Collector of Internal Revenue v. Philippines International Fair
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondent, Philippine International Fair, Inc., sponsored an international fair and exposition in Manila in 1953. As part of this exposition, an "Aquacade Show," brought from the United States, was exhibited. The exhibitor, Mr. E. K. Fernandez, sought exemption from amusement tax under Republic Act No. 722, which was denied by the Collector of Internal Revenue (CIR). Subsequently, the CIR demanded payment of P29,633.62 as amusement tax and surcharge. After several requests for reconsideration were denied, the respondent appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Procedural History: The Court of Tax Appeals resolved that the "Aquacade Show" was principally a "water ballet" performance, thus falling within the concept of art. Consequently, the CTA declared the show exempt from amusement tax under Republic Act No. 722. The Collector of Internal Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Collector of Internal Revenue (petitioner) seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, contending that ballet performance is not expressly enumerated in Republic Act No. 722 and, applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the enumeration should be considered exclusive. Petitioner also argues that tax exemptions should be construed liberally in favor of the government and strictly against the taxpayer.
Issue(s)
Whether a "water ballet" performance is covered within the purview of the legal exemption under Republic Act No. 722. Whether the enumeration of exempted presentations in Republic Act No. 722 is exclusive.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed. The "Aquacade Show" is exempt from the payment of amusement tax and surcharges.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a "water ballet" performance is covered within the purview of the legal exemption under Republic Act No. 722: The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals that the "Aquacade Show" was principally a "water ballet" performance and therefore an art. The Court reiterated its previous ruling in Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Totoy Oteyza (G. R. No. L-10290, May 28, 1958) which held that ballet is an art and that Republic Act No. 722 seeks to implement the constitutional mandate under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which places arts under the patronage of the State. The Court concluded that ballet performance, being an art par excellence, is included within the terms "concerts," "opera," and "recital" as enumerated in Republic Act No. 722, thus entitling it to tax exemption. On the issue of whether the enumeration of exempted presentations in Republic Act No. 722 is exclusive: The Court implicitly rejected the petitioner's contention that the enumeration in Republic Act No. 722 is exclusive by applying the principle that the law seeks to promote arts. While the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius was raised by the petitioner, the Court's reliance on its prior ruling in Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Totoy Oteyza indicates that the legislative intent behind Republic Act No. 722 was to promote and patronize the arts broadly, not to limit exemptions to only those specifically listed. The Court's affirmation of the CTA's decision, which found "water ballet" to be an art and thus covered by the exemption, demonstrates that the enumeration is not strictly exclusive when the performance falls under the general spirit and purpose of promoting art.
Main Doctrine
A 'water ballet' performance, being a form of art, falls within the purview of presentations exempted from amusement tax under Republic Act No. 722, as it is considered included in the terms 'concerts,' 'opera,' and 'recital.'