Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company

    Uploaded by

    Careyssa Mae
    1) Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. is an engineering and machinery firm that designs and installs central air conditioning systems, pumping plants, and steel fabrications. 2) Juan de la Cruz accused Engineering of tax evasion by misdeclaring imported articles and failing to pay correct taxes. 3) The court ruled that Engineering's design and installation of central air conditioning systems was a contract for a piece of work, not a sale, because the systems would not have existed without the specific orders and were customized to each client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company

    Uploaded by

    Careyssa Mae
    125 views1 page
    1) Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. is an engineering and machinery firm that designs and installs central air conditioning systems, pumping plants, and steel fabrications. 2) Juan de la Cruz accused Engineering of tax evasion by misdeclaring imported articles and failing to pay correct taxes. 3) The court ruled that Engineering's design and installation of central air conditioning systems was a contract for a piece of work, not a sale, because the systems would not have existed without the specific orders and were customized to each client.

    Original Description:

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. is an engineering and machinery firm that designs and installs central air conditioning systems, pumping plants, and steel fabrications. 2) Juan de la Cruz accused Engineering of tax evasion by misdeclaring imported articles and failing to pay correct taxes. 3) The court ruled that Engineering's design and installation of central air conditioning systems was a contract for a piece of work, not a sale, because the systems would not have existed without the specific orders and were customized to each client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views1 page

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company

    Uploaded by

    Careyssa Mae
    1) Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. is an engineering and machinery firm that designs and installs central air conditioning systems, pumping plants, and steel fabrications. 2) Juan de la Cruz accused Engineering of tax evasion by misdeclaring imported articles and failing to pay correct taxes. 3) The court ruled that Engineering's design and installation of central air conditioning systems was a contract for a piece of work, not a sale, because the systems would not have existed without the specific orders and were customized to each client.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sale distinguished from Piece of Work

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply


    Company
    FACTS:

    Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. (Engineering for short), a domestic corporation, is
    an engineering and machinery firm. As operator of an integrated engineering shop, it is
    engaged, among others, in the design and installation of central type air conditioning system,
    pumping plants and steel fabrications.
    One Juan de la Cruz, wrote the then Collector, now Commissioner, of Internal Revenue
    denouncing Engineering for tax evasion by misdeclaring its imported articles and failing to
    pay the correct percentage taxes due thereon in connivance with its foreign suppliers.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not design and installation of central type air-conditioning system is a sale or a
    piece of work.
    RULING:

    The court ruled that it was a contract for a piece of work.


    The distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials is tested by the
    inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which never would have
    existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed
    and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given.
    If the article ordered by the purchase is exactly such as the plaintiff makes and keeps on hand for sale
    to anyone, and no change or modification of it is made at defendants request, it is a contract of sale
    even though it may be entirely made after, and in consequence of, the defendants order for it.

    You might also like