#33 CIR Vs British Overseas Airways Corporation

INCOME TAXATION
G.R. No. L-65773-74

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.
BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
respondents.
April 30, 1987
Facts: British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) is a 100% British Government-owned

corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It operates air transportation
service and sells transportation tickets over the routes of the other airline members. It did not
carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines, although during the period covered by
the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines — Wamer Barnes and
Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways — which was responsible for selling BOAC tickets.
(CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case)

In 1970, CIR assessed BOAC in the amount of P858,307.79 which it paid under protest. Later
on BOAC filed a claim for refund, which was denied by the CIR in 1972. But before said denial,
BOAC had already filed a petition for review with the Tax Court assailing the assessment and
praying for the refund of the amount paid.
(CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case)

In 1971, BOAC was assessed for deficiency of income taxes, interests, and penalty for the fiscal
years 1968-1969 to 1970-1971 in the aggregate amount of P549,327.43, and the additional
amounts of P1,000.00 and P1,800.00 as compromise penalties for failing to corporation returns.
BOAC requested that the assessment be countermanded and set aside. CIR denied the BOAC
request for refund in the First Case and re-issued in the Second Case the deficiency income tax
assessment.
BOAC appealed to CTA praying that it be absolved of liability for deficiency income tax for the
years 1969 to 1971. This case was subsequently tried jointly with the First Case.
BOAC’s Contention: BOAC argues that income derived from transportation is income for
services, the place where the services are rendered determines the source; and since BOAC's
service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines, the income derived is from
sources without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws.
Tax Court reversed CIR’s decision. CTA held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage
tickets in the Philippines do not constitute BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no
service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed by BOAC within the Philippines" and,
therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax. The CTA position was that
income from transportation is income from services so that the place where services are
rendered determines the source.
CIR appealed to SC.
Issue: WON the revenue derived BOAC from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air
transportation, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable.
Held: Yes. The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the
income. For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is
sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case,
the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets
exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The
site of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and
occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine
government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of
supporting the government.
The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of
income or the site of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at
the time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source"; and the source of an
income is that activity ... which produced the income.
The tickets in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived
from an activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. And even if the BOAC tickets sold
covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities", it cannot alter the
fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source"
conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the
Philippines.
SC ordered BOAC to pay its deficiency income tax and its claim for refund was denied.
*BOAC argued that the JAL vs. CIR ruling is res judicata to the present case.
JAL ruling: mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, is not subject to the common
carrier's tax (excise tax).
The subject matter of the instant case is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and
in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in one cannot be res
judicata to the other.

#33 CIR Vs British Overseas Airways Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#33 CIR Vs British Overseas Airways Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#33 CIR Vs British Overseas Airways Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INCOME TAXATION

G.R. No. L-65773-74

Facts: British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) is a 100% British Government-owned

(CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case)

(CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case)

CIR appealed to SC.

You might also like