[ G.R. No. 7444. March 28, 1913 ]
[ G.R. No. 7444. March 28, 1913 ]
G.R. No. 7444
[ G.R. No. 7444. March 28, 1913 ]
MACLEOD & COMPANY, DEMANDANTE APELANTE, CONTRA ELLIS CROMWELL, COLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEMANDADO APELADO.
D E C I S I O N
La debida consideracion de este asunto nos lleva a la conclusion de que la demandante era en su verdadero sentido un exportador y que los derechos sobre la venta del abaca en cuestion eran, por su efecto y resultados derechos sobre su exportacion. Tales derechos no pueden ser impuestos ni cobrados con arreglo a la ley.
Se revoca la sentencia apelada y por la presente se ordena al Juez de Primera Instancia dicte sentencia en favor de la demandante y en contra del demandado por la suma de P2,088.43, sin costas.
Trascurridos 20 dias desde la notificacion de esta decision dictese sentencia a tenor de lo resuelto y 10 dias despues devuelvase los autos al Juzgado de su procedencia a los efectos oportunos.
Asi se ordena.
Arellano, C.J., Gomez, Moreland y Trent.
Johnson, J.,
I cannot agree with my associates in their conclusions in the present case. In my opinion, if the Government can not collect the taxes provided for by law upon the hemp in question, then it can not collect it in any case where the hemp is finally exported. In the present case the export duty was collected by the purchaser, which would clearly indicate that he was the exporter.
By an unauthorized judicial interpretation the government is deprived of a large amount of revenue which will inure only to the benefit of strangers, to the maintenance of the Philippine Government.
More in SC Decisions
- [ A.M. No. P-10-2739 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3015-P]. August 24, 2011 ](671 Phil. 551)
- G.R. No. 158361, April 10, 2013
- A.M. No. RTJ-93-1064, January 22, 1996
- [ G. R. No. 1167. December 16, 1903 ]
- [ G. R. No. 34136. October 02, 1930 ]
- [ G.R. No. 77588. May 12, 1989 ](255 Phil. 293; 86 OG No. 53, 10080 (December 31, 1990))
- [ G.R. No. 243639. September 18, 2019 ](863 Phil. 708)
- [ G.R. No. 170463. February 02, 2011 ](656 Phil. 385; 107 OG No. 52, 6731 (December 26, 2011))
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.