BIR Ruling No. 004-63

February 20, 1963 BIR RULING NO. 004-63 The Regional Director Regional District No. 3 Manila S i r : There are herewith returned to you the papers bearing on the case of Mr. Camillo P. Aldecoa, proprietor of Magnus Poly Products Enterprises, 1744 Rizal Avenue, Manila. LLpr It appears that sometime last year, the taxpayer presented his sales invoices to the Office of the City Revenue Officer for approval and registration; that as the name of the taxpayer did not appear on said invoices only his trade name or style, the same were not accepted; that on the same occasion he was required to stamp his name on each and every invoice, but instead of complying he wrote a letter (dated October 25, 1962) explaining the circumstances which led to the omission of his name in the invoices and in the same breath requested that the requirement be waived, which request was denied by the City Revenue Officer; and that subsequent to the receipt of the denial letter, the taxpayer wrote another (dated November 28, 1962) contending, among other things, that under Section 204 of the Tax Code, a person may, at his option, indicate in his invoices either his name or style only. The pertinent portion of Section 204 provinces as follows: "All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall . . . prepare and issue sales or commercial invoices or receipts serially numbered in duplicate showing, among other things, their names, or style, if any, and business address . . ." We agree with the position taken by Mr. Aldecoa. It is a rule of statutory construction that the words "and" and "or" are used interchangeably and one may be substituted for the other, if to do so is consistent with the legislative intent (Vol. 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., Sec. 4923). In the instant case, the disjunctive word "or" in Section 204 aforequoted may not be read as "and" because to do so would not be consistent with the legislative intent. Now, what is the legislative intent? prll It is noted that in Section 203 of the same Code a person subject to a privilege tax is required to register, among other things, "his name or style", and in Section 205 thereof a distiller, rectifier, compounder, repacker, and wholesale liquor dealer, to keep a sign whereon is written "his name or firm style", business and assessment number. On the other hand, Section 206 requires every manufacturer of cigarettes, cigars, or tobacco and every wholesale dealer in leaf tobacco or manufactured products of tobacco to keep a sign stating "his full name and business", as well as his assessment number. In the light of those requirements, it is abundantly clear that when the legislature intends that there be no substitute for the name of a taxpayer (in connection with a particular requirement) it does so in an unequivocal manner by not adding the words "or style" after the word "name", as in the case of Section 206. If it is so, and we believe it is, considering that the section of the law under consideration and those cited are grouped in one chapter of the Tax Code and each comes after the other, the inevitable conclusion is that Mr. Aldecoa cannot be required to stamp his name on his invoices as a condition precedent to the approval and registration thereof, provided that his business name or style, duly registered in that office, is shown thereon. As a corollary, it may be stated that having arrived at such a conclusion, the conjunction "and" found in the pertinent portion of Section 15 of Revenue Regulations No. V-1, implementing Section 204 of the Tax Code, should be read as "or" only. cdta In this connection, your attention is invited to the second paragraph of Section 19 of said regulations, as amended by Revenue Regulations No. V-35, which requires, the prior presentation of a draft copy of the invoices and receipts proposed to be used by a taxpayer for approval. It can be surmised that at least in the particular case of Mr. Aldecoa said paragraph of the regulation was never enforced, otherwise, it could never have risen at all. You are, therefore, hereby directed to properly enforce the requirement in all cases. Be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JOSE B. LINGAD Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue The above ruling was duly signed by the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue on February 20, 1963. (SGD.) P. F. LANDAS Revenue Operations Head (Legal)