Taxation: Latest Jurisprudence

National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;
unutilized input value-added tax; claims for tax credit or refund; period to file appeal with the
Court of Tax Appeals. Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code provides the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue a 120-day period from submission of complete documents in
support of the administrative claim within which to act on claims for refund/applications for
issuance of the tax credit certificate. Upon denial of the claim or application, or upon expiration
of the 120-day period, the taxpayer only has 30 days within which to appeal said adverse
decision or unacted claim before the CTA, otherwise, said judicial claim shall be considered as
filed out of time. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel
Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; unutilized input VAT; claims for tax credit or
refund; prescriptive periods. (1) An administrative claim must be filed with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zerorated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of
submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide
whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend
beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the
later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the
CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction. (3) A judicial
claim must be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the receipt of the
CIRs decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period
without any action from the CIR. (4) All taxpayers can rely on Bureau of Internal Revenue
Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003 up to its reversal by
the Court in the Aichi case on October 6, 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and
jurisdictional 120+30 day periods. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No.
7-95; significance of imprinting the word zero-rated for zero-rated sales covered by its
receipts or invoices. The absence or non-printing of the word zero-rated in the claimants
invoices is fatal to its claim for the refund and/or tax credit representing its unutilized input
value-added tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales. The appearance of the word zerorated on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely
claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. Further, the printing of
the word zero-rated on the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 12% VAT from
those sales that are zero-rated. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; imprinting BIR Authority to Print in
invoices; no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While the Court considers the importance of imprinting the word
zero-rated in said invoices, the same does not apply to the phrase BIR authority to print.

There is no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While entities engaged in business are required to secure from the
BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it
is not required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.),
G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
(Caren thanks Charles Icasiano for assisting in the preparation of this post.)
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;
unutilized input value-added tax; claims for tax credit or refund; period to file appeal with the
Court of Tax Appeals. Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code provides the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue a 120-day period from submission of complete documents in
support of the administrative claim within which to act on claims for refund/applications for
issuance of the tax credit certificate. Upon denial of the claim or application, or upon expiration
of the 120-day period, the taxpayer only has 30 days within which to appeal said adverse
decision or unacted claim before the CTA, otherwise, said judicial claim shall be considered as
filed out of time. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel
Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; unutilized input VAT; claims for tax credit or
refund; prescriptive periods. (1) An administrative claim must be filed with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zerorated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of
submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide
whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend
beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the
later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the
CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction. (3) A judicial
claim must be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the receipt of the
CIRs decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period
without any action from the CIR. (4) All taxpayers can rely on Bureau of Internal Revenue
Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003 up to its reversal by
the Court in the Aichi case on October 6, 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and
jurisdictional 120+30 day periods. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No.
7-95; significance of imprinting the word zero-rated for zero-rated sales covered by its
receipts or invoices. The absence or non-printing of the word zero-rated in the claimants
invoices is fatal to its claim for the refund and/or tax credit representing its unutilized input
value-added tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales. The appearance of the word zerorated on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely
claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. Further, the printing of
the word zero-rated on the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 12% VAT from

those sales that are zero-rated. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; imprinting BIR Authority to Print in
invoices; no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While the Court considers the importance of imprinting the word
zero-rated in said invoices, the same does not apply to the phrase BIR authority to print.
There is no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While entities engaged in business are required to secure from the
BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it
is not required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.),
G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
(Caren thanks Charles Icasiano for assisting in the preparation of this post.)
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;
unutilized input value-added tax; claims for tax credit or refund; period to file appeal with the
Court of Tax Appeals. Section 112 (D) of the National Internal Revenue Code provides the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue a 120-day period from submission of complete documents in
support of the administrative claim within which to act on claims for refund/applications for
issuance of the tax credit certificate. Upon denial of the claim or application, or upon expiration
of the 120-day period, the taxpayer only has 30 days within which to appeal said adverse
decision or unacted claim before the CTA, otherwise, said judicial claim shall be considered as
filed out of time. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel
Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; unutilized input VAT; claims for tax credit or
refund; prescriptive periods. (1) An administrative claim must be filed with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zerorated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of
submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide
whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend
beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the
later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the
CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction. (3) A judicial
claim must be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the receipt of the
CIRs decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period
without any action from the CIR. (4) All taxpayers can rely on Bureau of Internal Revenue
Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003 up to its reversal by
the Court in the Aichi case on October 6, 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and
jurisdictional 120+30 day periods. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.

National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; Section 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No.
7-95; significance of imprinting the word zero-rated for zero-rated sales covered by its
receipts or invoices. The absence or non-printing of the word zero-rated in the claimants
invoices is fatal to its claim for the refund and/or tax credit representing its unutilized input
value-added tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales. The appearance of the word zerorated on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely
claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. Further, the printing of
the word zero-rated on the invoice helps segregate sales that are subject to 12% VAT from
those sales that are zero-rated. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc.
(formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.), G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; imprinting BIR Authority to Print in
invoices; no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While the Court considers the importance of imprinting the word
zero-rated in said invoices, the same does not apply to the phrase BIR authority to print.
There is no law or Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) rule or regulation requiring the taxpayerclaimants authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein. While entities engaged in business are required to secure from the
BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it
is not required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.),
G.R. No. 169778, March 12, 2014.
(Caren thanks Charles Icasiano for assisting in the preparation of this post.)

April 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law

Posted on May 9, 2014 by Carina C. Laforteza Posted in Tax Law

Here are select April 2014 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on tax law:
National Internal Revenue Code; income tax; creditable withholding tax; refund; requisites.
There are three essential conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of creditable withholding
income tax, to wit: (1) the claim is filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the
two-year period from the date of payment of the tax; (2) it is shown on the return of the recipient
that the income payment received was declared as part of the gross income; and (3) the fact of
withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee
showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation (formerly Mirant Phils.,
Operation Corporation), G.R. No. 179260, April 2, 2014.
National Internal Revenue Code; income tax; tax credit or refund; corporations; irrevocability
rule. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly
income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over

and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the
succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income
tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been
made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for
cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation (formerly Mirant Phils.,
Operation Corporation), G.R. No. 179260, April 2, 2014.
Court of Tax Appeals; findings and conclusions of the CTA are accorded highest respect. The
findings and conclusions of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) are accorded the highest respect and
will not be lightly set aside. The CTA, by the very nature of its functions, is dedicated
exclusively to the resolution of tax problems and has accordingly developed an expertise on the
subject unless there has been an abusive or improvident exercise of authority. Consequently, its
conclusions will not be overturned unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of
authority. Its findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial
evidence or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence
of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, the Court must presume that the CTA rendered
a decision which is valid in every respect. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team
(Philippines) Operations Corporation (formerly Mirant Phils., Operation Corporation), G.R.
No. 179260, April 2, 2014.
(Caren thanks Charles Icasiano for assisting in the preparation of this post.)