Title
N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam" vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. L-46029
Decision Date
Jun 23, 1988
A foreign shipping corporation, N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam," with no Philippine office, was taxed on gross income from two casual port calls (1963-1964) at the free market exchange rate (P3.90/US$1.00), upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10145)

Factual Background

The two vessels called at Philippine ports solely to load cargoes for foreign destinations on two discrete occasions (one call in 1963 and one call in 1964). N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam" did not maintain an office or place of business in the Philippines and did not file income tax returns or pay income tax on the freight receipts. The Commissioner, through examiners, filed returns and assessed deficiency income taxes against N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam" by converting the foreign exchange receipts at the then prevailing market rate of P3.90 = US$1.00, producing gross peso receipts of P382,882.50 (1963) and P535,052.00 (1964). Assessments of deficiency tax in the amounts of P193,973.20 (1963) and P262,904.94 (1964) were issued on June 30, 1967, treating the shipowner as a non‑resident foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines under Section 24(b)(1) of the Tax Code.

Procedural History

Royal Interocean Lines, assuming the shipowner was engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, filed on August 28, 1967 income tax returns for the vessels and paid smaller tax amounts using an exchange rate of P2.00 = US$1.00 pursuant to Sections 24(b)(2) and 37(e) and Section 163 of Revenue Regulations No. 2. Royal Interocean Lines protested the Commissioner’s assessments on behalf of N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam"; the protest was denied (letter dated March 3, 1969). Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). On December 1, 1976, the CTA rendered a decision modifying the assessments by eliminating 50% fraud compromise penalties; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners sought further review in the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Petitioners raised two principal issues: (A) whether N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam," having no office or place of business in the Philippines and whose vessels called Philippine ports only twice, should be classified and taxed as (i) a non‑resident foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines under Section 24(b)(1), or (ii) a foreign corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines under Section 24(b)(2) in relation to Section 37(e); and (B) whether the foreign exchange receipts should be converted into Philippine pesos for tax computation at the official parity rate of P2.00 = US$1.00 or at the prevailing free market rate of P3.90 = US$1.00.

Legal Framework Identified by the Court

The Court and the CTA applied the Tax Code classifications: domestic corporations; foreign corporations (resident foreign corporations—those engaged in trade or business in the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein—and non‑resident foreign corporations—those not engaged in trade or business and not having an office or place of business therein). A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines is taxed on net income from Philippine sources and may claim deductions connected to Philippine income (Section 24(b)(2) and Section 37(e)); a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines is taxed on gross income from Philippine sources at the fixed percentage rate specified in Section 24(b)(1). The particular rule set out in Section 37(e) and implemented by Section 163 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 governs computation of net income for foreign steamship companies doing business in or from the Philippines and thus presupposes a foreign carrier actually engaged in trade or business in the Philippines.

Analysis: Engaged in Trade or Business

The Court accepted the CTA’s conclusion that N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam" was a non‑resident foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. The Court emphasized that to be considered engaged in trade or business within the Philippines a foreign corporation must have continuous business activity in the country; isolated, casual, or occasional calls to load cargo do not constitute doing business in the Philippines for income tax purposes. Given that the shipowner had no office or place of business in the Philippines and made only two port calls for loading cargo (one in 1963 and one in 1964), its activity was held to be casual and insufficient to establish engagement in trade or business. Consequently, the shipowner’s taxable base was gross income from Philippine sources and not net income computed under the formula applicable to foreign carriers doing business in the Philippines.

Analysis: Applicability of Section 37(e) and Section 163

The Court agreed with the CTA that Section 37(e) and Revenue Regulations Section 163 apply only where a foreign steamship company is doing business in or from the Philippines, because those rules are designed to apportion and compute net income when a carrier’s receipts are derived partly within and partly outside the Philippines. Because N.V. Reederij "Amsterdam" was not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, those provisions did not provide an alternate computation that could displace the statutory treatment of non‑resident foreign corporations under Section 24(b)(1).

Analysis: Conve

...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.