THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 89128. April 15, 1991.]
ARROW FORWARDING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
RESOLUTION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated April 15, 1991:
This petition for review assails the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 18, 1988 in CA-G.R. SP No. 13451 entitled, "Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Arrow Forwarding Corporation and the Court of Tax Appeals" and its Resolution dated July 11, 1989, upholding the deficiency tax assessment made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the petitioner, Arrow Forwarding Corporation ("Arrow" for brevity). aisa dc
In a letter dated April 16, 1988, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, through the Commissioner, assessed and demanded from Arrow the payment of P38,728.34 as deficiency percentage tax on the latter's 1975 gross receipts as forwarders, pursuant to Sections 183(a) and 191 (now Sections 193[a] and 205, respectively) of the Tax Code. Arrow contested the assessment on the ground that it is not a forwarder subject to the 3% contractor's tax on gross receipts, but a common carrier subject only to 2% tax pursuant to Section 192 (now Section 207) of the Tax Code.
On February 8, 1982, the Commissioner denied Arrow's protest and upheld the 3% contractor's tax levied against it.
On April 12, 1982, Arrow filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax appeals (CTA Case No. 3442 entitled, "Arrow Forwarding Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue").
After hearing the parties, the Court of Tax Appeals on April 8, 1987, set aside the decision of the Commissioner.
The Commissioner filed a petition for review in this Court which referred it to the Court of Appeals for determination pursuant to its ruling in Development Bank of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 180 SCRA 609 (1989).
The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Tax Court. It found that Arrow is a forwarder subject to the 3% contractor's tax.
In this petition for review, Arrow assails that finding of the Appellate Court.
After deliberating on the petition for review, the Court resolved to deny it for the issue raised by the petition: whether the petitioner is engaged in the business of a forwarder or a common carrier, is indubitably a factual issue, hence, not reviewable by this Court (Sec. 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court). Moreover, the appellate court's finding that petitioner is a forwarder is anchored on substantial evidence in the docket (among which are the petitioner's articles of incorporation), the report of the investigating officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the business name of the petitioner, Arrow Forwarding Corporation, which is indicative of its real business. The Court of Appeals further observed that the petitioner "not only transports passengers and freight, arranges for warehousing and shipping in carloads but acts as principal agent as well." (p. 34, Rollo.)
Its conclusion that Arrow is engaged in the forwarding business accords with the definition of a forwarder in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, Volume I as:
"A person who receives and forwards goods, taking up on himself the expense of transportation, for which he receives a compensation from the owners, but who has no concern in the vessels or wagons by which they are transported, and no interest in the freight."
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANOClerk of Court