Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Petitioner) vs.
Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals and Young Men’s Christian
Association Of The Philippines, Inc. (Respondents)
Facts:
Private Respondent YMCA conducts various programs and activities that are beneficial to the public, especially the young people,
pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives. In 1980, private respondent earned, among others, an income of
P676,829.80 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, and P44,259.00 from parking fees collected from non-
members. On July 2, 1984, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent, in the total
amount of P415,615.01 including surcharge and interest, for deficiency income tax, deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals
and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages which YMCA protested/opposed. On appeal, the CTA reversed the
CIR and ruled that the leasing of YMCA’s premises and imposition of parking fees are reasonably incidental to and reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the private respondents and it is not engaged in business. The CIR appealed to
the CA, the latter reversed the CTA decision but YMCA’s motion for reconsideration has been granted and the CTA ruling was
reinstated.
Issue: Whether the rental income of YMCA is subject to taxes?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in affirmative. Accordingly, while Sec 27 of NIRC recognizes the tax exemptions granted to “civic league or
organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” and “club organized and operated
exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other non-profitable purposes, no part of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any
private stockholder or member,” the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organization from any of their properties,
real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject
to the tax imposed under NIRC.
In the instant case, the exemption claimed by the YMCA is expressly disallowed by the very wording of the last paragraph of then
Section 27 of the NIRC which mandates that the income of exempt organizations from any of their properties, real or personal, be
subject to the imposed by the same Code. Because the last paragraph of said section unequivocally subjects to tax the rent income of
the YMCA from its rental property, the Court is duty-bound to abide strictly by its literal meaning and to refrain from resorting to any
convoluted attempt at construction.
In ruling so, the SC adopted the doctrine of strict interpretation in construing tax exemptions because taxes are the lifeblood
of the nation—the existence of the government itself is a necessity; it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses. The
claimed exemption must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken. In order to be tax
exempted, the activity should strictly adhere to “promotion of social welfare.” Income derived from the use of real and personal
welfare without direct relation to promotion of social welfare is, therefore, taxable.
