COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS.

WILLIAM J SUTER AND THE COURT OF TAX

APPEALS
GR No. L-25532
FEBRUARY 28, 1969

FACTS:

On 30 September 1947, a limited partnership named “William J. Suter “Morcoin” Co. Ltd was formed by
William Suter, as the general partner, and Julia Spirig and Gustay Carlson, as limited partners. The
parties contributed, respectively Php 20,000, Php 18,000 and Php 2,000 to the partnership. The firm
engaged in the importation, marketing, distribution and operation of automatic phonographs, radios,
television sets and amusement machines, their parts and accessories.

Suter and Spirig got married in 1948. On 18 December 1948 sold his share in the partnership to Suter
and his wife which was duly recorded with the SEC.
The limited partnership had been filing its income tax returns as corporation, without objection by CIR. In
1959, CIR assessed the consolidated income of the firm and the individual incomes of the partners-
spouses and determined a deficiency income tax in the amount of Php 2678.06 and Php 4567.00 for
1955.

Suter appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals after having denied of his request for cancellation and
withdrawal of the assessment. CTA reversed the decision on 11 November 1965.
CIR filed a petition for review

ISSUE:

Whether or not the partnership was dissolved after the marriage of the partners, William J. Suter and Julia
Spirig Suter, and the subsequent sale to them by Gustay Carlson of his participation consequently
disregarding the juridical personality of the partnership for tax purposes

RULING:

No. The partnership was not dissolved.

The respondent company was not a universal partnership but a particular one. As appears from Articles
1674 and 1675 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, a universal partnership requires either that the object of
the association be all the present property of the partners, as contributed by them to the contributed by
them to the common fund, or else “all that the partners ma acquire by their industry or work during the
existence of the partnership. Respondent Company was not such a universal partnership since the
contributions of the partners were fixed sums of money and neither one of them was an industrial partner.
It follows that respondent company was not a partnership that spouses were forbidden to enter by Article
1677 of the Civil Code of 1889. Nor could the subsequent marriage of the partners operate to dissolve it,
such marriage not being one of the caused provided for that purpose either by the Spanish Civil Code or
the Code of Commerce.
The change in membership, brought about by the marriage of the partners and their subsequent
acquisition of all interest therein si no groud fro withdrawing the partnership from the coverage of Sec 24
of the tax code, requiring it to pay income tax.

This study source was downloaded by 100000847018645 from CourseHero.com on 05-12-2022 12:28:35 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/24522696/digest-cir-vs-suterdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)