"Presentation of answers that are not only good but logical, full of substance and supported by law and other authorities,
are gems to the examiner, whether he has a good or black heart"
Well I'm trying to train my self to answer questions during exams in at least one paragraph only. But it's not that easy. To be able to do that you have to have that keen eye for detecting brevity. If you don't know how to do it you're good as dead meat. You're answer will just look like a long quote without coherence and substance. But if you know what it takes, then the world is yours. If you know it, you can exude it.
I mean just take a look at how I answered in the first inset image. It's long, thoughts were jumbled, everything's going berserk, and I even wrote on a page not intended to be written on. And that penmanship.. ewe! looks like either so pressed for time or didn't bring the right pen at all. I think both.
I think I have managed to cut down my answers in my recent final Criminal Law Review examination into a 1 responsive sentence that address the immediate question and a paragraph of about 3 to 5 sentences which includes all my logical reasoning and my legal basis.
But I'm not satisfied with it. I wanted to be able to cut it in a 2 compact sentence that has it all. More like that in the 2nd inset image. Would you kindly take a look at my answer in that post. It's a mere paragraph consisting of 2 sentences and I'm surprised it perfectly did the job. I got a perfect score for that number, whereas compared to the former, I was short of 3 points. Indeed brevity is the soul of wit. And that's what I'm talking about.
But I'm not satisfied with it. I wanted to be able to cut it in a 2 compact sentence that has it all. More like that in the 2nd inset image. Would you kindly take a look at my answer in that post. It's a mere paragraph consisting of 2 sentences and I'm surprised it perfectly did the job. I got a perfect score for that number, whereas compared to the former, I was short of 3 points. Indeed brevity is the soul of wit. And that's what I'm talking about.
I think it's in the presentation of your answers that should not only be good but logical, full of substance and supported by law and other authorities, they say these are gems to the examiner, whether he has a good or black heart.
Most importantly that it can be at least short and straight to the point co'z mind you these examiners are also engaged in their respective practice in the field of law, that means they don't have all the time in the world to decipher your answer and if they see your answer's beating around the bush like that of the 1st inset image then the more they'll get the impression you have no strong grasp of what you're saying more so of the applicable provisions needed and you're just inventing your answer.
I think it's in the sentence construction how you can put everything into a compact and substantive paragraph that has it all. And the way how you concoct and present your thoughts, as well as how you choose your words. You must choose your words well, co'z the right words used in their right meaning brings intensity to the whole sentence which displays substance when being read from the whole paragraph.
And if I would be able to train my self to continually present an answer like that then that could impress those who will handle my paper. And impressive answers showing your reasoning faculty and your legal know-how coupled with a good command of the English language and with the right over-all visual structure is what the examiners want to read in your examination notebooks.
Well then let's all practice to have that keen eye for brevity and I think the only way to have this is mastery of the subject matter and an overall view of life and law so you can manipulate the lengthiness or shortness of your answers in your own hands.
And if I would be able to train my self to continually present an answer like that then that could impress those who will handle my paper. And impressive answers showing your reasoning faculty and your legal know-how coupled with a good command of the English language and with the right over-all visual structure is what the examiners want to read in your examination notebooks.
Well then let's all practice to have that keen eye for brevity and I think the only way to have this is mastery of the subject matter and an overall view of life and law so you can manipulate the lengthiness or shortness of your answers in your own hands.
Anyway, let's get to the case..
British Overseas Airways Corp. (BOAC) is a British government owned corporation. It's an international airline business.
This is the British Airways nowadays. I think about around 1970s (yup, you got that right, the setting of Conjuring2, London 1972) when a British parliament act merged BOAC with another state-owned airline, the British European Airways (BEA) and formed what is now known as the British Airways...
Although I'm not sure if British Airways today have landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines co'z BOAC from 1959 to 1972 had no landing rights and thus did not carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines...
Meaning no direct flights. Well since the dates had been stated exclusionary then I infer that British Airways have landing rights in Manila these days. Well correct me if I'm wrong airport people, I'm afraid I'm not much of a traveler, and unfortunately not even one of those wonderful cosmopolitan souls. Although I doubt if there are direct flights from Manila to London. And I'm too lazy to call some travel agencies to verify my claim..
Moving right along, the thing with BOAC was it was a bonafide member of the Interline Air Transport Association (IATA) and as such mean it can operate air transportation service and sell transportation tickets over the routes of other airline members.
What happened was using its IATA privilege it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines through Warner Barnes & Co. Ltd., and later, Qantas Airways. These sales agents were selling for BOAC airline tickets covering passengers and cargoes.
So simply put.. that is income being generated within Philippine territory where the BIR naturally had to come in...
And so the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed deficiency income taxes against BOAC.
Thereby BOAC protested.
And so the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed deficiency income taxes against BOAC.
Thereby BOAC protested.
ISSUE:
Whether the revenue derived by BOAC from ticket sales in the Philippines for air transportation, while having no landing rights in the Philippines, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and accordingly, taxable.
RULING:
Court said..
The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines.
In this case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produced the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The SITUS of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine Government.
So court said, in consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government.
(PD 68, in relation to PD 1355, ensures that international airlines are taxed on their income from Philippine sources. The 2 1/2 %tax on gross billings is an income tax. If it had been intended as an excise or percentage tax, it would have been placed under Title V of the Tax Code covering taxes on business.)
BOAC lost this case.
