Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Law116 A4 SanPabloVCIR

    Uploaded by

    polgasy
    - San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. was assessed miller's tax and sales tax for tax year 1987 on its sales of crude oil and agricultural products. It argued it was exempt from miller's tax as the crude oil was exported by the buyer. - The issue was whether SPMC's sale of crude coconut oil was subject to the 3% miller's tax. - The court ruled the sale was subject to the tax, as the tax exemption clause clearly applied only to exports by the miller or factory operator themselves, not buyers. Applying the legal maxim that expressing one thing implies excluding others, the court found SPMC did not meet the specific exemption requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    Law116 A4 SanPabloVCIR

    Uploaded by

    polgasy
    49 views2 pages
    - San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. was assessed miller's tax and sales tax for tax year 1987 on its sales of crude oil and agricultural products. It argued it was exempt from miller's tax as the crude oil was exported by the buyer. - The issue was whether SPMC's sale of crude coconut oil was subject to the 3% miller's tax. - The court ruled the sale was subject to the tax, as the tax exemption clause clearly applied only to exports by the miller or factory operator themselves, not buyers. Applying the legal maxim that expressing one thing implies excluding others, the court found SPMC did not meet the specific exemption requirements.

    Original Description:

    dfgdf

    Original Title

    Law116-A4-SanPabloVCIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. was assessed miller's tax and sales tax for tax year 1987 on its sales of crude oil and agricultural products. It argued it was exempt from miller's tax as the crude oil was exported by the buyer. - The issue was whether SPMC's sale of crude coconut oil was subject to the 3% miller's tax. - The court ruled the sale was subject to the tax, as the tax exemption clause clearly applied only to exports by the miller or factory operator themselves, not buyers. Applying the legal maxim that expressing one thing implies excluding others, the court found SPMC did not meet the specific exemption requirements.

    Copyright:

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

    Law116 A4 SanPabloVCIR

    Uploaded by

    polgasy
    - San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. was assessed miller's tax and sales tax for tax year 1987 on its sales of crude oil and agricultural products. It argued it was exempt from miller's tax as the crude oil was exported by the buyer. - The issue was whether SPMC's sale of crude coconut oil was subject to the 3% miller's tax. - The court ruled the sale was subject to the tax, as the tax exemption clause clearly applied only to exports by the miller or factory operator themselves, not buyers. Applying the legal maxim that expressing one thing implies excluding others, the court found SPMC did not meet the specific exemption requirements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SanPabloManufacturingCorp.

    VCIR
    AlfredBenedictT.SanAndres Law116LegalMethod GroupA4

    FACTS:
    San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation was assessed and ordered to pay by the Commissioner
    of Internal Revenue millers tax and manufacturers sales tax, among other deficiency taxes, for
    taxable year 1987 particularly on SPMCs sales of crude oil to United Coconut Chemicals, Inc.
    (UNICHEM) while the deficiency sales tax was applied on its sales of corn and edible oil as
    manufacturedproducts.
    SPMCopposedtheassessments.TheCommissionerofInternalRevenuedenieditsprotest.
    SPMC appealed the denial of its protest to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) by way of a
    petition for review. docketed as CTA Case No. 5423. It insists on the liberal application of the
    rules because, on the merits of the petition, SPMC was not liable for the 3% millers tax. It
    maintains that the crude oil which it sold to UNICHEM was actually exported by UNICHEM
    as an ingredient of fatty acid and glycerine, hence, not subject to millers tax pursuant to Section
    168 of the 1987 Tax Code. Since UNICHEM, the buyer of SPMCs milled products,
    subsequentlyexportedsaidproducts,SPMCshouldbeexemptedfromthemillerstax.

    ISSUE:
    WoNSPMCssaleofcrudecoconutoiltoUNICHEMwassubjecttothe3%millerstask.NO
    RULING:
    The language of the exempting clause of Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code was clear. Tax
    exemption applied only to the exportation of rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra byproducts and
    dessicated coconuts, whether in their original state or as an ingredient or part of any
    manufactured article or products, by the proprietor or operator of the factory or by the miller
    himself.
    Where the law enumerates the subject or condition upon which it applies, it is to be
    construed as excluding from its effects all those not expressly mentioned. Expressio
    uniusestexclusioalterius.Thisisappliedtointerpretthestatute.
    The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a canon of restrictive interpretation. Its
    application in this case is consistent with the construction of tax exemptions in strictissimi juris
    against the taxpayer. To allow SPMCs claim for tax exemption will violate these established
    principlesandundulyderogatesovereignauthority.

    You might also like