Veronica Sanchez v. Collector of Internal Revenue

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Veronica Sanchez v.

Collector of Internal Revenue (Constitutionality of Double Taxation)


Facts:
- Veronica Sanchez constructed her 4 door accessoria purposely for rent or profit
- she had been continuously leasing the same to third persons since its construction in 1947;
- she manages her property herself; and that said leased holding appears to her main source of
livelihood
- The building has an assessed value of 21,540, and the land assessed at 7,980; a total of 29,540. In
1949, she derived an income of 7,540 annually, She runs a small dry good store in Pasay market with
an income of 1, 300 annually.
- In early part of 1951, CIR made a demanded upon the appellant for the payment of 163.51 as income
tax for the yr 1950, and 637as real estate dealers tax for the year 1946 to 1950 , plus the sum of 50
pesos as compromise. The appellant paid the taxes demanded under protest. Oct 16, 1951 she filed
and action against CIR in the court of first instance.
Issue/s:
1. WON Veronica Sanchez is a real estate dealer
2. WON she can refund payment of taxes
Held:
1. Yes she is a real estate dealer
a. includes all persons who for their own account are engaged in the sale of lands, bdgs,
interests therein or leasing real estate (RA No 42)
b. Constructed the accessoria purposely for profit or rent, leased to third persons since 1947,
manages the property herself, lease is her main source of livelihood therefore she is engaged
in leasing the real estate and she is a real estate dealer
2. She can refund only her payment for 1946
a. She started her operations in 1947 but paid real estate dealers tax for 1946
b. Petitioner: she is paying real estate taxes and she is now required to pay real estate brokers
tax as well. This amounts to double taxation
c. Supreme court: license tax may be levied upon a business or occupation although the land/
property used may be subjected to property tax, and that the state may collect an ad valorem
tax on property used in a calling, and at the same time impose a license tax on the pursuit on
a latter kind of tax being in a sense of double tax.

You might also like