Scribd
Upload
101 views1 page

CIR vs. CA, G.R. No. 115349, April 18, 1997

The CIR assessed Ateneo de Manila University for alleged deficiency contractors tax and income tax for funds received by its Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) for research activities. Ateneo argued IPC was not an independent contractor subject to tax. The Supreme Court ruled the funds received by IPC were donations and sponsorships for research, not fees for services, as IPC retained ownership of research results. Therefore, Ateneo through IPC was not an independent contractor performing work for a fee subject to tax, but an academic institution conducting research in line with its educational commitments. The Court of Appeals decision affirming Ateneo not subject to the tax assessments was upheld.

Uploaded by

Alan Gultia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views1 page

CIR vs. CA, G.R. No. 115349, April 18, 1997

The CIR assessed Ateneo de Manila University for alleged deficiency contractors tax and income tax for funds received by its Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) for research activities. Ateneo argued IPC was not an independent contractor subject to tax. The Supreme Court ruled the funds received by IPC were donations and sponsorships for research, not fees for services, as IPC retained ownership of research results. Therefore, Ateneo through IPC was not an independent contractor performing work for a fee subject to tax, but an academic institution conducting research in line with its educational commitments. The Court of Appeals decision affirming Ateneo not subject to the tax assessments was upheld.

Uploaded by

Alan Gultia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CIR v,. CA [G.R. No. 115349.

April 18, 1997

FACTS
Private respondent is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution with auxiliary units
and branches all over the Philippines. One such auxiliary unit is the Institute of
Philippine Culture (IPC), which has no legal personality separate and distinct from that
of private respondent. The IPC is a Philippine unit engaged in social science studies of
Philippine society and culture. Occasionally, it accepts sponsorships for its research
activities from international organizations, private foundations and government
agencies.
On July 8, 1983, private respondent received from petitioner Commissioner of Internal
Revenue a demand letter dated June 3, 1983, assessing private respondent the sum
of P174,043.97 for alleged deficiency contractors tax, and an assessment dated June
27, 1983 in the sum of P1,141,837 for alleged deficiency income tax, both for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 1978. Denying said tax liabilities, private respondent sent
petitioner a letter-protest and subsequently filed with the latter a memorandum
contesting the validity of the assessments.

ISSUE:
Is Ateneo de Manila University, through its auxiliary unit or branch -- the Institute of Philippine
Culture -- performing the work of an independent contractor and, thus, subject to the three
percent contractors tax levied by then Section 205 of the National Internal Revenue Code?

RULING
It is clear that the funds received by Ateneos Institute of Philippine Culture are not given in the
concept of a fee or price in exchange for the performance of a service or delivery of an
object. Rather, the amounts are in the nature of an endowment or donation given by IPCs
benefactors solely for the purpose of sponsoring or funding the research with no strings
attached. As found by the two courts below, such sponsorships are subject to IPCs terms and
conditions. No proprietary or commercial research is done, and IPC retains the ownership of the
results of the research, including the absolute right to publish the same. The copyrights over the
results of the research are owned by Ateneo and, consequently, no portion thereof may be
reproduced without its permission. The amounts given to IPC, therefore, may not be deemed, it
bears stressing, as fees or gross receipts that can be subjected to the three percent contractors
tax.

The plain and simple answer is that private respondent is not a contractor selling its services for
a fee but an academic institution conducting these researches pursuant to its commitments to
education and, ultimately, to public service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in full.
SO ORDERED.

You might also like