Practice question
A tax statute is assumed constitutionally valid. A collector nevertheless demands an amount from a person whom the statute expressly excludes, relying solely on the lifeblood doctrine and an impending revenue shortfall. Which analysis is correct?
- A valid tax statute validates every demand made in its name
- The statute's validity does not authorize collection contrary to its express scope
- The lifeblood doctrine allows extension to every excluded person
- A revenue shortfall amends the statute automatically
- Exclusion from this tax eliminates every other possible tax liability
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III Sections 1 and 20, Article VI Sections 24 and 28, Article X Section 5: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Planters Products v. Fertiphil, GR166006, March14 2008, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_166006_2008.html
- CIR v. Algue, GR L-28896, February 17 1988, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l-28896_1988.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.