Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[27] Hence, not being excepted, the taxes imposed under Sec. 131(A) of the 1997 NIRC must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general amnesty granted by RA 9399, expressed in the maxim: exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis.[28]
	GR No. 125346 2014-11-11	LA SUERTE CIGAR v. CA LEONEN, J.
The onus of proving that stemmed leaf tobacco is not subject to the specific tax lies with the cigarette manufacturers. Taxation is the rule, exemption is the exception.[162] Accordingly, statutes granting tax exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. The cigarette manufacturers must justify their claim by a clear and categorical provision in the law. Otherwise, they are liable for the specific tax on stemmed leaf tobacco found in their possession pursuant to Section 127[163] of the 1986 Tax Code, as amended.