Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Hilado V CIR

    Uploaded by

    8111 aaa 1118
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,837.65 on his 1951 income tax return pursuant to a general circular that was later revoked. He argued that internal revenue laws were suspended during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. However, the court ruled that internal revenue laws continued in force during the occupation and taxes were still collected. The legal maxim is that laws continue until changed by a competent legislative power, and conquest alone does not terminate laws. The decision of the CTA to disallow the deduction was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Hilado V CIR

    Uploaded by

    8111 aaa 1118
    52 views1 page
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,837.65 on his 1951 income tax return pursuant to a general circular that was later revoked. He argued that internal revenue laws were suspended during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. However, the court ruled that internal revenue laws continued in force during the occupation and taxes were still collected. The legal maxim is that laws continue until changed by a competent legislative power, and conquest alone does not terminate laws. The decision of the CTA to disallow the deduction was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Hilado v CIR

    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 petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,837.65 on his 1951 income tax return pursuant to a general circular that was later revoked. He argued that internal revenue laws were suspended during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. However, the court ruled that internal revenue laws continued in force during the occupation and taxes were still collected. The legal maxim is that laws continue until changed by a competent legislative power, and conquest alone does not terminate laws. The decision of the CTA to disallow the deduction was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Hilado V CIR

    Uploaded by

    8111 aaa 1118
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,837.65 on his 1951 income tax return pursuant to a general circular that was later revoked. He argued that internal revenue laws were suspended during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. However, the court ruled that internal revenue laws continued in force during the occupation and taxes were still collected. The legal maxim is that laws continue until changed by a competent legislative power, and conquest alone does not terminate laws. The decision of the CTA to disallow the deduction was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Hilado v.

    CIR, CTA

    Facrs:

    In March 1952, petitioner filed his income tax return for 1951 wherein he claimed the amount of
    P12,837.65 as a deductible item from his gross income pursuant to General Circular No. V-123 issued by
    the Collector of Internal Revenue. On the basis of said return, an assessment notice demanding the
    payment of P9,419 was sent to Petitioner, who paid the tax in monthly installments. In August 1952, the
    Secretary of Finance issued General Circular No. V-139 revoking and declaring void his general Circular
    No. V- 123 and laid down the rule that losses of property which occurred during the period of World War
    II from fires, storms, shipwreck or other casualty, or from robbery, theft, or embezzlement are deductible
    in the year of actual loss or destruction of said property. As a consequence, the amount of P12,837.65
    was disallowed as a deduction from the gross income of Petitioner for 1951 and the Collector of Internal
    Revenue demanded from him the payment of the sum of P3,546 as deficiency income tax for said year. It
    appears that Petitioner claimed in his 1951 income tax return the deduction of the sum of P12,837.65 as
    a loss consisting in a portion of his war damage claim which had been duly approved by the Philippine
    War Damage Commission under the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946. Further, he asserts that during
    the last war and as a consequence of enemy occupation in the Philippines, there was no taxable year
    within the meaning of the internal revenue law because during such period it was unenforceable.

    Issue:

    Whether or not internal revenue laws were suspended during the war/occupation?

    Ruling:

    No. It is well known that our internal revenue laws are not political in nature and as such were continued
    in force during the period of enemy occupation and in effect were actually enforced by the occupation
    government. As a matter of fact, income tax returns were filed during that period and income tax payment
    were effected and considered valid and legal. Such tax laws are deemed to be the laws of the occupied
    territory and not of the occupying enemy. “Furthermore, it is a legal maxim, that excepting that of a
    political nature, ‘Law once established continues until changed by some competent legislative power. It is
    not changed merely by change of sovereignty.‘ There can be no break or interregnun in law. From the
    time the law comes into existence with the first-felt corporateness of a primitive people it must last until
    the final disappearance of human society. Once created, it persists until a change takes place, and when
    changed it continues in such changed condition until the next change and so forever. Conquest or
    colonization is impotent to bring law to an end; inspite of change of constitution, the law continues
    unchanged until the new sovereign by legislative act creates a change.’

    Decision of CTA is affirmed.

    You might also like