Title
American Rubber Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. L-25965
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1975
American Rubber Corp. contested BIR's sales tax assessment, disputing SCLCO's agency role, tax computation, and export sale classification. SC upheld CTA's ruling, affirming SCLCO as agent, denying deductions, and classifying log sale as local, not export.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11578)

Case Background

The petitioner, American Rubber Company (ARCO), was assessed for a deficiency in sales tax amounting to P47,374.38 by the Court of Tax Appeals for the years 1950 to 1953, attributed to its sales of lumber. The company was engaged in the logging and lumber industry, sourcing logs from its licensed forest concession in Basilan City and also from the University of the Philippines (UP) land grant, operated under a Timber License Agreement with the Sta. Clara Lumber Co., Inc. (SCLCO).

Timber License Agreement and Operations

ARCO operated under Timber License No. 2175, allowing logging activities within a portion of SCLCO's concession. A "Letter Agreement" established the terms under which ARCO could cut timber in SCLCO's area. Both companies executed various transactions concerning the transport and sale of lumber, and SCLCO acted as an intermediary for sales conducted on behalf of ARCO, performing essential functions like selling and distributing the lumber and handling related documentation.

Sales and Tax Assessment

An investigation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the company's transactions from 1949 to 1953 revealed discrepancies, ultimately leading to the assessment of a total deficiency tax. Petitioner contested the assessment, arguing over sales classifications and tax computation methods, particularly claiming that SCLCO bore the status of an agent and the assessment incorrectly computed gross sales.

Rulings on Agency and Business Operations

The court ruled that SCLCO acted as an agent for ARCO. Contracts and sales invoices indicated that SCLCO collected payments on behalf of ARCO and deducted various expenses for logistics before remitting proceeds to ARCO’s bank account. The petitioner’s claim that the ownership of logs passed to SCLCO after delivery was rejected due to documentation evidencing continuous ownership and operational control by ARCO over its lumber until the completion of sales.

Sales Tax Computation and Deductions

ARCO contended that costs associated with acquiring logs should be deductible when computing sales tax. However, the court reaffirmed that forest charges are distinct from sales tax obligations. It upheld the assessment made from the gross selling price, including freight and handling costs, as these were part of the overall selling arrangement. The court emphasized that deductions were not warranted based on discounts or costs related to initial purchases from the UP or SCLCO forest concessions.

Export Sales and Tax Liability

In addressing claims about logs sold to Japan, the court referenced specific tax code provisions. E

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.