Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. TOURS SPECIALISTS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188497 2012-04-25	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent cites as an analogous case Commissioner of International Revenue v. Tours Specialists, Inc.[14] which involved the inclusion of hotel room charges remitted by partner foreign tour agents in respondent TSI's gross receipts for purposes of computing the 3% contractor's tax. TSI opposed the deficiency assessment invoking, among others, Presidential Decree No. 31, which exempts foreign tourists from paying hotel room tax. This Court upheld the CTA in ruling that while CIR may claim that the 3% contractor's tax is imposed upon a different incidence, i.e., the gross receipts of the tourist agency which he asserts includes the hotel room charges entrusted to it, the effect would be to impose a tax, and though different, it nonetheless imposes a tax actually on room charges. One way or the other, said the CTA, it would not have the effect of promoting tourism in the Philippines as that would increase the costs or expenses by the addition of a hotel room tax in the overall expenses of said tourists.
	GR No. 177188 2008-12-04	EL GRECO SHIP MANNING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the CTA are binding on this Court and can only be disturbed on appeal if not supported by substantial evidence.[23] Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[24]
	GR NO. 139786 2006-09-27	CIR v. CITYTRUST INVESTMENT PHILS. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On appeal by the Commissioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA Decision, citing as main bases Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tours Specialist Inc.[9] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club,[10] holding that monies or receipts that do not redound to the benefit of the taxpayer are not part of its gross receipts, thus:Patently, as expostulated by our Supreme Court, monies or receipts that do not redound to the benefit of the taxpayer are not part of its gross receipts for the purpose of computing its taxable gross receipts. In Manila Jockey Club, a portion of the wager fund and the ten-peso contribution, although actually received by the Club, was not considered as part of its gross receipts for the purpose of imposing the amusement tax. Similarly, in Tours Specialists, the room or hotel charges actually received by them from the foreign travel agency was, likewise, not included in its gross receipts for the imposition of the 3% contractor's tax. In both cases, the fees, bets or hotel charges, as the case may be, were actually received and held in trust by the taxpayers. On the other hand, the 20% final tax on the Respondent's passive income was already deducted and withheld by various withholding agents. Hence, the actual or the exact amount received by the Respondent, as its passive income in the year 1994, was less the 20% final tax already withheld by various withholding agents. The various withholding agents at source were required under section 50 (a), of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to withhold the 20% final tax on certain passive income x x x.
	GR NO. 147375 2006-06-26	CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TINGA, J.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision[7] affirming the CTA. It cited this Court's decision in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tours Specialists, Inc.,[8] in which we held that the "gross receipts subject to tax under the Tax Code do not include monies or receipts entrusted to the taxpayer which do not belong to them and do not redound to the taxpayer's benefit" in concluding that "it would be unjust and confiscatory to include the withheld 20% final tax in the tax base for purposes of computing the gross receipts tax since the amount corresponding to said 20% final tax was not received by the taxpayer and the latter derived no benefit therefrom."[9]
	GR NO. 149636 2005-06-08	CIR v. BANK OF COMMERCE CALLEJO, SR., J.
On August 14, 2001, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition. Citing Sections 51 and 58(A) of the NIRC, Section 4(e) of Rev. Reg. No. 12-80[15] and the ruling of this Court in Manila Jockey Club, the CA held that the P17,076,850.90 representing the final withholding tax derived from passive investments subjected to final tax should not be construed as forming part of the gross receipts of the respondent bank upon which the 5% gross receipts tax should be imposed. The CA declared that the final withholding tax in the amount of P17,768,509.00 was a trust fund for the government; hence, does not form part of the respondent's gross receipts. The legal ownership of the amount had already been vested in the government. Moreover, the CA declared, the respondent did not reap any benefit from the said amount. As such, subjecting the said amount to the 5% gross receipts tax would result in double taxation. The appellate court further cited CIR v. Tours Specialists, Inc.,[16] and declared that the ruling of the Court in Manila Jockey Club was decisive of the issue.
	GR No. 146749 2003-06-10	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Commissioner v. Tours Specialists, Inc.,[51] the Court excluded from gross receipts money entrusted by foreign tour operators to Tours Specialists to pay the hotel accommodation of tourists booked in various local hotels. The Court declared that Tours Specialists did not own such entrusted funds and thus the funds were not subject to the 3% contractor's tax payable by Tours Specialists. The Court held:x x x [G]ross receipts subject to tax under the Tax Code do not include monies or receipts entrusted to the taxpayer which do not belong to them and do not redound to the taxpayer's benefit; and it is not necessary that there must be a law or regulation which would exempt such monies and receipts within the meaning of gross receipts under the Tax Code.