Visayan Terminal Co. Inc. claimed deductions of P84,530.88 for salaries, representation expenses, and miscellaneous expenses. The Collector of Internal Revenue disallowed P79,230.88 of these expenses, resulting in a deficiency assessment of P18,991. The issue is whether representation expenses can be deducted from gross income. The court held that they cannot be deducted because: 1) Part of the expenses lacked supporting documents; 2) Documents supporting other expenses were allegedly destroyed; 3) There was no documentary or testimonial evidence of specific expenses; 4) Only oral proof of general payments was provided; and 5) Representation expenses in prior years were much lower. The explanation that documents were destroyed
Visayan Terminal Co. Inc. claimed deductions of P84,530.88 for salaries, representation expenses, and miscellaneous expenses. The Collector of Internal Revenue disallowed P79,230.88 of these expenses, resulting in a deficiency assessment of P18,991. The issue is whether representation expenses can be deducted from gross income. The court held that they cannot be deducted because: 1) Part of the expenses lacked supporting documents; 2) Documents supporting other expenses were allegedly destroyed; 3) There was no documentary or testimonial evidence of specific expenses; 4) Only oral proof of general payments was provided; and 5) Representation expenses in prior years were much lower. The explanation that documents were destroyed
Visayan Terminal Co. Inc. claimed deductions of P84,530.88 for salaries, representation expenses, and miscellaneous expenses. The Collector of Internal Revenue disallowed P79,230.88 of these expenses, resulting in a deficiency assessment of P18,991. The issue is whether representation expenses can be deducted from gross income. The court held that they cannot be deducted because: 1) Part of the expenses lacked supporting documents; 2) Documents supporting other expenses were allegedly destroyed; 3) There was no documentary or testimonial evidence of specific expenses; 4) Only oral proof of general payments was provided; and 5) Representation expenses in prior years were much lower. The explanation that documents were destroyed
Facts: Visayan Terminal Co. Inc., is a corporation organized for the
purpose of handling arrastre operations in the port of Cebu.Visayan Terminal filed its income tax return for 1951 reporting a gross income of P420,633.40 and claimed deductions amounting to P379,036.95, leaving a net income of P41,596.45 on which it paid income tax in the sum of P8,319.20.
The said sums of P2,375.00, P75,855.88 and P6,300.00, representing
salaries, representation expenses and miscellaneous expenses, respectively, or a total of P84,530.88, were disallowed by the Collector of Internal Revenue, thus giving rise to a deficiency assessment of P18,991.00.
The Collector modified the deficiency income tax assessment by allowing
the deduction from appellant's gross income of the salary of Juan Eugenio Lo in the sum of P1,875.00 and miscellaneous expenses amounting to P532.00, at the same time maintaining the disallowance of the full amount of P75,855.88 as representation expenses.
Issue: Whether or not the representation taxes can be deducted from the gross income?
Held:
No.
Representation expenses fall under the category of business expenses
which are allowable deductions from gross income if they meet the conditions prescribed by law", particularly Section 30(a) (1) of the National Internal Revenue Code; that, to be deductible, said business expenses must "ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business"; that those expenses "must also, meet the further test of reasonableness in amount", this test being "inherent in the phase `ordinary and necessary'"; that some of the representation expenses claimed by appellant had been evidenced by vouchers or chits, but others were reimbursed "without presentation of supporting papers; that the aforementioned vouchers or chits were allegedly "destroyed when the house of Buenaventura M. Veloso, treasurer of appellant, where the records were kept was burned"; that, accordingly, "it is not possible to determine the actual amount covered by supporting papers and the amount without supporting papers"; that the court should, therefore, "determine from all available data the amount properly deductible as representation expenses". In this case, it appears: (a) that part of the alleged representation expenses had never had any supporting paper; (b) that the vouchers and chits covering other representation expenses had been allegedly destroyed; (c) that there is no documentary evidence on record of any of the representation expenses in question; (d) that no testimonial evidence has been introduced on any specific item of said alleged expenses; (e) that there is no more than oral proof to the effect that payments had been made to appellant's officers for representation expenses allegedly made by the latter and about the general nature of such alleged expenses; (f) that the gross income in 1950 exceeded the gross income in 1951 and 1952, and (g) that the representation expenses in 1948 amounted to P500 only.
There being absolutely no concrete evidence of the sums then actually
spent for purposes of representation. It may not be amiss to note that the explanation to the effect that the supporting paper of some of those expenses had been destroyed when the house of the treasurer was burned, can hardly be regarded as satisfactory, for appellant's records are supposed to be kept in its offices, not in the residence of one of its officers.