Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 564 views

    CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda JR DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    The CIR filed a case against the Estate of Benigno Toda Jr. for tax evasion through a fraudulent real estate sale. Toda, as president of Cibeles Insurance Corp., authorized the sale of Cibeles Building to Rafael Altonaga, who then immediately sold it to Royal Match Inc. for double the price, allowing the companies to pay a lower capital gains tax instead of the higher corporate income tax. The Court ruled the estate was still liable because the quick resale and documents showing Royal Match paid Cibeles directly proved it was a scheme to evade taxes, not just avoid them. This constituted falsity or fraud, extending the period for tax assessment beyond the normal 3 years.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda JR DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    564 views2 pages
    The CIR filed a case against the Estate of Benigno Toda Jr. for tax evasion through a fraudulent real estate sale. Toda, as president of Cibeles Insurance Corp., authorized the sale of Cibeles Building to Rafael Altonaga, who then immediately sold it to Royal Match Inc. for double the price, allowing the companies to pay a lower capital gains tax instead of the higher corporate income tax. The Court ruled the estate was still liable because the quick resale and documents showing Royal Match paid Cibeles directly proved it was a scheme to evade taxes, not just avoid them. This constituted falsity or fraud, extending the period for tax assessment beyond the normal 3 years.

    Original Description:

    Tax

    Original Title

    14. CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda Jr DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CIR filed a case against the Estate of Benigno Toda Jr. for tax evasion through a fraudulent real estate sale. Toda, as president of Cibeles Insurance Corp., authorized the sale of Cibeles Building to Rafael Altonaga, who then immediately sold it to Royal Match Inc. for double the price, allowing the companies to pay a lower capital gains tax instead of the higher corporate income tax. The Court ruled the estate was still liable because the quick resale and documents showing Royal Match paid Cibeles directly proved it was a scheme to evade taxes, not just avoid them. This constituted falsity or fraud, extending the period for tax assessment beyond the normal 3 years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    564 views2 pages

    CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda JR DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    The CIR filed a case against the Estate of Benigno Toda Jr. for tax evasion through a fraudulent real estate sale. Toda, as president of Cibeles Insurance Corp., authorized the sale of Cibeles Building to Rafael Altonaga, who then immediately sold it to Royal Match Inc. for double the price, allowing the companies to pay a lower capital gains tax instead of the higher corporate income tax. The Court ruled the estate was still liable because the quick resale and documents showing Royal Match paid Cibeles directly proved it was a scheme to evade taxes, not just avoid them. This constituted falsity or fraud, extending the period for tax assessment beyond the normal 3 years.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    14. CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda Jr.

    (2004)
    G.R. No. 147188

    FACTS:
    March 2, 1989: Cibeles Insurance Corp. (CIC) authorized Benigno P. Toda Jr., President and
    Owner of 99.991% of outstanding capital stock, to sell the Cibeles Building and 2 parcels of land
    which he sold to Rafael A. Altonaga on August 30, 1987 for P 100M who then sold it on the
    same day to Royal Match Inc. for P 200M.
    CIC included gains from sale of real property of P 75,728.021 in its annual income tax return
    while Altonaga paid a 5% capital gains tax of P 10M
    July 12, 1990: Toda sold his shares to Le Hun T. Choa for P 12.5M evidenced by a deed of ale
    of shares of stock which provides that the buyer is free from all income tax liabilities for 1987,
    1988 and 1989. Toda Jr. died 3 years later.
    March 29, 1994: BIR sent an assessment notice and demand letter to CIC for deficiency of
    income tax of P 79,099, 999.22
    January 27, 1995: BIR sent the same to the estate of Toda Jr.
    Estate filed a protest which was dismissed - fraudulent sale to evade the 35% corporate income
    tax for the additional gain of P 100M and that there is in fact only 1 sale. Since it is falsity or
    fraud, the prescription period is 10 years from the discovery of the falsity or fraud as prescribed
    under Sec. 223 (a) of the NIRC.
    CTA: No proof of fraudulent transaction so the applicable period is 3 years after the last day
    prescribed by law for filing the return.

    ISSUE: W/N there is falsity or fraud resulting to tax evasion rather than tax avoidance so the
    period for assessment has not prescribed.

    RULING: YES. Estate shall be liable since NOT yet prescribed.


    Tax avoidance and tax evasion are the two most common ways used by taxpayers in escaping
    from taxation. ax avoidance is the tax saving device within the means sanctioned by law. This
    method should be used by the taxpayer in good faith and at arms length. Tax evasion, on the
    other hand, is a scheme used outside of those lawful means and when availed of, it usually
    subjects the taxpayer to further or additional civil or criminal liabilities.
    Tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors:
    (1) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that known by the taxpayer to be
    legally due, or the non-payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due
    (2) an accompanying state of mind which is described as being evil, in bad faith, willfull,or
    deliberate and not accidental; and
    (3) a course of action or failure of action which is unlawful.
    All are present in this case. The trial balance showed that RMI debited P 40M as "other-inv.
    Cibeles Building" that indicates RMI Paid CIC (NOT Altonaga)
    Fraud in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all
    acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or
    confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and
    unconscionable advantage is taken of another.
    Here, it is obvious that the objective of the sale to Altonaga was to reduce the amount of tax to
    be paid especially that the transfer from him to RMI would then subject the income to only 5%
    individual capital gains tax, and not the 35% corporate income tax.
    Generally, a sale of or exchange of assets will have an income tax incidence only when it is
    consummated but such tax incidence depends upon the substance of the transaction rather
    them mere formalities.

    You might also like