Title
Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. vs. Court of Tax Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-13203
Decision Date
Jan 28, 1961
Yutivo, a hardware company, sold vehicles to its subsidiary SM, avoiding double sales tax. Tax authorities claimed SM was a tax evasion tool, but the Supreme Court ruled SM was legitimate, and Yutivo’s sales tax was properly paid, invalidating fraud charges.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13203)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner: Yutivo Sons Hardware Company (Yutivo), domestic corporation engaged in importation and sale of hardware and, post-war, GM cars and trucks.
    • Respondents: Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Collector of Internal Revenue.
  • Transactions and Assessments
    • Pre-war and Immediate Post-war:
      • General Motors Overseas Corp. (GM) imported vehicles, paid sales tax on sales to Yutivo.
      • Yutivo resold to the public without further tax, as sales tax “collected once on original sales.”
    • Formation and Operations of Southern Motors, Inc. (SM):
      • Organized June 13, 1946 by stockholders related to Yutivo’s founders.
      • Yutivo sold GM vehicles to SM; as importer (from mid-1947) Yutivo paid sales tax on sales to SM; SM retailed without further tax.
    • Assessments and Litigation:
      • Nov. 7, 1950: Collector assessed P1,804,769.05 (3Q 1947–4Q 1949) plus 75% surcharge.
      • Nov. 15, 1952: Withdrawal of assessment for insufficient evidence, subject to review.
      • Dec. 18, 1954: Reassessment of P2,215,809.27 (including 1950 deficiency and 75% surcharge).
      • Apr. 27, 1957: CTA affirmed assessment, deeming SM Yutivo’s alter ego; one judge would have allowed deduction of tax already paid.
      • Jan. 28, 1961: Supreme Court decision now under review.

Issues:

  • Alter-ego and liability
    • Whether SM was a mere instrumentality or subsidiary of Yutivo, justifying disregard of its separate corporate existence and imposition of liability for SM’s retail sales.
  • Surcharges and computation
    • Whether the 50% fraud surcharge under Section 133 of the Tax Code was properly imposed.
    • Whether deficiency tax computation must deduct sales tax separately invoiced before applying rates.
  • Prescription and procedure
    • Whether assessments were barred by the five-year prescriptive period and validly withdrawn.
    • Validity of CTA decision given alleged lack of concurrence of two judges.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.