Powered by Blogger.

About this blog

These are all original case digests or case briefs done while the author was studying law school in the Philippines.

Hopefully these digested cases will help you get a good grasp of the salient facts and rulings of the Supreme Court in order to have a better understanding of Philippine Jurisprudence.

Please forgive any typo/grammatical errors as these were done while trying to keep up with the hectic demands brought about by the study of law.

God bless!

UPDATE:
Since the author is now a lawyer, this blog will now include templates of Philippine legal forms for your easy reference. This blog will be updated daily.

Thank you for the almost 500k views :)

Translate to your language

P.S.

If this blog post as helped you in any way, kindly click on any of the blog sponsors' advertisements. It won't cost you a thing. This would help tremendously.

Thank you for your time.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Collector of Internal Revenue v Goodrich (1967)


Collector of Internal Revenue v Goodrich GR No L-22265, December 22, 1967

FACTS:
Goodrich claimed for deductions based upon receipts issued, not by entities in which alleged expenses had been incurred but by the officers of Goodrich who allegedly paid for them. The CIR disallowed deductions in the amount of P50,455.41 for 1951 for bad debts and P30,188.88 for 1952 for representation expenses. Goodrich appealed from the said assessment to the CTA which allowed the deductions.


ISSUE:
Are the deductions proper?


RULING:
The representation expenses are totally disallowed but the bad debts are allowed up to P22,627.35 only. The requirement of ascertaining the worthlessness require proof of 2 facts:

  1. That the taxpayer did in fact ascertain the debt to be worthless;
  2. That he did so, in good faith.
The above requirements have not been adequately proven to be complied with by Goodrich. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Treat yourself