Hilado v CIR 100 Phil 288

EMILIO Y. HILADO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE                                      AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, RESPONDENTS;  G.R. No. L-9408,                                             October 31, 1956;Bautista Angelo J

Facts:

On March 31, 1952, petitioner filed his income tax return for 1951 with the treasurer of Bacolod City wherein he claimed, among other things, the amount of P12,837.65 as a deductible item from his gross income pursuant to General Circular No. V-123 issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue. On the basis of said return, an assessment notice demanding the payment of P9,419 was sent to petitioner, who paid the tax in monthly installments, the last payment having been made on January 2, 1953.

Meanwhile, on August 30, 1952, the Secretary of Finance, through the Collector of Internal Revenue, issued General Circular No. V-139 which not only revoked and declared void his general Circular No. V-123 but laid down the rule that losses of property which occurred during the period of World War II from fires, storms, shipwreck or other casualty, or from robbery, theft, or embezzlement are deductible in the year of actual loss or destruction of said property.  The  deduction was disallowed and the CIR demanded from him P3,546 as deficiency income tax for said year. The petition for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied so he filed a petition for review with the CTA.  The SC affirmed the assessment made by the CIR. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:  1. Whether Hilado can claim compensation during the war; and

           2. Whether the internal revenue laws can been enforced during  the war

Ruling:

1. No.  Assuming that said amount represents a portion of the 75% of his war damage claim which was not paid, the same would not be deductible as a loss in 1951 because, according to petitioner, the last installment he received from the War Damage Commission, together with the notice that no further payment would be made on his claim, was in 1950. In the circumstance, said amount would at most be a proper deduction from his 1950 gross income.  In the second place, said amount cannot be considered as a "business asset" which can be deducted as a loss in contemplation of law because its collection is not enforceable as a matter of right, but is dependent merely upon the generosity and magnanimity of the U. S. government. As of the end of 1945, there was absolutely no law under which petitioner could claim compensation for the destruction of his properties during the battle for the liberation of the Philippines. And under the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946, the payments of claims by the War Damage Commission merely depended upon its discretion to be exercised in the manner it may see lit, but the non-payment of which cannot give rise to any enforceable right.

2.  Yes.  It is well known that our internal revenue laws are not political in nature and as such were continued in force during the period of enemy occupation and in effect were actually enforced by the occupation government. As a matter of fact, income tax returns were filed during that period and income tax payment were effected and considered valid and legal. Such tax laws are deemed to be the laws of the occupied territory and not of the occupying enemy.