Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. McGrath, 1 SCRA 639, February 28, 1961
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. McGrath, 1 SCRA 639, February 28, 1961
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. McGrath, 1 SCRA 639, February 28, 1961
640
LABRADOR, J.:
641
"In view thereof, you are requested to urge your client to pay the
sum of P36.144.9J as inheritance tax and penalties, plus the
corresponding interest from December 23, 1955 up to the date of
payment in order that this case may be closed, without prejudice,
however, to your filing of a request for refund in accordance with
section 309 of the Tax Code in the event that the decision of the
Court of Tax Appeals in the aforesaid Miller case is affirmed by
the Supreme Court." (p. 15, ROA).
643
"It is clear from both these quoted provisions that the reciprocity
must be total, that is. with respect to transfer or death taxes of
any and every character, in the case of the Philippine law, and to
legacy, succession, or death tax of any and every character, in the
case of the California law. Therefore, if any of the two states
collects or imposes and does not exempt any transfer, death,
legacy, or succession tax of any character, the reciprocity does not
work. This is the underlying principle of the reciprocity clauses in
both laws."
Following the above-quoted decision, the judgment of the
Court of Tax Appeals should be reversed insofar as it
exempts the state of Dora Anna Wood from the inheritance
tax assessed by the Collector of Internal Revenue against
said estate. The inheritance tax as found by the Court of
Tax Appeals is P24,041.96, and together with the 5%
surcharge and interest thereon, and the F20 compromise
for late payment, amounts to a total of P29,612.15. There
having been a payment of P6,249.2G, the amount due on
September 23, 1956 is hereby fixed at P23,362.79.
One procedural point must be considered in connection
with the petition for review of the Collector of Internal
Revenue, and this is the claim of the respondent that the
Collector received the notice of the decision of the Court of
Tax Appeals on July 19, 1957 and filed his notice of appeal
only on August 15, 1957 and his petition for review with
this Court on August 20, 1957, and that, therefore, said
petition for review was filed after the 30-day period, within
which such a petition must be filed. Upon examining the
record, we find that while it is true that the Collector of
Internal Revenue himself received the decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals on July 19, 1957, the Office of the Solicitor
General which represented the Collector, received the same
decision 011 July 22, 1957. Decisions or orders in ordinary
cases are to be notified to counsel, not to the parties
themselves. The notice to the CollecLor of Internal
Revenue, which was three days ahead of the notice to his
lawyer, the Solicitor General, should not be considered as
the period from which the petition for review must be
considered filed with us. The objection to the appeal of the
Collector of Internal Revenue, on the ground that the
petition for review was filed out of time, must therefore be
overruled.
644
————————