Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 748 views

    CIR vs. Jerry Ocier 197192

    Uploaded by

    magen
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CTA En Banc and reinstated the deficiency assessments of the BIR against Jerry Ocier for capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax arising from the sale of shares of stock. While the BIR failed to formally offer its evidence against Ocier, his admission during trial that he transferred 4.9 million shares was sufficient to establish his liability. The sale of the shares was subject to capital gains tax and the transfer constituted a taxable privilege under the documentary stamp tax.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR vs. Jerry Ocier 197192

    Uploaded by

    magen
    748 views1 page
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CTA En Banc and reinstated the deficiency assessments of the BIR against Jerry Ocier for capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax arising from the sale of shares of stock. While the BIR failed to formally offer its evidence against Ocier, his admission during trial that he transferred 4.9 million shares was sufficient to establish his liability. The sale of the shares was subject to capital gains tax and the transfer constituted a taxable privilege under the documentary stamp tax.

    Original Description:

    Taxation Law 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CTA En Banc and reinstated the deficiency assessments of the BIR against Jerry Ocier for capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax arising from the sale of shares of stock. While the BIR failed to formally offer its evidence against Ocier, his admission during trial that he transferred 4.9 million shares was sufficient to establish his liability. The sale of the shares was subject to capital gains tax and the transfer constituted a taxable privilege under the documentary stamp tax.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR vs. Jerry Ocier 197192

    Uploaded by

    magen
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CTA En Banc and reinstated the deficiency assessments of the BIR against Jerry Ocier for capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax arising from the sale of shares of stock. While the BIR failed to formally offer its evidence against Ocier, his admission during trial that he transferred 4.9 million shares was sufficient to establish his liability. The sale of the shares was subject to capital gains tax and the transfer constituted a taxable privilege under the documentary stamp tax.

    Copyright:

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

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue versus Jerry Ocier

    G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014


    First Division, Bersamin, J.

    Facts: Jerry Ocier received an assessment notice from the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue (BIR) showing deficiencies in the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and
    Documentary Stamp Taxes (DST) for the year 1999. Such arose from his sale of
    shares of stock of Best World Resources Corporation (BW Resources) thru over
    the counter transactions. He was served notices of assessment, to which he
    filed a protest, this denied by BIR, he was given notice of preliminary collection
    of deficiency assessments. Ocier filed a petition for review to the CTA which
    granted his petition, and was affirmed by the CTA En Banc. The Commissioner
    of Internal Revenue now files for a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
    The CIR does not deny the failure to formally offer BIR's evidence against Ocier
    but insists that such failure was not fatal considering that the the latter’s liability
    for the CGT and DST for the transfer of the BW Resources shares had still been
    established by the evidence on record.

    Issue(s): Whether the cancellation of Assessment Notices of Deficiency was


    proper.

    Decision: No. Petition granted, CTA En Banc decision reversed and set aside.
    The Court grants the petition based on Ocier’s admission at trial of transferring
    the 4.9 million shares of BW resources to Tan. Such transaction is evidently, liable
    for CGT and DST despite the non-presentation of PANs as evidence. The CGT
    is imposed on the net capital gains realized during the taxable year from the
    sale, barter, exchange or other disposition of shares of stock in a domestic
    corporation, except shares sold, or disposed of through the stock exchange.
    The term disposition, being neither defined nor qualified in Section 24(C), is
    accorded its ordinary meaning, that is, any act of disposing, transferring to the
    care or possession of another, or the parting with, alienation of, or giving up of
    property. With Ocier himself not disputing (but actually admitting) the transfer
    of the 4.9 million shares of BW Resources to Tan, such manner of disposition of
    the shares was definitely within the contemplation of Section 24(C) of the NIRC.
    The DST is an excise tax on the exercise of a right or privilege to transfer
    obligations, rights or properties incident thereto. The transfer of the shares of
    stocks is an exercise of the privilege to transfer a right and properties incident
    thereto that is embodied in the stock loan agreement/trust declaration. The
    Court notes that evidence must be formally offered for the court to consider
    the same, something the CIR failed to do in presenting the PANs for evidence.
    It is held in CIR v. United Salvage Towage that for evidence to be considered,
    the same must be formally offered. An exemption to the requirement of formal
    offer needs that (1) the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly
    recorded; and (2) the same must have been incorporated in the records of
    the case. Being an exception, the same may only be applied when there is
    strict compliance with the requisites mentioned above; otherwise, the general
    rule in Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court should prevail.

    Page 8 of 30

    You might also like