Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    25 - Ker v. Lingad - Cruz - PPT

    Uploaded by

    pscv49tr9x
    The CIR assessed commercial broker's taxes on Ker & Co. for its distribution agreement with US Rubber. The CTA mostly upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the relationship was one of principal-broker rather than vendor-vendee based on US Rubber's control over the goods and Ker & Co.'s limited authority to sell on its behalf.

    Copyright:

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

    25 - Ker v. Lingad - Cruz - PPT

    Uploaded by

    pscv49tr9x
    12 views13 pages
    The CIR assessed commercial broker's taxes on Ker & Co. for its distribution agreement with US Rubber. The CTA mostly upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the relationship was one of principal-broker rather than vendor-vendee based on US Rubber's control over the goods and Ker & Co.'s limited authority to sell on its behalf.

    Original Title

    25_Ker v. Lingad_Cruz_ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CIR assessed commercial broker's taxes on Ker & Co. for its distribution agreement with US Rubber. The CTA mostly upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the relationship was one of principal-broker rather than vendor-vendee based on US Rubber's control over the goods and Ker & Co.'s limited authority to sell on its behalf.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    12 views13 pages

    25 - Ker v. Lingad - Cruz - PPT

    Uploaded by

    pscv49tr9x
    The CIR assessed commercial broker's taxes on Ker & Co. for its distribution agreement with US Rubber. The CTA mostly upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the relationship was one of principal-broker rather than vendor-vendee based on US Rubber's control over the goods and Ker & Co.'s limited authority to sell on its behalf.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 13

    KER & CO., LTD. v.

    LINGAD
    38 SCRA 524
    April 30, 1971

    Cruz, Jerick V.
    Facts of the Case:
    ➢ The CIR assessed the petitioner, Ker &
    Co. Ltd., the sum of P20,272.33 as the
    commercial broker’s percentage tax,
    surcharge and compromise penalty.

    ➢ Ker & Co. Ltd. filed a Petition for


    Review before the Court of Tax Appeals
    (CTA). The CIR maintained that the
    petitioner should be taxed as a
    commercial broker.
    Facts of the Case:
    ➢ The CTA held petitioner taxable except
    as to the compromise penalty.

    ➢ The liability arose from the contract of


    Ker & Co. Ltd., as the distributor, with
    United States Rubber International, as its
    company.
    Facts of the Case:
    Coverage of the Contract

    All shipments of its products in Cebu,


    Bohol, Leyte, Samar, Jolo, Negros Oriental,
    and Mindanao (except the province of
    Davao.)

    Ker & Co. Ltd. (Distributor) is precluded


    from disposing products elsewhere
    without a written consent from United
    States Rubber International.
    Facts of the Case:
    Contract

    1. The Company shall from time to time consign


    to the Distributor.

    2. The Distributor will receive, accept and/or


    hold upon consignment the products specified
    under the terms of this agreement in such
    quantities as in the judgment of the Company
    may be necessary for the successful
    solicitation and maintenance of business in the
    territory.
    Facts of the Case:
    Contract

    3. The Distributor agrees that the responsibility


    for the final sale of all goods delivered shall
    rest with him.
    Facts of the Case:
    Contract

    4. All goods on consignment shall remain the property of


    the Company until sold by the Distributor to the
    purchaser or purchasers;

    5. But all sales made by the Distributor shall be in his


    name, in which the sale price of all goods sold less the
    discount given to the Distributor by the Company in
    accordance with the provision of their agreement,
    whether or not such sale price shall have been
    collected by the Distributor from the purchaser or
    purchasers, shall immediately be paid and remitted by
    the Distributor to the Company.
    Facts of the Case:
    Contract

    6. Ker & Co., as Distributor, is required to exert


    every effort to have the shipment of the
    products in the maximum quantity and to
    promote in every way the sale thereof.

    7. The prices, discounts, terms of payment,


    terms of delivery and other conditions of sale
    were subject to change in the discretion of
    United States Rubber International.
    Facts of the Case:
    Contract

    8. The agreement does not constitute Distributor,


    the agent or legal representative of the
    Company for any purpose whatsoever.
    Likewise, the Distributor is not granted any
    right or authority to assume or to create any
    obligation or responsibility, express or
    implied, on behalf of or in the name of the
    Company, or to bind the Company in any
    manner or thing whatsoever."
    Issue:

    Whether the relationship of Ker & Co. and


    US Rubber International was that of a
    vendor – vendee or principal – broker.
    Ruling:
    1. The relationship of the petitioner to US
    Rubber International is of broker and
    principal.

    2. The petitioner Ker & Co., Ltd. is, by


    contractual stipulation, an agent of U.S.
    Rubber International borne out by the facts
    that petitioner can dispose of the products of
    the Company only to certain persons or
    entities and within stipulated limits, unless
    excepted by the contract or by the Rubber
    Company.
    Ruling:
    3. Since the company retained ownership of the goods,
    even as it delivered possession unto the dealer for
    resale to customers, the price, and terms of which
    were subject to the company’s control, the
    relationship between the company and the dealer is
    one of agency.

    4. The mere disclaimer in a contract that an entity like


    Ker & Co. is not “the agent or legal representative for
    any purpose whatsoever” does not suffice to yield the
    conclusion that it is an independent merchant if the
    control over the goods for resale of goods consigned
    is pervasive in character.

    You might also like