Digest_Evangelista vs. CIR

EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, 
 vs.
 THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-9996, October 15, 1957 Facts: Petitioners borrowed sum of money from their father and together with their own personal funds they used said money to buy several real properties. They then appointed their brother (Simeon) as manager of the said real properties with powers and authority to sell, lease or rent out said properties to third persons. They realized rental income from the said properties for the period 1945-1949. On September 24, 1954 respondent Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on corporations, real estate dealer's fixed tax and corporation residence tax for the years 1945-1949. The letter of demand and corresponding assessments were delivered to petitioners on December 3, 1954, whereupon they instituted the present case in the Court of Tax Appeals, with a prayer that "the decision of the respondent contained in his letter of demand dated September 24, 1954" be reversed, and that they be absolved from the payment of the taxes in question. CTA denied their petition and subsequent MR and New Trials were denied. Hence this petition. Issue: Whether or not petitioners have formed a partnership and consequently, are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax. Held: YES. The essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because of the following observations, among others: (1) Said common fund was not something they found already in existence; (2) They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions; (3) The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes, or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships — with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships — within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned and are subject to the income tax for corporations.