It bears reiterating that tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed beyond what the statute expressly and clearly imports, tax statutes being construed strictissimi juris against the government.[17] In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails as said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.[18] It must be stressed that the objective of issuing BIR Revenue Regulations is to establish parameters or guidelines within which our tax laws should be implemented, and not to amend or modify its substantive meaning and import. As held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation,[19]
x x x The rule in the interpretation of tax laws is that a statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication. x x x As burdens, taxes should not be unduly exacted nor assumed beyond the plain meaning of the tax laws.[20]
Hence, while it may be true that the interpretation advocated by petitioner CIR is in furtherance of its desire to raise revenues for the government, such noble objective must yield to the clear provisions of the law, particularly since, in this case, the terms of the said law are clear and leave no room for interpretation.
x x x."
