Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    Soriano vs. Secretary of Finance G.R. No. 184450 January 24 2017

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MikI28PkJc
    Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add requirements not found in Republic Act 9504 by stating that minimum wage earners who receive benefits over 30,000 pesos would lose their tax exemption, contrary to the clear provisions of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9504 precisely defines minimum wage earners based only on whether their wages are at or below the statutory minimum, without reference to additional benefits. By imposing additional tests, the revenue regulations go beyond the legislative intent as expressed in the plain language of the statute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Soriano vs. Secretary of Finance G.R. No. 184450 January 24 2017

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MikI28PkJc
    117 views1 page
    Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add requirements not found in Republic Act 9504 by stating that minimum wage earners who receive benefits over 30,000 pesos would lose their tax exemption, contrary to the clear provisions of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9504 precisely defines minimum wage earners based only on whether their wages are at or below the statutory minimum, without reference to additional benefits. By imposing additional tests, the revenue regulations go beyond the legislative intent as expressed in the plain language of the statute.

    Original Title

    030.-Soriano-vs.-Secretary-of-Finance-G.R.-No.-184450-January-24-2017.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add requirements not found in Republic Act 9504 by stating that minimum wage earners who receive benefits over 30,000 pesos would lose their tax exemption, contrary to the clear provisions of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9504 precisely defines minimum wage earners based only on whether their wages are at or below the statutory minimum, without reference to additional benefits. By imposing additional tests, the revenue regulations go beyond the legislative intent as expressed in the plain language of the statute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views1 page

    Soriano vs. Secretary of Finance G.R. No. 184450 January 24 2017

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MikI28PkJc
    Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add requirements not found in Republic Act 9504 by stating that minimum wage earners who receive benefits over 30,000 pesos would lose their tax exemption, contrary to the clear provisions of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 9504 precisely defines minimum wage earners based only on whether their wages are at or below the statutory minimum, without reference to additional benefits. By imposing additional tests, the revenue regulations go beyond the legislative intent as expressed in the plain language of the statute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    January 24, 2017

    G.R. No. 184450


    JAIME N. SORIANO, MICHAEL VERNON M. GUERRERO, MARY ANN L. REYES,
    MARAH SHARYN M. DE CASTRO and CRIS P. TENORIO, Petitioners,
    vs.
    SECRETARY OF FINANCE and the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
    Respondents.
    FACTS:
    Petitioners Jaime N. Soriano et al. primarily assail Section 3 of RR 10-2008 providing for
    the pro-rated application of the personal and additional exemptions for taxable year 2008
    to begin only effective 6 July 2008 for being contrary to Section 4 of Republic Act No.
    9504.
    Petitioners argue that the pro-rated application of the personal and additional exemptions
    under RR 10-2008 is not "the legislative intendment in this jurisdiction." They stress that
    Congress has always maintained a policy of "full taxable year treatment" as regards the
    application of tax exemption laws. They allege further that R.A. 9504 did not provide for
    a prorated application of the new set of personal and additional exemptions.
    ISSUE
    Whether Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 are consistent with the law in providing that an
    MWE who receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of ₱30,000 is no longer
    entitled to the exemption provided by R.A. 9504.
    HELD:
    NO.
    Sections 1 and 3 of RR 10-2008 add a requirement not found in the law by effectively
    declaring that an MWE who receives other benefits in excess of the statutory limit of
    ₱30,000 is no longer entitled to the exemption provided by R.A. 9504.
    Nowhere in the above provisions of R.A. 9504 would one find the qualifications prescribed
    by the assailed provisions of RR 10-2008. The provisions of the law are clear and precise;
    they leave no room for interpretation - they do not provide or require any other qualification
    as to who are MWEs.

    To be exempt, one must be an MWE, a term that is clearly defined. Section 22(HH) says
    he/she must be one who is paid the statutory minimum wage if he/she works in the private
    sector, or not more than the statutory minimum wage in the non-agricultural sector where
    he/she is assigned, if he/she is a government employee. Thus, one is either an MWE or
    he/she is not. Simply put, MWE is the status acquired upon passing the litmus test -
    whether one receives wages not exceeding the prescribed minimum wage.
    As stated before, nothing to this effect can be read from R.A. 9504. The amendment is
    silent on whether compensation-related benefits exceeding the ₱30,000 threshold would
    make an MWE lose exemption. R.A. 9504 has given definite criteria for what constitutes
    an MWE, and R.R. 10-2008 cannot change this.

    You might also like