not necessarily determine its nature, Again, we agree with the
Solicitor General that the legislative body must have realized later that. the subject tax was inappropriately
included among the taxes on business because Section 210 of the Tax Code has been repealed by Presidential
Decree No. 1739, which now imposes a tax of 20% on interests from deposits and yields from deposit substitutes
such as commercial papers issued in the primary market as principal instrument and provides for them in Section
24(cc) under Chapter III, Tax on Corporations, Title II-Income. Tax.
Petitioner Western Minolco Corporation has failed to justify its claimed exemption from the 35,7c, transaction tax.
The decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denying the petitioner's claim for refund is affirmed. It
bears repeating that the law looks with disfavor on tax exemptions and he who would seek to be thus privileged
must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue U. P. J Kiener Company Ltd, International Construction Corporation et al., L,-
24754, July 18, 1975, 65 SCRA 142).
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the respondent Court of Tax
Appeals is AFFIRMED: In toto.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Vasquez and Relova JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J, concurs in the result.
Aquino and Plana, JJ., took no part.
De Castro, Fernando (CJ.) and Abad Santos, J., is on leave.