Bar Subject: Tax Law

2026 Bar Examinations

2026 Commercial Law, Q16

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) issued its Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGO) Rules and Regulations (Rules). Under these Rules, a POGO may be given an Offshore Gaming License either Philippine-based operators or offshore-based operators. Offshore-based operators are corporations organized in any foreign country which must engage the services of PAGCOR-accredited local gaming agents and/or service providers for its offshore gaming operations within the Philippines. In the case of these offshore-based operators, the placing of bets must occur outside the Philippines; the players must not be Filipino citizens, or within the Philippines; and the payment of the prize must also occur outside of the Philippines. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) entitled “Taxation of Taxpayers Engaged in Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations,” which recognized that online activity is sufficient to constitute doing business in the Philippines, and clarified that offshore-based POGOs are also subject to the regular corporate income tax or to the 5% preferential tax rate under the PAGCOR charter, whichever is applicable. Johann, the CEO of Worldwide Wealth Gaming Corporation (WWGC), a PAGCOR-licensed offshore gaming operator, argues that the BIR RMC violated the fundamental principle of situs of taxation under Philippine laws, and that companies like WWGC are only liable to pay taxes on income received from sources within the Philippines. He also maintains that its offshore operator income was not derived from sources within the Philippines since 100% of its operations are located abroad. Is Johann correct? Explain.

Quick check

Under Section 28(B) of the Tax Code, how are non-resident foreign corporations taxed in the Philippines?

What legal test determines the situs of income derived by offshore-based gaming operators under Saint Wealth Ltd. v. BIR?

Why is the offshore gaming revenue of an offshore-based POGO operator exempt from Philippine income tax?

What is the legal effect of a BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular that expands the tax liability of foreign corporations beyond the Tax Code?

Under Saint Wealth Ltd. v. BIR, which factor is essential in classifying gaming revenue as foreign-sourced income?

Learn more about these topics

1. Situs of Taxation
Under Section 28(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code, a non-resident foreign corporation is subject to Philippine income tax exclusively on income derived from sources within the Philippines. Income derived from sources outside the Philippines is beyond Philippine taxing jurisdiction.

2. Offshore Gaming Income
Under settled jurisprudence in Saint Wealth Ltd. v. BIR, the situs of gaming income derived by offshore-based POGO operators is determined by the actual performance test. Where the placing of bets, player activity, and prize payouts occur entirely outside the Philippines, the gaming revenues constitute foreign-sourced income.

3. Administrative Revenue Issuances
Revenue Memorandum Circulars issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue cannot override statutory provisions or alter established tax situs rules under the Tax Code. An administrative issuance that attempts to tax foreign-sourced income of non-resident foreign corporations without statutory authority is ultra vires and invalid.

TopicsPOGO Taxation1Section 28(B) NIRC1Situs of Taxation2

2026 Commercial Law, Q17

Paolo entered into a Contract to Sell with Suga Land, Inc. (Suga Land) for the purchase of a three-bedroom penthouse located in Rockwell, Makati. Under the Contract to Sell, Paolo agreed to pay Suga Land an initial downpayment of PHP 1 million and 29 subsequent installments of PHP 1 million per month. After paying the initial downpayment and 14 monthly installments to Suga Land, Paolo and his spouse encountered marital difficulties that led to their temporary separation. Paolo decided to assign his rights under the Contract to Sell to Andres for a total consideration of PHP 15 million via a Deed of Assignment of Rights with Assumption of Liability and gave 50% of the PHP 15 million proceeds to his wife. Upon presentation of a notarized Deed of Assignment of Rights with Assumption of Liability to Suga Land, Andres was informed that a 6% capital gains tax must first be paid by Paolo to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) before Suga Land can recognize the assignment and record Andres as the new buyer in its system database. Should Paolo pay the 6% capital gains tax to the BIR? Explain.

Quick check

Under Section 24(D)(1) of the Tax Code, what property transfer is subject to the six percent capital gains tax?

In a contract to sell real property, when does legal title or ownership transfer to the buyer?

How is an assignment of rights under a contract to sell classified for tax purposes before full payment of the purchase price?

Why is Paolo not liable for the six percent capital gains tax when assigning his rights under the contract to sell to Andres?

What condition must be present for a seller or assignor to realize a taxable gain on an assignment of rights?

Learn more about these topics

1. Contract to Sell
Under a contract to sell real property, ownership remains with the seller and does not pass to the buyer until full payment of the agreed purchase price. The buyer acquires only contractual rights to purchase the property upon fulfillment of the suspensive condition of full payment, rather than vested legal title to the real property itself.

2. Capital Gains Tax
Section 24(D)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code imposes a six percent capital gains tax specifically on gains presumed to have been realized from the sale, exchange, or disposition of real property located in the Philippines classified as capital assets. This tax applies strictly to transfers of real property or real property rights amounting to ownership.

3. Assignment of Rights
An assignment of rights under a contract to sell involves the transfer of intangible personal property rights rather than the disposition of real property. Because the assigning buyer possesses only personal rights and holds no legal title to the real estate, such assignment is not subject to the six percent real property capital gains tax.

TopicsAssignment of Rights1Capital Gains Tax4Contract to Sell5

2026 Commercial Law, Q18

The City of Makati assessed and collected 1% tax based on preceding year’s gross sales from all business establishments selling liquor, wine, spirits, and beer pursuant to Section 15 (Tax on Wholesalers, Distributors, or Dealers) or Section 17 (Tax on Retailers) pursuant to the new Makati Revenue Code. At the same time, the City of Makati imposed a business tax pursuant to Section 21 of the new Makati Revenue Code as a condition for the renewal of business licenses for the year 2026. Section 21 of the new Makati Revenue Code stated: “Section 21. Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or Percentage Taxes under the NIRC – On any of the following businesses and articles of commerce subject to the excise, value-added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, hereinafter referred to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of 50% of 1% per annum on the gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year is hereby imposed: A) On [a] person who sells goods and services in the course of trade or businesses; x x x PROVIDED, that all registered businesses in the City of Makati already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted from payment thereof.” On January 5, 2026, Platinum Grocery, Inc. (Platinum) paid the 1% tax as a retailer under Section 17 of the new Makati Revenue Code. To secure its 2026 business permit renewal, Platinum reluctantly paid under protest the assessed business tax under Section 21 of the new Makati Revenue Code. Platinum was advised by the Business Permit and Licensing Office that it can file a protest or refund pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Local Government Code. Is the assessment and collection of business tax under Section 21 of the new Makati Revenue Code valid? Explain.

Quick check

Under Section 143 of the Local Government Code and jurisprudence, what constitutes prohibited direct double taxation?

In Nursery Care Corp. v. Acevedo, why was the assessment of additional local business tax under Section 21 of the Makati Revenue Code declared invalid?

What is the effect of an express proviso in a local revenue code exempting registered businesses already paying local business tax from an additional levy?

When a taxpayer pays an invalid local business tax assessment under protest to secure business permit renewal, what is the proper legal remedy?

Under Section 143 of the Local Government Code, on what basis are local business taxes on retailers computed?

Learn more about these topics

1. Direct Double Taxation
Direct double taxation occurs when the same taxing authority levies two taxes for the same purpose, upon the same subject matter, within the same jurisdiction and taxable period. Under Section 143 of the Local Government Code and settled jurisprudence in Nursery Care Corp. v. Acevedo, local government units cannot assess duplicate local business taxes on the same gross sales of a commercial establishment.

2. Retailer Business Tax
Under Section 143 of the Local Government Code, municipalities and cities are authorized to impose local business taxes on retailers based on gross sales or receipts of the preceding calendar year. Once a taxpayer pays the prescribed local business tax as a retailer, the local government unit cannot impose additional business taxes on the exact same retail gross receipts under generic business tax provisions.

3. Statutory Exemption Provisos
Local tax ordinances must be interpreted strictly in accordance with their express terms and statutory provisos. When a local revenue code contains a proviso explicitly exempting registered businesses already paying business tax under specific provisions from paying additional rates under general provisions, any assessment issued in violation of that proviso is illegal, ultra vires, and void.

TopicsDirect Double Taxation5Local Business Tax7Section 143 LGC1

2026 Commercial Law, Q19

Ramel was assessed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Pasig for deficiency income taxes of PHP 300 million, inclusive of penalties amounting to PHP 100 million. In filing his protest requesting for reinvestigation, Ramel raised, among others, that the Formal Assessment Notice recently issued by the BIR was null and void as the previous examiner handling the said tax audit was already re- assigned to BIR Taguig and the current replacement examiner was not included in the Letter of Authority issued by the BIR last year. Two weeks ago, the BIR Regional Director denied the said protest letter. One week ago, the BIR Regional Director issued a writ of garnishment against all of Ramel’s bank accounts. Ramel, through counsel, then filed a Petition for Review with an Urgent Motion to Suspend Collection of Tax with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division. The CTA Division then issued a Resolution suspending the collection of tax provided that Ramel files a cash bond amounting to PHP 200 million or surety bond equivalent to PHP 300 million pursuant to Section 11 of the CTA Law, which provides: “No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue . . . shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law: Provided, however, . . . the Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court.” Was the CTA Division correct in requiring a cash or surety bond from Ramel? Explain.

