Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    CASE DIGEST G.R. No. L-9996

    Uploaded by

    Mark Allen Salvador Orcio
    The petitioners utilized borrowed money and their own cash to purchase multiple real estate holdings. They designated their brother Simeon as manager to sell, lease, or rent the properties from 1945 to 1949. The Collector of Internal Revenue sought payment of various taxes for those years, which the petitioners contested. The Court of Tax Appeals rejected their petitions. The issue is whether the petitioners created a partnership by contributing money to a common fund with the intention of splitting gains, which would make them liable for corporate taxes. The court held that the petitioners did form a partnership through their agreement and actions, investing in a series of real estate transactions with the goal of financial gain, so they are liable for the taxes.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE DIGEST G.R. No. L-9996

    Uploaded by

    Mark Allen Salvador Orcio
    31 views1 page
    The petitioners utilized borrowed money and their own cash to purchase multiple real estate holdings. They designated their brother Simeon as manager to sell, lease, or rent the properties from 1945 to 1949. The Collector of Internal Revenue sought payment of various taxes for those years, which the petitioners contested. The Court of Tax Appeals rejected their petitions. The issue is whether the petitioners created a partnership by contributing money to a common fund with the intention of splitting gains, which would make them liable for corporate taxes. The court held that the petitioners did form a partnership through their agreement and actions, investing in a series of real estate transactions with the goal of financial gain, so they are liable for the taxes.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners utilized borrowed money and their own cash to purchase multiple real estate holdings. They designated their brother Simeon as manager to sell, lease, or rent the properties from 1945 to 1949. The Collector of Internal Revenue sought payment of various taxes for those years, which the petitioners contested. The Court of Tax Appeals rejected their petitions. The issue is whether the petitioners created a partnership by contributing money to a common fund with the intention of splitting gains, which would make them liable for corporate taxes. The court held that the petitioners did form a partnership through their agreement and actions, investing in a series of real estate transactions with the goal of financial gain, so they are liable for the taxes.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE DIGEST G.R. No. L-9996

    Uploaded by

    Mark Allen Salvador Orcio
    The petitioners utilized borrowed money and their own cash to purchase multiple real estate holdings. They designated their brother Simeon as manager to sell, lease, or rent the properties from 1945 to 1949. The Collector of Internal Revenue sought payment of various taxes for those years, which the petitioners contested. The Court of Tax Appeals rejected their petitions. The issue is whether the petitioners created a partnership by contributing money to a common fund with the intention of splitting gains, which would make them liable for corporate taxes. The court held that the petitioners did form a partnership through their agreement and actions, investing in a series of real estate transactions with the goal of financial gain, so they are liable for the taxes.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE TITLE:

    G.R. No. L-9996 October 15, 1957


    EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA
    EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs.
    THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
    respondents.

    Facts: The petitioners utilized an amount of money they had borrowed from their father
    in conjunction with their own cash to purchase a number of real estate holdings. Simeon
    was subsequently designated as the manager of the aforementioned real estate with
    the right to sell, lease, or rent the assets to other parties. They calculated the rental
    revenue from the aforementioned properties from 1945 to 1949.
    Respondent Collector of Internal Revenue sought payment of company income tax, real
    estate dealer fixed tax, and corporation dwelling tax for the years 1945–1949 on
    September 24, 1954. After receiving the letter of demand and the associated
    assessments on December 3, 1954, the petitioners instituted the current case in the
    Court of Tax Appeals, pleading for the "decision of the respondent contained in his letter
    of demand dated September 24, 1954" to be overturned and their release from paying
    the in question taxes. This petition was filed after the CTA rejected their petition, MR,
    and new trials.

    Issue: Whether or if the petitioners have created a partnership and are, thus, liable for
    the corporate tax as out in Section 24 of the Commonwealth Act. No. 466, sometimes
    referred to as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the fixed taxes on real
    estate dealers and companies' home taxes.

    Held: Yes, a partnership must have two key components: (a) an agreement to
    contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund; and (b) an intention to split
    the gains among the contractingparties. The first need is unquestionably met in the
    current instance since, as is recognized, the petitioners agreed to and did contribute
    cash and other assets to a common fund. Due to the following observations, among
    others: (1) Said common fund was not something they discovered to be already in
    existence; (2) They invested the same, not just in one transaction, but in a series of
    transactions; (3) The aforementioned lotswere not dedicated to any particular use, we
    are fully satisfied that their intention was to engage in real estate transactions for
    financial gain and then divide the same among themselves.

    You might also like