Sison v Ancheta 130 Scra 654

ANTERO M. SISON, JR., PETITIONER, VS. RUBEN B. ANCHETA;

G.R. No. L-59431, July 25, 1984; FERNANDO, C.J.

Facts:

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-a-vis those which are imposed upon fixed income or salaried individual taxpayers." He characterizes the above section as arbitrary amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious in character.For petitioner, therefore, 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.

Issue:

Whether or not Section 1 of BP Blg 135 violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, while also violating the rule that taxes must be uniform and equitable

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.