Title
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 195909
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2012
St. Luke’s, a non-profit hospital, was assessed deficiency taxes by the BIR. The Supreme Court ruled it liable for a 10% preferential tax on for-profit income under Section 27(B) NIRC, not fully tax-exempt under Sections 30(E) and (G).

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195909)

Petitioners and Respondents

  • G.R. No. 195909: Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Petitioner) vs. St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (Respondent)
  • G.R. No. 195960: St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (Petitioner) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent)

Key Dates

  • December 16, 2002: BIR assesses P76,063,116.06 in deficiencies against St. Luke’s for 1998
  • January 14, 2003: St. Luke’s files administrative protest; BIR fails to act within 180 days
  • February 23, 2009: CTA First Division Decision
  • November 19, 2010: CTA En Banc Decision affirming partial grant of relief to St. Luke’s
  • March 1, 2011: CTA En Banc Resolution denying motions for reconsideration
  • September 26, 2012: Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28(3)–(4)
  • National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC):
    • Sec. 27(A)(1) – Ordinary corporate rate
    • Sec. 27(B) – 10% preferential rate on proprietary non-profit educational institutions and hospitals
    • Sec. 30(E) – Income exemption for non-stock, non-profit charitable corporations
    • Sec. 30(G) – Income exemption for civic organizations promoting social welfare
    • Last paragraph of Sec. 30 – Taxability of income from “activities conducted for profit”
    • Sec. 248(A)(3) – Surcharges on unpaid deficiencies
    • Sec. 249(C)(3) – Delinquency interest on unpaid deficiencies

Factual Background

St. Luke’s is organized as a non-stock, non-profit corporation with charitable, benevolent and educational purposes. In December 2002 the BIR audited its 1998 operations and assessed deficiencies in income tax, VAT, withholding tax on compensation and expanded withholding tax, later reduced to P63,935,351.57. St. Luke’s protested administratively; the BIR’s inaction gave rise to a petition before the CTA. The BIR maintained that under Sec. 27(B) proprietary non-profit hospitals pay 10% on taxable income and are excluded from full exemption under Sec. 30. St. Luke’s argued its income is exempt under Sec. 30(E) and (G) because it operates exclusively for charitable and social welfare purposes and no part of its net income inures to private individuals.

CTA En Banc Ruling

The CTA First Division (23 February 2009) and En Banc (19 November 2010) held that:

  • St. Luke’s qualifies as a non-stock, non-profit charitable institution under Sec. 30(E) and civic organization under Sec. 30(G), thus exempting its patient-service income, whether paying or non-paying.
  • Section 27(B) does not apply, because Sec. 30(E) uses the specific term “non-stock.”
  • St. Luke’s failed to prove that P17.48 million categorized as “Other Income-Net” derived exclusively from charitable activities; that portion remained taxable.
  • Deficiency VAT was cancelled; deficiency income tax of P5,496,963.54 and expanded withholding tax of P778,406.84 were affirmed, plus 20% delinquency interest.

Legal Issue

Does Section 27(B) of the NIRC remove the income tax exemption granted by Section 30(E) and (G) to proprietary non-profit hospitals and subject all their taxable income to a 10% preferential rate?

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Scope of Review

    • Petition G.R. 195960 (by St. Luke’s) is dismissed for raising factual issues; SC review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law.
  2. Interpretation of Sections 27 and 30

    • Section 30(E)/(G) exempts from income tax the income “received by them as such” by charitable and social-welfare organizations, but expressly subjects “income … from any … activities conducted for profit” to tax.
    • Section 27(B) imposes a 10% rate on the taxable income of proprietary non-profit educational institutions and hospitals, without requiring a “non-stock” corporate form.
    • Both provisions operate harmoniously: Sec. 30 continues to exempt non-profit activities; Sec. 27(B) prescribes the rate for income from for-profit activities.
  3. Application to St. Luke’s

    • In 1998 St. Luke’s derived P1.73 billion from paying patients—activities conducted for profit—and allocated only P218 million to free services.
    • The scale of paid services demonstrates that the hos

...continue reading

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