8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 9

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.
*
No. L­28896. February 17, 1988.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

petitioner, vs. ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, respondents.

Taxation; Nature of taxes; Purpose of taxation; Collection of

taxes should be made in accordance with law.—Taxes are the
lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without
unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand, such collection should
be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate
the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to
reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities
and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is
the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
Same; Appeal; Appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals is 30 days from
receipt thereof.—The above chronology shows that the petition
was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal
may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or
ruling challenged.
Same; Warrant of distraint and levy; Rule that the warrant of
distraint and levy is proof of the finality of the assessment;
Exception is where there is a letter of protest after receipt of notice
of assessment.—It is true that as a rule the warrant of distraint
and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" and "renders
hopeless a request for reconsideration," being "tantamount to an
outright denial thereof and makes the said request deemed
rejected." But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar
that prevents application of this accepted doctrine. The proven
fact is that four days after the private respondent received the
petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This
was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of
distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be
located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty.
Guevara gave the BIR a

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

copy of the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax

authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

premature and could therefore not be served.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Protest filed, not pro forma, and
was based on strong legal considerations; Case at bar.—As the
Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted, the protest filed by private
respondent was not pro forma and was based on strong legal
considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January
18, 1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started
on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965.
The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the
private respondent was definitely informed of the implied
rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally served on
it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20
days of the reglementary period had been consumed.
Same; Income Tax; Payments in promotional fees, not
fictitious; Claimed deduction of P75,000 proper; Strict business
procedures not applied in a family corporation.—We find that
these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent
when its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia
V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one
lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each
payee's need arose. It should be remembered that this was a
family corporation where strict business procedures were not
applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required.
Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to be closed,
each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him
or her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. Admittedly, everything
seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable,
however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in
the family corporation.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Amount of promotional fees, not
excessive.—We agree with the respondent court that the amount
of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission
paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the
private respondent was P1 25,000.00. After deducting the said
fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from
the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total
commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it
was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation
of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual
purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Burden on taxpayer to prove
validity of the claimed deduction, successfully discharged;
Payment of the fees was

11

VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 11

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

necessary and reasonable.—The Solicitor General is correct when

he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of
the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that
the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private
respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary
and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in
inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an
experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business
requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be,
as it was, sufficiently recompensed.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

Same; Same; Rationale of taxation.—It is said that taxes are

what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government
would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and
operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part
of one's hard­earned income to the taxing authorities, every
person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of
the government. The government, for its part, is expected to
respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended
to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and
material values, This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of
taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an
arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power.

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CRUZ, J.:

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be

collected without unnecessary hindrance. On the other
hand, such collection should be made in accordance with
law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for
government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the
apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the
taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the
promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the
Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the
P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue
as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns.
The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the
private respondent from the decision of the Collector of
Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance
with law.
12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

We deal first with the procedural question.

The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private
respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering,
construction and other allied activities, received a letter
from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of
P83,183.851 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958
and 1959. On January 18, 1965, Algue filed a letter of
protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was
stamp­received
2
on the same day in the office of the
petitioner. On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and
levy was presented to the private respondent, through its
counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who 3refused to receive
it on the ground of the pending protest. A search of the
protest in the dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty.
Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR4
agent Ramon Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant.
On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that
the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was
only then that he accepted the warrant
5
of distraint and
levy earlier sought to be served. Sixteen days later, on
April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

decision of the Commissioner

6
of Internal Revenue with
the Court of Tax Appeals.
The above chronology shows that the petition was filed
seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may
be made within thirty
7
days after receipt of the decision or
ruling challenged. It is true that as a rule the warrant of
distraint and8
levy is "proof of the finality of the
assessment" and 9
"renders hopeless a request for
reconsideration," being "tantamount to an outright 10 denial
thereof and makes the said request deemed rejected."

______________

1 Rollo, pp. 28­29.

2 Ibid., pp. 29; 42.
3 Id., p. 29.
4 Respondent's Brief, p. 11.
5 Id., p. 29.
6 Id.
7 Sec. 11.
8 Phil. Planters Investment Co. Inc. v. Acting Comm. of Internal
Revenue, CTA Case No. 1266, Nov. 11,1962; Rollo, p. 30.
9 Vicente Hilado v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 1256,
Oct. 22,1962; Rollo, p. 30.
10 Ibid.

