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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 713 views

    Hydro Resources vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    A Paula Cruz Francisco
    The document discusses a case where a company entered into a contract for construction in 1978 but the goods arrived in later years. An executive order passed in 1982 imposed a 3% tax but said it was not retroactive. However, the tax was still assessed on the company. The court ruled the executive order should not have retroactive effect and the company was not liable for the tax.

    Copyright:

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

    Hydro Resources vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    A Paula Cruz Francisco
    713 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a company entered into a contract for construction in 1978 but the goods arrived in later years. An executive order passed in 1982 imposed a 3% tax but said it was not retroactive. However, the tax was still assessed on the company. The court ruled the executive order should not have retroactive effect and the company was not liable for the tax.

    Original Description:

    tax

    Original Title

    21. Hydro Resources vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a company entered into a contract for construction in 1978 but the goods arrived in later years. An executive order passed in 1982 imposed a 3% tax but said it was not retroactive. However, the tax was still assessed on the company. The court ruled the executive order should not have retroactive effect and the company was not liable for the tax.

    Copyright:

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

    Hydro Resources vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    A Paula Cruz Francisco
    The document discusses a case where a company entered into a contract for construction in 1978 but the goods arrived in later years. An executive order passed in 1982 imposed a 3% tax but said it was not retroactive. However, the tax was still assessed on the company. The court ruled the executive order should not have retroactive effect and the company was not liable for the tax.

    Copyright:

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

    21. HYDRO RESOURCES V. COURT OF TAX APPEALS ET AL.

    GR 80276; December 21, 1990

    Facts: Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation entered into a contract of sale


    with the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) for the construction of Magat River
    Multipurpose Project in Isabella in August 1978. The contract provided that Hydro
    will import parts, construction equipment and tools and taxes and duties to be
    paid by NIA. Tools and equipment arrived during 1978 and 1979. NIA reneged
    on the contract. Therefore causing the transfer its sale to Hydro in seperate dates
    in December 6, 1982 and March 24, 1983. Executive Order 860 took effect during
    December 21, 1982 provided for 3% ad valorem tax on importations and it
    specifically provided that it should have no retroactive effect. During the
    contract of sale execution, Hydro was assessed and paid the said 3% ad valorem
    tax worth P 281,591 under protest. The Hydro when filing for refund with Customs
    Commissioner who indorsed the approval of the refund but was denied by the
    Secretary of Finance and motion was denied by the Court of Tax Appeals.

    Issue: W/N should the Executive Order 860 should have a retroactive effect.

    Held: No, The Court of Tax Appeals erred in applying a retroactive effect for the
    Executive Order therefore should not have been subject to the additional 3% ad
    valorem tax. In general tax laws are not retroactive in nature. Not only that
    Executive Order 860 specifically provides that it is not retroactive in nature, but
    also when the conditional contract of sale was executed, its had a suspensive
    condition contemplated in the Civil Code (Article 1187) where it returned
    ownership to the seller Hydro because NIA was not able to comply with its part of
    the contract, it was deemed executed as if during the constitution of the
    obligation which was in 1978 and not in 1982.

    You might also like