Scribd
Upload
61 views2 pages

Cir vs. Manning

The respondents were shareholders and managers of MANASTRO, which had purchased shares from the previous majority owner Julius Reese over time from 1955-1958. In 1958, MANASTRO declared the purchased shares as treasury stock and distributed them as dividends to existing shareholders including the respondents. The CIR argued this was taxable income for the respondents. The court ruled that the treasury stock distribution was invalid as the shares were still outstanding based on the trust agreement, but the payments made by MANASTRO to purchase Reese's shares from 1955-1958 did accrue to the benefit of the respondents and were taxable income under the National Internal Revenue Code. The tax code assesses income from any source and is neutral on the leg

Uploaded by

Danica Faye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views2 pages

Cir vs. Manning

The respondents were shareholders and managers of MANASTRO, which had purchased shares from the previous majority owner Julius Reese over time from 1955-1958. In 1958, MANASTRO declared the purchased shares as treasury stock and distributed them as dividends to existing shareholders including the respondents. The CIR argued this was taxable income for the respondents. The court ruled that the treasury stock distribution was invalid as the shares were still outstanding based on the trust agreement, but the payments made by MANASTRO to purchase Reese's shares from 1955-1958 did accrue to the benefit of the respondents and were taxable income under the National Internal Revenue Code. The tax code assesses income from any source and is neutral on the leg

Uploaded by

Danica Faye
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[G.R. No. L-28398. August 6, 1975.

]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. JOHN L. MANNING, W.D.
McDONALD, E.E. SIMMONS and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.

The fact that the resolution authorizing the distribution of earnings is null and void is of no
moment. Under the National Internal Revenue Code, income tax is assessed on income received
from any property, activity or service that produces income. The Tax Code stands as an
indifferent, neutral party on the matter of where the income comes from.

FACTS:
In 1952, MANASTRO had an authorized capital stock of P2,500,000 divided into 25,000
common shares; 24,700 of these were owned by Julius S. Reese, and the rest, at 100 shares each,
by the three respondents. On February 29, 1952, a Trust Agreement was executed between
Reese as the OWNER, MANASTRO and the law firm as the TRUSTEES, and the respondents
as the MANAGERS. In the said Agreement, it was provided that:

“upon the death of the OWNER and the receipt by the TRUSTEES of the initial
payment from the company purchasing the OWNER’S SHARES, the TRUSTEES
shall cause the OWNER’S SHARES to be transferred into the name of such
company and such company shall thereupon transfer such shares into the name of
the TRUSTEES and the TRUSTEES shall hold such shares until payment for all
such shares shall have been made by the company as provided in this
agreement.”

In I954, Reese died. In 1955, Reese’s shares of 24,700 were transferred to


MANASTRO, upon partial payment made by the latter. Thereafter, in 1958, a resolution was
issued resolving that the 24,700 shares in the Treasury be reverted back to the capital account of
the company as a stock dividend to be distributed to shareholders of record at the close of
business on December 22, 1958.

In 1962, the BIR examined the books of MONASTRO and it was disclosed that the latter
failed to declare the said stock dividends as part of their taxable income for the year 1958. Thus,
the CIR issued notices of assessment for deficiency income taxes to the respondents for the year
1958.

It is the assumption of both parties that the 24,700 shares declared as stock dividends
were treasury shares.

ISSUE:
Whether respondents are liable for income tax deficiency on the “treasury” stock
dividends.

RULING:
Yes. Upon perusal of the Trust Agreement, it showed that the intention of the parties was
to treat the 24,700 shares of Reese as absolutely outstanding shares of Reese’s estate until they
were fully paid. Such being the true nature of the 24,700 shares, their declaration as treasury
stock dividend in 1958 was a complete nullity and plainly violative of public policy. 

The conclusion is thus ineluctable that whenever the companies involved herein parted
with a portion of their earnings "to buy" the corporate holdings of Reese, they were in ultimate
effect and result making a distribution of such earnings to the respondents. All these amounts are
consequently subject to income tax as being, in truth and in fact, a flow of cash benefits to the
respondents.

By virtue of the resolution made in 1958, respondents actually, albeit illegally,


appropriated and partitioned among themselves the stockholders’ equity representing Reese’s
interests in MANTRASCO. Thus, they should be liable for income tax purposes as to the extent
of the aggregate amount paid, from 1955 to 1958, by MANTRASCO to buy off Reese’s shares
considering that such payments accrued in favor of respondents.

The fact that the said resolution authorizing the distribution of the said earnings is null
and void is of no moment. Under the National Internal Revenue Code, income tax is assessed on
income received from any property, activity or service that produces income. The Tax Code
stands as an indifferent, neutral party on the matter of where the income comes from.

You might also like