13

VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 13

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that

prevents application of this accepted doctrine.
The proven fact is that four days after the private
respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment,
it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken
into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was
issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the
office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara
gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all,
considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening
period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not
be served. 11
As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted, the
protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and
was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the
effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was
filed, the reglementary period which started on the date
the assessment was received, viz., Jaauary 14, 1965. The
period started running again only on Ap 7, 1965, when the
private respondent was definitely informed of the implied
rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally
served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23,
1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period had been
consumed.
Now for the substantive question.
The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of
P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an
ordinary, reasonable or necessary business expense. The
Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with
Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately
paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These

were collected by the payees for their work in the creation
of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the
Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties
of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company.
Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner
had originally claimed these promotional fees to be
personal holding

_______________

11 Penned by Associate Judge Estanislao R. Alvarez, concurred by

Presiding Judge Ramon M. Umali and Associate Judge Ramon L.
Avanceña.

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.
12
company income but later conformed to the13 decision of
the respondent court rejecting this assertion. In fact, as
the said court found, the amount was earned through the
joint efforts of the persons among whom it was distributed.
It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate
Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its
agent, authorizing it to sell its land. factories and oil
manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority,
Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara,
Edith O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez worked for the
formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment
14
Corporation,
inducing other persons to invest in it. Ultimately, after its
incorporation largely through the promotion of the said
persons, this
15
new corporation purchased the PSEDC
properties. For this sale, Algue received as agent a
commission of P125,000.00, and it was from this
commission that the P75,000.00 16promotional fees were
paid to the aforenamed individuals.
There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their
respective shares of the fees in their income 17
tax returns
and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. The Court of
Tax Appeals also found, after examining the18
evidence, that
no distribution of dividends was involved.
The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious
because most of the payees are members of the same
family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication
was made as to how such payments were made, whether by
check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of
such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax
dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by
involving an imaginary deduction.
We find that these suspicions were adequately met by
the private respondent when its President, Alberto
Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified
that the payments were not made in one lump sum but
periodically and in different

_______________

12 Rollo, p, 33,
13 Ibid., pp. 7­8; Petition, pp. 2­3.
14 Id., p. 37.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.

15

VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 15

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.
19
amounts as each payee's need arose. It should be
remembered that this was a family corporation where strict
business procedures were not applied and immediate
issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end
of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee
made an accounting of all of the fees received
20
by him or
her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. Admittedly,
everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was
understandable, however, in view of the close relationship
among the persons in the family corporation.
We agree with the respondent court that the amount of
the promotional fees was not excessive. The total
commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate
Development21 Co. to the private respondent was
P125,000.00. After deducting the said fees, Algue still
had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the
transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the
total commission. This was a reasonable proportion,
considering that it was the payees who did practically
everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil
Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the
Sugar Estate properties.
This finding of the respondent court is in accord with
the following provision of the Tax Code:

"SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.—In computing net

income there shall be allowed as deductions—

(a) Expenses:

(1) In general.—All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid

or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any
trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for
salaries or other compensation for personal services
22
actually rendered; x x x"

and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as

follows:

"SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.—Among the

ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on
any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for
salaries or other compensation for personal services actually
rendered. The test of

_______________

19 Respondent's Brief, pp. 25­32.

20 Ibid., pp. 30­32.
21 Rollo, p. 37.
22 Now Sec. 30, (a) (1)—(A.), National Internal Revenue Code.

16

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether

they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service.
This test and its practical application may be further stated and
illustrated as follows:
"Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact
as the purchase price of services, is not deductible. (a) An
ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a
dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a
corporation having few stockholders, practically all of whom draw
salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those
ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive payment
correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the
officers of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are
not paid wholly for services rendered, but the excessive payments
are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. x x x" (Promulgated
Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.)

It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees

were not in the regular employ
23
of Algue nor were they its
controlling stockholders.
The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the
burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the
claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find
that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The
private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees
was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts
exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent
businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and
involve themselves in a new business requiring millions of
pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was,
sufficiently recompensed.
It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilized society.
Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack
of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence,
despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's
hard­earned income to the taxing authorities, every person
who is able to must contribute his share in the running of
the government. The government for its part, is expected to
respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits
intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance
their moral and material values. This symbiotic
relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel
the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of

_______________

23 Respondent's Brief, p. 35.

17

VOL. 158, FEBRUARY 17, 1988 17

Commissioner of lnternal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc.

exaction by those in the seat of power.

But even as we concede the inevitability and
indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all
democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then
the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
8/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 158

then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the
tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the
taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has
not been observed.
We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from
the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the
respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125.
And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private
respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue
Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the
petitioner.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of
Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without costs.
SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño­

Aquino, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.

Notes.—Tax assessment by tax examiners are

presumed correct and made in good faith. Taxpayer has
duty to prove otherwise. (Commissioner of lnternal Revenue
vs. Construction Resources of Asia, Inc., 145 SCRA 671.)
Commission on Audit cannot make a final decision on
tax questions, (Phil, Telegraph and Telephone Corp. vs,
Commission on Audit, 146 SCRA 190.)

——o0o——

18

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016503fa47ad1b854095003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8