Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    (Digest) Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    GR
    The four children of Jose Obillos acquired two lots from their father for residential purposes. When they were unable to build on the lots due to high construction costs, they resold the properties and split the profits. The CIR imposed additional taxes, claiming the siblings had formed an unregistered partnership. The court held that mere co-ownership of property does not constitute a partnership under tax law unless the parties intended to form one. Looking at the siblings' intent, their purpose was to divide the lots for homes, not operate as a business partnership. Thus, they were not liable for the extra taxes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (Digest) Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    GR
    2K views2 pages
    The four children of Jose Obillos acquired two lots from their father for residential purposes. When they were unable to build on the lots due to high construction costs, they resold the properties and split the profits. The CIR imposed additional taxes, claiming the siblings had formed an unregistered partnership. The court held that mere co-ownership of property does not constitute a partnership under tax law unless the parties intended to form one. Looking at the siblings' intent, their purpose was to divide the lots for homes, not operate as a business partnership. Thus, they were not liable for the extra taxes.

    Original Description:

    Tax

    Original Title

    [Digest]Obillos v CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The four children of Jose Obillos acquired two lots from their father for residential purposes. When they were unable to build on the lots due to high construction costs, they resold the properties and split the profits. The CIR imposed additional taxes, claiming the siblings had formed an unregistered partnership. The court held that mere co-ownership of property does not constitute a partnership under tax law unless the parties intended to form one. Looking at the siblings' intent, their purpose was to divide the lots for homes, not operate as a business partnership. Thus, they were not liable for the extra taxes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    (Digest) Obillos V CIR

    Uploaded by

    GR
    The four children of Jose Obillos acquired two lots from their father for residential purposes. When they were unable to build on the lots due to high construction costs, they resold the properties and split the profits. The CIR imposed additional taxes, claiming the siblings had formed an unregistered partnership. The court held that mere co-ownership of property does not constitute a partnership under tax law unless the parties intended to form one. Looking at the siblings' intent, their purpose was to divide the lots for homes, not operate as a business partnership. Thus, they were not liable for the extra taxes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Obillos v.

    CIR
    G.R. No. L68118 October 29, 1985 AQUINO, J.
    petitioners JOSE P. OBILLOS, JR., SARAH P. OBILLOS, ROMEO P. OBILLOS and REMEDIOS P.
    OBILLOS, brothers and sisters
    respondents COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS
    summary The four children of Jose Obillos acquired two lots from the latter for residential
    purposes. Subsequently, they sold these properties and split the profits amongst
    them. The CIR imposed several taxes on top of the income tax already given claiming
    that the four children had formed an unregistered partnership or joint venture. The
    court held that they did not create a partnership. One must look at the intention of the
    parties in order to determine whether they indeed created a partnership.

    facts of the case


    March 2, 1973 Jose Obillos, Sr. completed payment to Ortigas & Co., Ltd. on two lots located at Greenhills,
    San Juan, Rizal.
    o The next day he transferred his rights to his four children, the petitioners, to enable them to build
    their residences.
    o The company sold the two lots to petitioners for P178,708.12 on March 13
    they were coowners of the two lots.
    After more than a year, 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 onehalf thereof or of P16,792.
    In April, 1980, or one day before the expiration of the fiveyear prescriptive period, the CIR required the
    four petitioners to pay corporate income tax on the total profit in addition to individual income tax on
    their shares thereof He assessed P37,018 as corporate income tax, P18,509 as 50% fraud surcharge and
    P15,547.56 as 42% accumulated interest, or a total of P71,074.56.
    o The CIR alleged 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
    issue
    WON the petioners had indeed formed an unregistered partnership, and therefore, liable for the extra taxes
    and penalties imposed by the CIR. NO

    ratio
    o 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.
    o As testified by Jose Obillos, Jr., they had no such intention. They were coowners pure and simple. The
    petitioners were not engaged in any joint venture by reason of that isolated transaction.
    o 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 coownership.
    o 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
    o Article 1769(3) of the CC provides that:
    o "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.*
    o As held in the De Leon Case:
    o All coownerships are not deemed unregistered pratnership.CoOwnership who own properties
    which produce income should not automatically be considered partners of an unregistered
    partnership, or a corporation, within the purview of the income tax law. To hold otherwise, would
    be to subject the income of all coownerships of inherited properties to the tax on corporations,
    1
    inasmuch as if a property does not produce an income at all, it is not subject to any kind of income
    tax, whether the income tax on individuals or the income tax on corporation.
    WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Tax Court is reversed and set aside. The assessments are cancelled. No
    costs.

    You might also like