7/25/2019 29_Tan v. Del Rosario Jr.

1/1

Tan vs. Del Rosario Jr.

Case No. 29 / ConstiLaw Batch 4

Nature of the Case:

Facts: etitioners challen!e the constitutionalit" of R# $49% or the &i'(lifie) Net*nco'e Ta+ation sche'e ,&N*T- a'en)in! certain (rovisions of the National *nternal

revenue Co)e un)er #rts ,2%- an) ,2-

#rticle %. &ection 2 the rule of ta+ation shall 0e unifor' an) e1uita0le. Thecon!ress shall evolve a (ro!ressive s"ste' of ta+ation.

The &N*T containe) chan!es in the ta+ sche)ules an) )ifferent treat'ent in the(rofessionals which (etitioners assail as unconstitutional for 0ein! isolative of thee1ual (rotection clause in the constitution.

&N*T )esecratates the constitutional re1uire'ent that ta+ation shall 0e unifor' an)e1uita0le in that the law woul) now atte'(t to ta+ sin!le (ro(rietorshi(s an)(rofessionals )ifferentl" fro' the 'anner it i'(oses ta+ on cor(orations an)(artnershi(s. the contention clearl" for!ets however that such a s"ste' of inco'eta+ation has lon! 0een (revailin! rule even (rior to Re(u0lic #ct No. $49%.

*ssue: is the contention 'eritorious3 is it violative of &ection 2 #rticle % of theConstitution.

el): No. etition is Dis'isse).

Ratio: 5nifor'it" of ta+ation li6e the 6in)re) conce(t of e1ual (rotection 'erel"re1uire that all su07ects or o07ects of ta+ation si'ilarl" situate) are to 0e treate) ali6e0oth (rivile!es an) lia0i lities. 5nifor'it" )oes not forfen) classification as lon! as it

8- &tan)ar)s that are use) therefore are su0stantial an) not ar0itrar"2- the cate!oriation is !er'ane to achieve the le!islative (ur(ose- The law a((lies all thin!s 0ein! e1ual to 0oth (resent an) future con)itions4- The classification a((lies e1uall" well to all those 0elion!in! to the sa'e

class.

The le!islative intent is to increasin!l" shift the inco'e ta+ s"ste' towar)s thesche)ule) a((roach in ta+ation of in)ivi)ual ta+(a"ers an) 'aintain the (resent!lo0al treat'ent on ta+a0le cor(orations. This classification is neither ar0itrar" norina((ro(riate.

;ith the le!islature (ri'aril" lies the )iscretion to )eter'ine the nature ,6in)- o07ect,(ur(ose- e+tent ,rate- covera!e ,su07ects an) situs ,(lace- of ta+ation &u(re'ecourt cannot freel" )elve into those 'atters which 0" constitutional fiat ri!htl" rest onle!islative 7u)!'ent. =R where a ta+ 'easure 0eco'es so unconsciona0lean) un7ust as to a'ount to confiscation of (ro(ert" courts will not hesitate to stri6e)own for )es(ite all its (lenitu)e the (ower to ta+ cannot overri)e constitutional

(roscri(tions. T*& &T#?= =R has not 0een )e'onstrate) to have 0eenreache) within an" a((revia0le )istance in this controvers" 0efore us.

Relevance to ConstiLaw: rule of ta+ation

&antos 1