BIR Ruling No. 425-61

October 10, 1961 BIR RULING NO. 425-61 Mr. Leandro S. Ferrer Attorney-at-Law Cebu City S i r : Reference is made to your letter dated October 30, 1959, protesting against the demand of this Office upon your client, Dr. Fe C. Ruiz, to pay the amount of P75.00 as optician's occupation tax for the year 1959 plus P20.00 as penalty, or a total of P95.00. LibLex Among other things, you claim that Dr. Ruiz may not be considered engaged in the active practice of her profession, because she was a mere apprentice in the optical clinic of one Dr. Claro H. Sinco and did not receive any compensation. We cannot see our way clear how Dr. Ruiz, being a full-fledged optician, could be a mere apprentice in the clinic of another. Our conclusion, therefore, is that she was employed by Dr. Sinco as an optician. And that being the case, she is deemed to have engaged in the active practice of her profession, the presence or absence of compensation being immaterial. The test in determining whether a person is subject to pay the professional tax is not the compensation or honorarium received but the taxable character of the profession (see People vs. Timog, G.R. No. 44128, May 19, 1939). With respect to your claim that there are many professionals in government offices who are "exempt from the occupational taxes in spite of the fact that they are in active practice", please be informed that under Section 182 (C)(7) of the Tax Code, persons employed in any branch of the service of the Government of the Philippines whose entire professional services are devoted exclusively thereto are expressly exempted from the occupation tax. In view of the foregoing, it will be highly appreciated if you can urge your client to pay the amount of P95.00 within five (5) days from receipt hereof. Failure to pay said amount will constrain us, much to our regret, to resort to the summary remedies provided by law. LLphil Very truly yours, (SGD.) MELECIO R. DOMINGO Commissioner of Internal Revenue