RSS

Pascual and Dragon v. CIR, G.R. No. 78133, October 18, 1988

25 Mar

[GANCAYCO, J.]

FACTS:

Petitioners bought two (2) parcels of land and a year after, they bought another three (3) parcels of land. Petitioners subsequently sold the said lots in 1968 and 1970, and realized net profits. The corresponding capital gains taxes were paid by petitioners in 1973 and 1974 by availing of the tax amnesties granted in the said years. However, the Acting BIR Commissioner assessed and required Petitioners to pay a total amount of P107,101.70 as alleged deficiency corporate income taxes for the years 1968 and 1970. Petitioners protested the said assessment asserting that they had availed of tax amnesties way back in 1974. In a reply, respondent Commissioner informed petitioners that in the years 1968 and 1970, petitioners as co-owners in the real estate transactions formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture taxable as a corporation under Section 20(b) and its income was subject to the taxes prescribed under Section 24, both of the National Internal Revenue Code that the unregistered partnership was subject to corporate income tax as distinguished from profits derived from the partnership by them which is subject to individual income tax; and that the availment of tax amnesty under P.D. No. 23, as amended, by petitioners relieved petitioners of their individual income tax liabilities but did not relieve them from the tax liability of the unregistered partnership. Hence, the petitioners were required to pay the deficiency income tax assessed.

ISSUE:

Whether the Petitioners should be treated as an unregistered partnership or a co-ownership for the purposes of income tax.

RULING:

The Petitioners are simply under the regime of co-ownership and not under unregistered partnership.

By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Art. 1767, Civil Code of the Philippines). In the present case, there is no evidence that petitioners entered into an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, and that they intended to divide the profits among themselves. The sharing of returns does not in itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. There must be a clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a juridical personality different from the individual partners, and the freedom of each party to transfer or assign the whole property. Hence, there is no adequate basis to support the proposition that they thereby formed an unregistered partnership. The two isolated transactions whereby they purchased properties and sold the same a few years thereafter did not thereby make them partners. They shared in the gross profits as co- owners and paid their capital gains taxes on their net profits and availed of the tax amnesty thereby. Under the circumstances, they cannot be considered to have formed an unregistered partnership which is thereby liable for corporate income tax, as the respondent commissioner proposes.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 25, 2015 in Case Digests, Taxation Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: