GR 41456; (August, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41456; August 30, 1934
In the matter of the estate of the deceased Robert Henry Wood. J. T. KNOWLES, administrator-appellant, vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, claimant-appellee.
FACTS
In the testamentary proceedings for the estate of Robert Henry Wood, the Collector of Internal Revenue filed a claim for deficiency income taxes for various years that the deceased allegedly failed to pay and report. The administrator of the estate opposed the claim, arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper venue (as the committee on claims had already ceased to exist), prescription, and that the estate did not owe the amount. The trial court sustained the claim based on an affidavit submitted by the Collector. The administrator appealed, contending the court lacked jurisdiction and that the affidavit was insufficient evidence, depriving him of the right to cross-examination.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the tax claim in the testamentary proceedings.
2. Whether the affidavit of the Collector of Internal Revenue constituted sufficient and competent evidence to prove the deficiency tax claim.
RULING
1. Yes, on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. It is settled that claims for deficiency taxes may be properly presented in the intestate or testate proceedings of the deceased taxpayer without the necessity of presenting them to the committee on claims.
2. No, on the sufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the affidavit of the Collector was insufficient to prove the claim. Once the administrator filed a general and specific denial of the claim, the prima facie character of the affidavit was destroyed. It then became incumbent upon the claimant to prove the claim with material and competent evidence, such as by presenting the testimony of the investigating official. The failure to present such evidence deprived the administrator of his substantial right to cross-examination. The Court also noted the claimant had substantially reduced the amount claimed, casting doubt on the exactness of the figures.
The appealed order was set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial where both parties could present evidence to support their contentions.
AI Generated by Armztrong.