COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs ISABELA CULTURAL CORPORATION

G.R. No. 172231, February 12, 2007

Facts: Isabela Cultural Corporation (ICC), a domestic corporation received an assessment notice
for deficiency income tax and expanded withholding tax from BIR. It arose from the disallowance
of ICCs claimed expense for professional and security services paid by ICC; as well as the alleged
understatement of interest income on the three promissory notes due from Realty Investment
Inc. The deficiency expanded withholding tax was allegedly due to the failure of ICC to withhold
1% e-withholding tax on its claimed deduction for security services.

ICC sought a reconsideration of the assessments. Having received a final notice of assessment,
it brought the case to CTA, which held that it is unappealable, since the final notice is not a
decision. CTAs ruling was reversed by CA, which was sustained by SC, and case was remanded
to CTA. CTA rendered a decision in favor of ICC. It ruled that the deductions for professional and
security services were properly claimed, it said that even if services were rendered in 1984 or
1985, the amount is not yet determined at that time. Hence it is a proper deduction in 1986. It
likewise found that it is the BIR which overstate the interest income, when it applied compounding
absent any stipulation.

Petitioner appealed to CA, which affirmed CTA, hence the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the expenses for professional and security services are
deductible.

Held: No.

One of the requisites for the deductibility of ordinary and necessary expenses is that it must have
been paid or incurred during the taxable year. This requisite is dependent on the method of
accounting of the taxpayer. In the case at bar, ICC is using the accrual method of accounting.
Hence, under this method, an expense is recognized when it is incurred. Under a Revenue Audit
Memorandum, when the method of accounting is accrual, expenses not being claimed as
deductions by a taxpayer in the current year when they are incurred cannot be claimed in the
succeeding year.

The accrual of income and expense is permitted when the all-events test has been met. This test
requires: 1) fixing of a right to income or liability to pay; and 2) the availability of the reasonable
accurate determination of such income or liability. The all-events test requires the right to income
or liability be fixed, and the amount of such income or liability be determined with reasonable
accuracy. The test does not demand that the amount of income or liability be known absolutely,
only that a taxpayer has at its disposal the information necessary to compute the amount with
reasonable accuracy. The all-events test is satisfied where computation remains uncertain, if its
basis is unchangeable; the test is satisfied where a computation may be unknown, but is not as
much as unknowable, within the taxable year. The amount of liability does not have to be
determined exactly; it must be determined with "reasonable accuracy." Accordingly, the term
"reasonable accuracy" implies something less than an exact or completely accurate amount.[

In the instant case, the expenses for professional fees consist of expenses for legal and auditing
services. The expenses for legal services pertain to the 1984 and 1985 legal and retainer fees of
the law firm Bengzon Zarraga Narciso Cudala Pecson Azcuna & Bengson, and for reimbursement
of the expenses of said firm in connection with ICCs tax problems for the year 1984. As testified
by the Treasurer of ICC, the firm has been its counsel since the 1960s. From the nature of the
claimed deductions and the span of time during which the firm was retained, ICC can be expected
to have reasonably known the retainer fees charged by the firm as well as the compensation for
its legal services. The failure to determine the exact amount of the expense during the taxable
year when they could have been claimed as deductions cannot thus be attributed solely to the
delayed billing of these liabilities by the firm. For one, ICC, in the exercise of due diligence could
have inquired into the amount of their obligation to the firm, especially so that it is using the
accrual method of accounting. For another, it could have reasonably determined the amount of
legal and retainer fees owing to its familiarity with the rates charged by their long time legal
consultant.