CIR vs. St. Luke’s

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.  ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

G.R. No. 195909, September 26, 2012

 

Facts:

1. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. is a hospital organized as a non-stock and non-profit corporation.
2. The BIR assessed St. Luke’s deficiency taxes amounting to P76,063,116.06 for 1998, comprised of deficiency income tax, VAT, withholding tax on compensation and expanded withholding tax.
3. Luke’s filed an administrative protest with the BIR against the deficiency tax assessments.
4. The BIR argued before the CTA that Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of proprietary non-profit hospitals, should be applicable to St. Luke’
5. The BIR claimed that St. Luke’s was actually operating for profit in 1998 because only 13% of its revenues came from charitable purposes. Moreover, the hospital’s board of trustees, officers and employees directly benefit from its profits and assets. St. Luke’s had total revenues of P1,730,367,965 or approximately P1.73 billion from patient services in 1998.
6. Luke’s contended that the BIR should not consider its total revenues, because its free services to patients was P218,187,498 or 65.20% of its 1998 operating income of P334,642,615. St. Luke’s also claimed that its income does not inure to the benefit of any individual.
7. Luke’s maintained that it is a non-stock and non-profit institution for charitable and social welfare purposes under Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC. It argued that the making of profit per se does not destroy its income tax exemption.

 

 

Issue: Whether St. Luke’s is liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, which imposes a preferential tax rate of 10% on the income of proprietary non-profit hospitals.

 

Ruling:

 

The issue raised by the BIR is a purely legal one. It involves the effect of the introduction of Section 27(B) in the NIRC of 1997 vis-à-vis Section 30(E) and (G) on the income tax exemption of charitable and social welfare institutions. The 10% income tax rate under Section 27(B) specifically pertains to proprietary educational institutions and proprietary non-profit hospitals.

 

Section 27(B) of the NIRC does not remove the income tax exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals under Section 30(E) and (G). Section 27(B) on one hand, and Section 30(E) and (G) on the other hand, can be construed together without the removal of such tax exemption.

 

The effect of the introduction of Section 27(B) is to subject the taxable income of two specific institutions, namely, proprietary non-profit educational institutions and proprietary non-profit hospitals, among the institutions covered by Section 30, to the 10% preferential rate under Section 27(B) instead of the ordinary 30% corporate rate under the last paragraph of Section 30 in relation to Section 27(A)(1).

 

The only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit. “Proprietary” means private, following the definition of a “proprietary educational institution” as “any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or groups” with a government permit. “Non-profit” means no net income or asset accrues to or benefits any member or specific person, with all the net income or asset devoted to the institution’s purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit.

 

“Non-profit” does not necessarily mean “charitable.”

 

The Court defined “charity” in Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City as “a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or by otherwise lessening the burden of government.”

 

To be a charitable institution, however, an organization must meet the substantive test of charity in Lung Center. The issue in Lung Center concerns exemption from real property tax and not income tax. However, it provides for the test of charity in our jurisdiction.

 

In other words, charitable institutions provide for free goods and services to the public which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of government. Thus, as a matter of efficiency, the government forgoes taxes which should have been spent to address public needs, because certain private entities already assume a part of the burden. This is the rationale for the tax exemption of charitable institutions.

 

Charitable institutions, however, are not ipso facto entitled to a tax exemption. The requirements for a tax exemption are specified by the law granting it. The requirements for a tax exemption are strictly construed against the taxpayer because an exemption restricts the collection of taxes necessary for the existence of the government.

 

The Court in Lung Center declared that the Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution for the purpose of exemption from real property taxes. This ruling uses the same premise as Hospital de San Juan and Jesus Sacred Heart College which says that receiving income from paying patients does not destroy the charitable nature of a hospital.

 

For real property taxes, the incidental generation of income is permissible because the test of exemption is the use of the property. The test of exemption is not strictly a requirement on the intrinsic nature or character of the institution. The test requires that the institution use the property in a certain way, i.e. for a charitable purpose. Thus, the Court held that the Lung Center of the Philippines did not lose its charitable character when it used a portion of its lot for commercial purposes. The effect of failing to meet the use requirement is simply to remove from the tax exemption that portion of the property not devoted to charity.

 

In the NIRC, Congress decided to extend the exemption to income taxes. However, the way Congress crafted Section 30(E) of the NIRC is materially different from Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution. Section 30(E) of the NIRC defines the corporation or association that is exempt from income tax. On the other hand, Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution does not define a charitable institution, but requires that the institution “actually, directly and exclusively” use the property for a charitable purpose.

 

Section 30(E) of the NIRC provides that a charitable institution must be:

• A non-stock corporation or association;
• Organized exclusively for charitable purposes;
• Operated exclusively for charitable purposes;
• No part of its net income or asset shall belong to or inure to the benefit of any member, organizer, officer or any specific person.

 

Thus, both the organization and operations of the charitable institution must be devoted “exclusively” for charitable purposes. The organization of the institution refers to its corporate form, as shown by its articles of incorporation, by-laws and other constitutive documents.

 

Section 30(E) of the NIRC specifically requires that the corporation or association be non-stock, which is defined by the Corporation Code as “one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees, or officers” and that any profit “obtained as an incident to its operations shall, whenever necessary or proper, be used for the furtherance of the purpose or purposes for which the corporation was organized.”

 

However, the last paragraph of Section 30 of the NIRC qualifies the words “organized and operated exclusively” by providing that: Notwithstanding the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the foregoing organizations from any of their properties, real or personal, or from any of their activities conducted for profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax imposed under this Code.

 

In 1998, St. Luke’s had total revenues of P1,730,367,965 from services to paying patients. It cannot be disputed that a hospital which receives approximately P1.73 billion from paying patients is not an institution “operated exclusively” for charitable purposes. Clearly, revenues from paying patients are income received from “activities conducted for profit.” Indeed, St. Luke’s admits that it derived profits from its paying patients. St. Luke’s declared P1,730,367,965 as “Revenues from Services to Patients” in contrast to its “Free Services” expenditure of P218,187,498.

 

Services to paying patients are activities conducted for profit. They cannot be considered any other way. There is a “purpose to make profit over and above the cost” of services. The P1.73 billion total revenues from paying patients is not even incidental to St. Luke’s charity expenditure of P218,187,498 for non-paying patients.

 

The Court finds that St. Luke’s is a corporation that is not “operated exclusively” for charitable or social welfare purposes insofar as its revenues from paying patients are concerned. This ruling is based not only on a strict interpretation of a provision granting tax exemption, but also on the clear and plain text of Section 30(E) and (G). Section 30(E) and (G) of the NIRC requires that an institution be “operated exclusively” for charitable or social welfare purposes to be completely exempt from income tax.