De Gabriel, represented by Prudential Bank as its duly appointed and qualified Administrator. As correctly summarized by the Court of Appeals, the relevant facts are as follows:
September 17, at 6: L September 5, Bengzon, J. The income tax law does not authorize the depreciation of an asset beyond its acquisition cost. Hence, a deduction over and above such cost cannot be claimed and allowed. The reason is that deductions from gross income are privileges, not matters of right.
They are not created by implication but upon clear expression in the law. As of January 1, it changed the depreciable value of said assets by increasing it to conform with the increase in cost for their replacement.
Accordingly, from to it deducted from gross income the value of depreciation computed on the reappraised value.
CIR disallowed the deductions claimed by petitioner, consequently assessing the latter of deficiency income taxes. Whether or not the depreciation shall be determined on the acquisition cost rather than the reappraised value of the assets Held: The following tax law provision allows a deduction from gross income for depreciation but limits the recovery to the capital invested in the asset being depreciated: Provided, That when the allowance authorized under this subsection shall equal the capital invested by the taxpayer.
They are not created by implication but upon clear expression in the law [Gutierrez v. Collector of Internal Revenue, L, May 20, ]. Depreciation is the gradual diminution in the useful value of tangible property resulting from wear and tear and normal obsolescense.
It commences with the acquisition of the property and its owner is not bound to see his property gradually waste, without making provision out of earnings for its replacement. The recovery, free of income tax, of an amount more than the invested capital in an asset will transgress the underlying purpose of a depreciation allowance.
For then what the taxpayer would recover will be, not only the acquisition cost, but also some profit. Recovery in due time thru depreciation of investment made is the philosophy behind depreciation allowance; the idea of profit on the investment made has never been the underlying reason for the allowance of a deduction for depreciation.Sep 17, · BASILAN ESTATES, INC.
v. CIR G.R. No. L September 5, Bengzon, J.P., J. Doctrine: The income tax law does not authorize the depreciation of an asset beyond its acquisition cost. Hence, a deduction over and above such cost cannot be claimed and allowed.
The reason is that deductions from gross income are privileges, not. View 12 CIR v BF Goodrich digest from BUSLAW at University of Santo Tomas.
CIR vs. B.F. GOODRICH PHILS., INC. (now SIME DARBY INTERNATIONAL TIRE CO., INC.) and THE COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. SCRA , assessment notice, assessment of tax, assessment process, case digest, CIR vs Enron, CIR vs Enron Subic Power Corporation, Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Enron Subic Power Corporation, formal assessment notice, G.R.
, Jurisprudence, nirc remedies, section of the NIRC, tax remedies, Taxation Law. View 12 CIR v BF Goodrich digest from BUSLAW at University of Santo Tomas. CIR vs. B.F. GOODRICH PHILS., INC. (now SIME DARBY INTERNATIONAL TIRE CO., INC.) and THE COURT OF APPEALS G.R.
No. Facts: 1 - Case Digest Basilan Estate vs.
Cir Essay introduction. Basilan Estate, Inc.
a Philippine corporation engaged in coconut industry filed in its income tax . Atlas Consolidated vs. CIR Atlas Consolidated vs.
CIR ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING DEVT CORP vs. CIR SCRA 73, GR Nos.
& , June 8, "The taxpayer must justify his claim for tax exemption or refund by the clearest grant of organic or statute law and should not be permitted to stand on vague implications.".