Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gancayco Vs Collector

    Uploaded by

    DPMPascua
    54 views1 page
    Petitioner seeks review of a decision from the CTA requiring him to pay deficiency income tax of P16,860.11 for the year 1956. This hinges on the validity of petitioner's claims to deduct P13,000 for farming expenses and P8,000 for representation expenses. No evidence was presented regarding the nature of the farming expenses beyond a statement they were for developing and cultivating property. Representation expenses of P8,000 were disallowed due to the absence of receipts or details on the expenditures. The disallowance was justified as petitioner could not specify items or when/who expenses were incurred.

    Original Description:

    Taxation I

    Original Title

    Gancayco vs Collector

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioner seeks review of a decision from the CTA requiring him to pay deficiency income tax of P16,860.11 for the year 1956. This hinges on the validity of petitioner's claims to deduct P13,000 for farming expenses and P8,000 for representation expenses. No evidence was presented regarding the nature of the farming expenses beyond a statement they were for developing and cultivating property. Representation expenses of P8,000 were disallowed due to the absence of receipts or details on the expenditures. The disallowance was justified as petitioner could not specify items or when/who expenses were incurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Gancayco Vs Collector

    Uploaded by

    DPMPascua
    Petitioner seeks review of a decision from the CTA requiring him to pay deficiency income tax of P16,860.11 for the year 1956. This hinges on the validity of petitioner's claims to deduct P13,000 for farming expenses and P8,000 for representation expenses. No evidence was presented regarding the nature of the farming expenses beyond a statement they were for developing and cultivating property. Representation expenses of P8,000 were disallowed due to the absence of receipts or details on the expenditures. The disallowance was justified as petitioner could not specify items or when/who expenses were incurred.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-13325 April 20, 1961


    SANTIAGO GANCAYCO, petitioner, v. T!" COLL"CTOR O# INT"RNAL R"$"N%", repon&ent.
    #'(t)
    Petitioner seeks the review of a decision of the CTA, requiring him to pay P16,860!1, p"us surcharge and interest, #y
    way of de$ciency income ta% for the year 1&'&
    The question whether the sum of P16,860!1 is due from Petitioner as de$ciency income ta% for 1&'& hinges on the
    va"idity of his c"aim for deduction of two ()* items, name"y+ (a* for farming e%penses, P),,'-&00. and (#* for
    representation e%penses, P8,&!!'-
    I*e)
    /hether or not the two c"aimed deduction are a""owa#"e
    R*lin+)
    0o
    0o evidence has #een presented as to the nature of the said 1farming e%penses1 other than the bare statement of
    petitioner that they were spent for the 1deve"opment and cu"tivation of (his* property1 No specifcation has been made
    as to the actua" amount spent for purchase of too"s, equipment or materia"s, or the amount spent for improvement
    2espondent c"aims that the entire amount was spent e%c"usive"y for clearing and developing the farm which were
    necessary to place it in a productive state. It is not, therefore, an ordinary expense but a capital expenditure
    According"y, it is not deducti#"e #ut it may #e amorti3ed, in accordance with section ,- of 2evenue 2egu"ations 0o ),
    cited a#ove 4ee a"so, section !1 of the 2evenue Code which provides that in computing net income, no deduction
    sha"" in any case #e a""owed in respect of any amount paid out for new buildings or for permanent improvements, or
    betterments made to increase the value of any property or estate (5mphasis supp"ied*
    Petitioner6s c"aim for representation e%penses aggregated P!1,,-!&,, of which P)),8)0-) was a""owed, and
    P8,&!!'- disa""owed 4uch disa""owance is 7usti$ed #y the record, for, apart from the a#sence of receipts, invoices or
    vouchers of the e%penditures in question, petitioner cou"d not specify the items constituting the same, or when or on
    whom or on what they were incurred The case of Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 !"d# $%&, cited #y petitioner is not in
    point, #ecause in that case there was evidence on the amounts spent and the persons entertained and the necessity
    of entertaining them, a"though there were no receipts an vouchers of the e%penditures invo"ved therein 4uch is not
    the case of petitioner herein

    You might also like