This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Again, it is stressed that the CWT is creditable against the tax due from the seller of the property at the end of the taxable year. The seller will be able to claim a tax refund if its net income is less than the taxes withheld. Nothing is taken that is not due so there is no confiscation of property repugnant to the constitutional guarantee of due process. More importantly, the due process requirement applies to the power to tax.[79] The CWT does not impose new taxes nor does it increase taxes.[80] It relates entirely to the method and time of payment. | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The principle of fiscal adequacy as a characteristic of a sound tax system was originally stated by Adam Smith in his Canons of Taxation (1776), as: IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.[63] It simply means that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government expenditures and their variations.[64] | |||||