Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 637 views

    Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Ace Gregory Aceron
    1. Four siblings were gifted two lots by their father to build homes but later resold the lots for a profit when construction costs were too high. 2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the siblings formed an unregistered partnership and owed corporate income tax on the profits in addition to individual capital gains tax already paid. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the siblings were co-owners, not partners, as they did not intend to form a partnership and the single transaction of reselling the lots did not constitute a joint venture. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the lots.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Ace Gregory Aceron
    637 views1 page
    1. Four siblings were gifted two lots by their father to build homes but later resold the lots for a profit when construction costs were too high. 2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the siblings formed an unregistered partnership and owed corporate income tax on the profits in addition to individual capital gains tax already paid. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the siblings were co-owners, not partners, as they did not intend to form a partnership and the single transaction of reselling the lots did not constitute a joint venture. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the lots.

    Original Title

    Obillos v CIR

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Four siblings were gifted two lots by their father to build homes but later resold the lots for a profit when construction costs were too high. 2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the siblings formed an unregistered partnership and owed corporate income tax on the profits in addition to individual capital gains tax already paid. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the siblings were co-owners, not partners, as they did not intend to form a partnership and the single transaction of reselling the lots did not constitute a joint venture. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the lots.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    637 views1 page

    Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Ace Gregory Aceron
    1. Four siblings were gifted two lots by their father to build homes but later resold the lots for a profit when construction costs were too high. 2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ruled that the siblings formed an unregistered partnership and owed corporate income tax on the profits in addition to individual capital gains tax already paid. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the siblings were co-owners, not partners, as they did not intend to form a partnership and the single transaction of reselling the lots did not constitute a joint venture. Their purpose was to dissolve the temporary co-ownership of the lots.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Obillos v CIR G.R. No. L-68118 October 29, 1985 FACTS: 1. On March1973 Jose Obillos, Sr.

    completed payment on two lots located at Greenhills, San Juan, Rizal. The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build their residences. The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13 2. In 1974, the petitioners resold them to the Walled City Securities Corporation and Olga Cruz Canda for the total sum of P313,050. They derived from the sale a total profit of P134,341.88 or P33,584 for each of them. They treated the profit as a capital gain and paid an income tax on one-half thereof or of P16,792. 3. In April 1980, the CIR required the four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit of P134,336 in addition to individual income tax on their shares thereof. The petitioners are being held liable for deficiency income taxes and penalties totalling P127,781.76 on their profit of P134,336, in addition to the tax on capital gains already paid by them. 4. The Commissioner acted on the theory that the four petitioners had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture within the meaning of sections 24(a) and 84(b) of the Tax Code (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Trans. Co., 102 Phil. 822). ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners had created an unregistered partnership. HELD: NO. To regard the petitioners as having formed a taxable unregistered partnership would result in oppressive taxation and confirm the dictum that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. That eventuality should be obviated. As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were co-owners pure and simple. To consider them as partners would

    obliterate the distinction between a co-ownership and a partnership. The petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction. Their original purpose was to divide the lots for residential purposes. If later on they found it not feasible to build their residences on the lots because of the high cost of construction, then they had no choice but to resell the same to dissolve the co-ownership. The division of the profit was merely incidental to the dissolution of the co-ownership which was in the nature of things a temporary state. It had to be terminated sooner or later. Article 1769(3) of the Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived". There must be an unmistakable intention to form a partnership or joint venture. In the instant case, what the Commissioner should have investigated was whether the father donated the two lots to the petitioners and whether he paid the donor's tax (See Art. 1448, Civil Code). We are not prejudging this matter. It might have already prescribed.

    You might also like