Collector of Internal Revenue v. Goodrich International Rubber Co
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22265 March 27, 1968
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE,petitioner,
vs.
GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.,respondent.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Manuel O. Chan for respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.B.L.,:
In the decision of December 22, 1967, this Court modified that of the Court of Tax Appeals, and ruled that respondent's alleged representation expenses were fully taxable; it also reduced the claim for bad debts up to P22,627.35 only.
Petitioner-appellant Collector of Internal Revenue has now filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the Court order also the payment by respondent of 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest as provided in section 51(e) of the National Internal Revenue Code (before it was amended by Republic Act No. 2343). The respondent Goodrich International Rubber Co. opposes this motion on the ground that this claim for surcharge and monthly interest was not specifically pointed out in petitioner's assignment of errors.
It appearing, however, that the imposition of the 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest is required expressly by the statute, the Court believes that the failure to assign it as error should not be an obstacle to its imposition where proper, considering that "taxes are the lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need" (Bull v. U.S., 79 L. Ed. 1421, 1427).
Finding the motion for reconsideration meritorious, the dispositive part of our main decision is hereby modified by adding a paragraph reading as follows:
The respondent is therefore ordered:
(1) To pay the sum of P8,439.00, as deficiency income tax for 1952, plus the 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest thereon from July 20, 1956 until full payment thereof; and
(2) To pay the sum of P7,612.66 as deficiency income tax for 1951, plus the 5% surcharge and 1% monthly interest, thereon from December 29, 1957 until full payment thereof.
So ordered.1äwphï1.ñët
Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-65773-74 April 30 v. British Overseas Airways…1987both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-25483 May 23 v. Lucia Tan Office of the Solicitor…1969both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-23236 and L-23254 May 31 v. CTA1967both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-23123 September 30 v. Tabios1969both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-18840 May 29 v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue…1969both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-18543 October 31 v. General Sales Supply1968both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-18383 May 30 v. Revenue1966both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
- L-19342 May 25 v. Revenue1972both apply Act 2343, RA 2343
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.