Quick check

Under Section 11 of RA 1125, when may the Court of Tax Appeals dispense with requiring a tax bond to suspend tax collection?

What is the legal effect of a tax audit conducted by a replacement examiner who is not named in a new Letter of Authority?

Under Spouses Pacquiao v. CTA, what procedural step must the CTA take before ordering a taxpayer to post a collection bond?

Which official document grants a revenue examiner legal authority to conduct a tax audit and issue a tax assessment?

Choices available with full access.

What is the general statutory rule regarding appeals taken to the CTA from decisions of the BIR Commissioner?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Tax Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Suspension Tax Collection
Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, the Court of Tax Appeals may suspend the collection of taxes where such collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government and the taxpayer. While the CTA generally requires a cash or surety bond to suspend tax collection, jurisprudence under Spouses Pacquiao v. CTA establishes that the bond requirement may be dispensed with when the tax assessment or collection procedure is patently illegal or void.

2. Letter of Authority
A Letter of Authority empowers a designated revenue examiner to examine a taxpayer's books of accounts and assess tax liability. Reassigning a tax audit to a new revenue examiner without issuing a new Letter of Authority or re-authorization renders the resulting tax assessment null and void due to lack of statutory authority, as affirmed in CIR v. McDonald's Philippines Realty Corp.

3. Preliminary Hearing Requirement
Before mechanically requiring a taxpayer to post a substantial cash or surety bond to suspend collection, the CTA Division must conduct a preliminary hearing. This hearing allows the court to determine whether the assessment is patently illegal and whether requiring a bond would unduly burden the taxpayer, ensuring due process and fair judicial discretion.

TopicsLetter of Authority3Section 11 RA 11253Suspension Tax Collection1

2026 Commercial Law, Q20

Renoer Housing, Inc. (RHI) constructed a ten-unit apartment beside Maharlika University. The management of RHI wishes to rent out each apartment unit for PHP 20,000.00 per month. Maharlika University wanted to rent 10 units from January 1, 2027 to December 31, 2027 for an aggregate rental of PHP 200,000.00 per month. Are the rentals subject to 12% value added tax? Explain.

Quick check

Under Section 109(1)(Q) of the Tax Code, what is the monthly rental threshold per unit for residential lease VAT exemption?

When does a residential lease exceeding fifteen thousand pesos per unit monthly rental become subject to 12% VAT?

If a lessor's total gross annual receipts from residential rentals equal PHP 2,400,000, what tax applies if per-unit rent exceeds PHP 15,000?

How are annual gross receipts computed when determining if a lessor has exceeded the three million peso VAT threshold?

Choices available with full access.

Why are Renoer Housing Inc.'s rental receipts of PHP 2,400,000 exempt from 12% value-added tax?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Tax Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Residential Lease Exemption
Under Section 109(1)(Q) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, the lease of a residential unit with a monthly rental not exceeding fifteen thousand pesos is completely exempt from value-added tax. Where the monthly rental per unit exceeds fifteen thousand pesos, the lease becomes subject to value-added tax only if the lessor's aggregate gross annual receipts from all residential units exceed three million pesos.

2. Gross Receipts Threshold
For taxpayers whose annual gross sales or receipts do not exceed the statutory threshold of three million pesos under Section 109(1)(CC) of the Tax Code, transactions that exceed individual threshold limits remain exempt from value-added tax. Even if individual unit monthly rentals exceed fifteen thousand pesos, VAT liability does not attach unless total aggregate receipts surpass the three million peso threshold.

3. Percentage Tax Liability
When a lessor's residential unit rentals exceed fifteen thousand pesos per month per unit but total aggregate gross annual receipts remain below three million pesos, the lease receipts are exempt from twelve percent value-added tax. Instead, the transaction is subject to the three percent percentage tax under Section 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

TopicsGross Annual Receipts Threshold1Residential Lease VAT Exemption1Section 109 NIRC2