The issue here is, can the Bureau of Internal Revenue collect the full amount of estate tax from an inheritance? era vs. Fernandez, 89 SCRA 199 The Bureau of Internal Revenue filed a mouon for allowance of claim and payment of taxes on the estate tax deficiencies in 1963 and 1964 in the intestate proceedings of Luis Tongoy.
The administrator claims that It was already barred by the statute of limitation, section 2 and section 5 of rule 86 of the rules of court, which provides that all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contracts, express or Implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and xpenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever.
The Issue here Is, can the statute of non-claims of the Rules of Court bar the claim of the government for unpaid taxes? Sison vs.
Only $13.90 / page
Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654 Section 1 of BP Blg 135 amended the tax code and petitioner Antero M. Sison, as taxpayer, alleges that, “he would be unduly discriminated against by the imposition of higher rates of tax upon his Income arising from the exercise of his profession vis- OF2 a-vls tnose wnlcn are Imposed upon Tlxea Income or salarlea lnOlvlOual taxpayers”.
He characterizes the above section as arbitrary amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious in character. In this case, there is a transgression of both the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution as well as of the rule requiring uniformity in taxation. Pepsi vs. Municipality of Tanauan, 69 SCRA 460 Plaintiff-appellant Pepsi-Cola commenced a complaint with preliminary injunction to declare Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy
Act, unconstitutional as an undue delegation of taxing authority as well as to declare Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 denominated as “municipal production tax” of the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, null and void. Ordinance 23 levies and collects from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tax of one-sixteenth of a centavo for every bottle of soft drink corked, and Ordinance 27 levies and collects on soft drinks produced or manufactured within the territorial Jurisdiction of this municipality a tax of one centavo on each gallon of volume capacity.
Aside from the undue delegation of uthority, appellant contends that it allows double taxation, and that the subject ordinances are void for they impose percentage or specific tax. Pascual vs. Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which apropriates funds for public works particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig feeder road terminals.
Some of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as contained in the tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected and planned ubdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio Subdivision, belonging to private respondent Zulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and which projected feeder roads do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway.
The respondents’ contention is that there is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be benefitted from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by its owner to the government.