Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Hilado v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    Joy Raguindin
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,387.65 from his 1951 gross income pursuant to a general circular issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. However, a new Secretary of Finance revoked that circular and issued a new one stating that property losses during World War II can only be deducted in the year they actually occurred. As a result, the petitioner's deduction was disallowed and he was demanded to pay a deficiency tax of P3,546. The court held that the Secretary of Finance has the authority to revoke previous rulings if a different interpretation of the statute is warranted, and no vested rights can arise from a wrong interpretation of the law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hilado v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    Joy Raguindin
    139 views1 page
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,387.65 from his 1951 gross income pursuant to a general circular issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. However, a new Secretary of Finance revoked that circular and issued a new one stating that property losses during World War II can only be deducted in the year they actually occurred. As a result, the petitioner's deduction was disallowed and he was demanded to pay a deficiency tax of P3,546. The court held that the Secretary of Finance has the authority to revoke previous rulings if a different interpretation of the statute is warranted, and no vested rights can arise from a wrong interpretation of the law.

    Original Description:

    income tax general principles

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    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 P12,387.65 from his 1951 gross income pursuant to a general circular issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. However, a new Secretary of Finance revoked that circular and issued a new one stating that property losses during World War II can only be deducted in the year they actually occurred. As a result, the petitioner's deduction was disallowed and he was demanded to pay a deficiency tax of P3,546. The court held that the Secretary of Finance has the authority to revoke previous rulings if a different interpretation of the statute is warranted, and no vested rights can arise from a wrong interpretation of the law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views1 page

    Hilado v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    Joy Raguindin
    The petitioner claimed a deduction of P12,387.65 from his 1951 gross income pursuant to a general circular issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. However, a new Secretary of Finance revoked that circular and issued a new one stating that property losses during World War II can only be deducted in the year they actually occurred. As a result, the petitioner's deduction was disallowed and he was demanded to pay a deficiency tax of P3,546. The court held that the Secretary of Finance has the authority to revoke previous rulings if a different interpretation of the statute is warranted, and no vested rights can arise from a wrong interpretation of the law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Hilado vs Collector of Internal Revenue Posted on December 6, 2012 100 Phil.

    188 1956 Secretary of Finance revoked a general circular pursuant to which a taxpayer claimed deductions from his gross income. FACTS Hilado filed his income tax return wherein he claimed the amount of P12,387.65 as a deductible item from his gross income pursuant to the Collector of Internal Revenues General Circular No. V-123, issued pursuant to certain rules laid down by the Secretary of Finance. Subsequently, the new Secretary of Finance, through the CIR, issued General Circular No. V-139 which revoked General Circular No. V-123 and laid down the rule that property losses which occurred during the World War II are deductible in the year of actual loss/destruction of said property. As a consequence, the P12,387.65 was disallowed as a deduction from petitioners gross income for 1951 and the CIR demanded from him the payment of P3,546 as deficiency income tax for the year. ISSUE Whether the Secretary of Finance acted with valid authority in revoking General Circular No. V-123 and approving in lieu thereof, General Circular No. V-139. HELD Yes. The Secretary of Finance is vested with authority to revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessors in office because the construction of a statute by those administering it is not binding on their successors if the latter becomes satisfied that a different construction should be given. General Circular No. V-123, having been issued on a wrong construction by the law, cannot give rise to a vested right that can be invoked by a taxpayer. A vested right cannot spring from a wrong interpretation. An administrative officer cannot change a law enacted by Congress. Once a regulation which merely interprets a statute is determined erroneous, it becomes a nullity. The CIRs erroneous construction of the law does not preclude or stop the Government from collecting a tax legally due. Under Art. 2254 of the Civil Code, no vested/acquired right can arise from acts/omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others. Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue GR L-9408, October 31,1956 Facts: Emilio Hilado filed his income tax return for 1951 with the treasurer of Bacolod City, claiming a deductible item of P12,837.65 from his gross income pursuant to General Circular V-123 issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. The Secretary of Finance, through the Collector, issued General Circular V139 which revoked and declared void Circular V-123; and laid down the rule[s] that losses of property which occurred in 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. The deductions were disallowed. Issue: Whether Internal Revenue Laws were enforced during the war and whether Hilado can claim compensation for destruction of his property during the war. Held: Philippines 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. Such tax laws are deemed to be laws of the occupied territory and not of the occupying enemy. As of the end of 1945, there was no law which Hilado could claim for the destruction of his properties during the battle for the liberation of the Philippines. Under the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1948, the payment of claims by the War Damage Commission depended upon its discretions non-payment of which does not give rise to any enforceable right. Assuming that the loss (deductible item) represents a portion of the 75% of his war damage claim, the amount would be at most a proper deduction of his 1950 gross income (not on his 1951 gross income) as the last installment and notice of discontinuation of payment by the War Damage

    You might also like