Republic of the Philippines reconsideration," 

9 being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said

FIRST DIVISION The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's
notice of assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest
could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave
the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not be
vs. served.
ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11 the protest filed by private respondent
CRUZ, J.: was not pro forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the
effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The
unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was
accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was
itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days
authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the of the reglementary period had been consumed.
promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
Now for the substantive question.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue
correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly
as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary issue is disallowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business
whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it
of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with law. held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for
actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These
We deal first with the procedural question. were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil
Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the
The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic properties of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company.
corporation engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received
a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of P83,183.85 as Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these
delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue promotional fees to be personal holding company income 12 but later conformed to the
flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received decision of the respondent court rejecting this assertion. 13 In fact, as the said court
on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2 On March 12, 1965, a warrant of found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the persons among whom it
distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development
Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to receive it on the ground of the pending Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land,
protest. 3 A search of the protest in the dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara,
Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon Reyes, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked
who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, inducing other persons
informed that the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then to invest in it.14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the promotion of the
that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought to be served. 5 Sixteen said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. 15 For this sale,
days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the decision of the Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this
Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals.6 commission that the P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed
individuals.16
The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to
Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees
decision or ruling challenged.7 It is true that as a rule the warrant of distraint and levy in their income tax returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. 17 The Court of
is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders hopeless a request for
Tax Appeals also found, after examining the evidence, that no distribution of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact,
dividends was involved.18 payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be
further stated and illustrated as follows:
The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees
are members of the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the
made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there purchase price of services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by
is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to
dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of
deduction. whom draw salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those
ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive payment correspond or
We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers of employees, it
its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered,
the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in different but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . .
amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.)
family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate
issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ
books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received of Algue nor were they its controlling stockholders. 23
by him or her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to
be informal. This arrangement was understandable, however, in view of the close The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to
relationship among the persons in the family corporation. prove the validity of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that
the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that
We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts
excessive. The total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in
Co. to the private respondent was P125,000.00. 21 After deducting the said fees, an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business requiring
Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently
amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable recompensed.
proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the
formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the
the Sugar Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate
following provision of the Tax Code: it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned
income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his
SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is expected to
shall be allowed as deductions — respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of
the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is
(a) Expenses: the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary
method of exaction by those in the seat of power.
(1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred
during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a
reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in
services actually rendered; ... 22 accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to
complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of
the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate,
and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows: as it has here, that the law has not been observed.

SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner
necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business was filed on time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125.
may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted
for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by
of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, the petitioner.
payments purely for service. This test and deductibility in the case of
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED  in
toto, without costs.

SO ORDERED.