ENT DEVELOUMESTS IN TAXATION
. dustica SAVAK H IISAAKSEAO
ation, Court ef Appeae
Member, Departnncnt of Sharia Lav, PHILIA,
SLIDELL ne
ALLOWANCE OF FPURSOMAL ¥ % 7,
ws 2 MALL % 2A ETION FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER
“There shall be allot «tase pe teenage
(250,000) foreach sadividual expayer!n te eae of tarred eos hed Tie et
Secert detouy ppoer nae ounting to Fifty Thousan
eeenstay Bea. Nan S060] =, only such Sperase shall be allowed the persona Coenen
APPITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR DEPENDENTS.
There shall be allowed an addi +
" Ee an additional exemption of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos
(241000) for cach depentent not exanting toes (2) Tes nitonalexcmprion for dependents
Shall be ciaimed by only one of the spouses in the case of married individuals.
In the case of legally separated 5
sp>.8-4, adiiitional exemptions may be claimed only by
the spoure who Has custody of the chilo or chisdren: Provided That the total amount of
apie that may be claimed ‘yy both shall not exceed the maximum additional
A ‘dependent’ means a legitimate, legitimate or legally adopted child chiefly dependent
upon and jiving with the taxpayer if such dependent is not more than twenty-one (21) years of
age, unmarried and not gainfally employed or if such dependent. regardless of age,
incapable of self-support because of mental or physical defect. (See. #(B). RA. No. 9504)
SLIDES
SLIDE 4s .
3D) F
OPTIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION
INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE TAXPAYER
A. Individual Taxpayers
‘The OSD allowed to individual taxpeyers shall be
gross sales or gross receipts during the taxable year. It sho
sales” in case of individual seller of gocds, or the “cost of services”
scted for purposes of determining the basis of the
seller of services, is not allowed to be de
. CSD pursuant to this Section inasmuch 2s the law(RA 9504) is specific as to the basis thereof’
which states that for individuals, the basis cf the 40% OSD shall be the “gross sales” or “gross
pts” and not “gross income”. [Revenue I'egulstions Na 16-2008]
a maximum of forty percent (40%) of,
wuld be emphasized that the “cost of
in the case of individual
re
SLIDE 5
. B, Corporate Taxpayers
ject Sections 27(A) and 28(A)(1) of
in the te taxpayers subject te tax under Section: 27) y ;
che Cone EL RRS'SSD alowed shall be fn an amount pot excesiing SFY TS nt
cece(40%) of thei grosa income,
For purporos of tone Regulations, "Grose Income” shall mea
return antoutits ad nlowncen wi Goat OF ace nl “Grows ste ty
contributory to Income taxable tnder See, 87(A) of the Code senate .
the purchase price or cost to produce the merchandise and all oxen ces, Shall inchde
bringing them to their present location and tne, Cltevenue fogululon me ec eeey incurred in
Itlons No. 18-8008)
gross sales less sales
all include only sales
NON-SLOCK, NON-PROFIT ERUCATION FOUNDATIONS
ARE EAEMEY Wy IN ATI
8. The Foundation shall bo exempt fiom the payment of all miso [— provides: SECTION
and other charges imposed by the Government on all income derived from or property, real oF
personal, used exclusively for the educational activiti ‘the Foundation. (Angeles University
Foundation % Cy of Angeles 873 SCRA 250 (2010) ™ —
SLIDEZ
LAXE: RUSS! Es LEGAL E OF PUBLIC MO}
A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing. to raise a constitutional issue when it is established
that public finds from taxation have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or the
‘yur Constitution. Petitioner claims that the issuance of Circular No. 89-299 has led to the dissipation of
°Y public funds through numerous irregularities in government financial transactions. These transactions
have allegedly been left unchecked by the lifting of the pre-audit performed by COA, which, petitioner
argues, is its Constitutional duty. Thus, petitioner has standing, to file this suit as a taxpayer, since he
would be adversely aflacted by the illegnl use of public money. [Dela Liana x. The Chal:person, Commission
on Audit, 668 SCRA 476 (9019) :
ALL MONEY COLLECTED ON ANY TAX LEVIED FOR A
SPECIAL PURPOSE SHALL BE T ATED AS A SPECIAI
*" EUND AND PAID OUT FOR SUCH PURPOSE ONLY
Article VI, Section 29 (8) of the 1987 Constitution, restating a general principle on
taxation, enjoins the disbursement of a special fund in accordance with the special purpose for
which it was collécted, the balance, if there be any, after the purpose has been fulfilled or is no
longer forthconfing, to be transferred to the general funds of the government, thus: Section
29(3)... (3) Att money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and: paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or’ abandoned, the balance, if’ any, shall be transferred to the general
funds of the Government. Correlatively, Section 2 of PD. No. 755 clearly states that: Section *
Financial Assistafice. To enable the cogent Creal i % comply. ith ee cont lee
obligations under the aforesaid Agreement, the is hereby directe: raw an Es
tre eiections cinder the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund CCCSP3 authorized £0,
levied by [PID 282, as amended, to pay for the financial commitments of the covouss 1a,
‘and the Coconut Industry Development P!
under the said agreement... ont t dered or construed, under any Jaw or regulation,
special and/or fiduciary fonts Wiation of Presidential Decree No. 713. [Philippine Coconut
government wien dite (COCOFED) v Republic, 003 SCRA $1# (2018)): ction off tanea Tea, ther
oF Inara Hose, waar ny Ik axpaye, (Mal Cerne baring Cape
FAGCON IS Now siy172 10 CORPORATE INCOME TAX
‘Taxation is the rule and exery .
. , iption is the exception, The burden of proof rests upon the party
ming exemption to prove that it la in face covered ty Hee Panel Oe oe Te a rule, tax
gail exempt from the payment of corporate income tx,
i Code of 1997 by omitting PAGCOR from the
re ee ceseaiative intent, shown Ly the discussions in the Bicameral Conference Mestre,
cre ttine EAGCOR t0 pay corporate income tax; hence, the omission or removal of PAGCOR fora
‘exemption from the payment of corporate income tax, .
the Court holds that the provision subjecting PAGCOR
fo 10% VAT is invalid for being contrary to R.A, No. 9387. Nowhere in R.A. No. 9837 is it provided that
Pentioner can be subjected to VAT: I). dio. 9837 is clear only as to the removal of petitioners
EXmPtion from the payment of corporat intome tax, which was already addressed above by this
Court. (Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation PAGCOR) « Bureau of Intemal Revenue 646 SCRA aoe
eon
Anent the validity of RR No. 19-2005,
SLIDE 11
Revenue Regulations No. 52008 issued on.28 April 2608 amended Revenue Regulations
No. 10-2000 with respect to “De Minimis Benefits”.
Rice subsidy of 1,800 or ot sack of 50 kg. rice per month amounting to not more
shan F1.500 and unifgrm sand clothing ‘allowance not exceeding P4000 per annum are
considered as “de minimis” benefits, which gre not subject to the fringe benefits tax (Section
2:33(c) of Revenue Regijlations No. 3-98) and Income Tax as well as withholding tax on
corporation income of both managerial and rank and file employees (Section 2.78.1 (AXSNe)
and (4) of Revenue Regulations No. 298).
Monetized unused vacation feave credits of private employees not exceeding ten (10)
days during the year. ‘