Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
non-government
organizations
(NGOs) throughout the country.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the PEACe Bonds
are "deposit substitutes" and thus subject to
20% final withholding tax under the 1997
National Internal Revenue Code? Related to
this question is the interpretation of the phrase
"borrowing from twenty (20) or more
individual or corporate lenders at any one
time" under Section 22(Y) of the 1997 National
Internal Revenue Code, particularly on
whether the reckoning of the 20 lenders
includes trading of the bonds in the secondary
market.
RULING:
The Court ordered the Bureau of
Treasury (BTr) to immediately release
and pay to the eight (8) redeeming
bondholders of the PEACEBONDS, the
amount corresponding to 20% final
withholding tax (FWT) that was
withheld by the BTr upon the redemption
of the bonds pursuant to BIR Ruling No.
370-2011 (PEACEBOND Ruling).
The salient points of the Decision are as
follows:
FACTS:
Respondent,
a
domestic
corporation,
is
primarily
engaged in the business of
developing,
designing,
constructing,
erecting,
assembling,
commissioning,
owning, operating, maintaining,
rehabilitating, and managing
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent
proved its entitlement to the refund?
RULING:
The court denied the petition for
review on certiorari.
The requirements for entitlement of
a corporate taxpayer for a refund or the
issuance of tax credit certificate involving
excess withholding taxes are as follows:
1. That the claim for refund was
filed
within
the
two-year
reglementary period pursuant to
Section 229 of the NIRC;
2. When it is shown on the ITR that
the income payment received is
being declared part of the taxpayers
gross income; and
3. When the fact of withholding is
established by a copy of the
withholding tax statement, duly
issued by the payor to the payee,
showing the amount paid and
income tax withheld from that
amount.
The court do not expound anymore
on the first requirement because even the
petitioner does not contest that the
respondent filed its administrative and
FACTS:
RULING:
The court denied the Petition on the
ground that the petitioners judicial claim
for a refund/tax credit was filed beyond the
prescriptive period.
Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax
Code states the time requirements for filing
a judicial claim for the refund or tax credit
of input VAT. The legal provision speaks of
two periods: the period of 120 days, which
serves as a waiting period to give time for
the CIR to act on the administrative claim
for a refund or credit; and the period of 30
days, which refers to the period for filing a
judicial claim with the CTA. It is the 30-day
period that is at issue in this case.
The
landmark
case
of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San
Roque Power Corporation has interpreted
Section 112 (D). The Court held that the
taxpayer can file an appeal in one of two
ways: (1) file the judicial claim within 30
days after the Commissioner denies the
claim within the 120-day waiting period,
or (2) file the judicial claim within 30
days from the expiration of the 120-day
period if the Commissioner does not act
within that period.
On 11 December 2000, petitioner
filed with the BIR an application for the
refund or credit of accumulated unutilized
creditable input taxes. Thus, the CIR had a
period of 120 days from 11 December
2000, or until 10 April 2001, to act on the
claim. It failed to do so, however. Rohm
FACTS:
BANK
COUNTRY
OF
RESIDENC
E
PREFERENTIA
L RATE
UNDER THE
RELEVANT
TAX TREATY
Fortis
Bank
S.A./N.V.
Belgium
10%
(Article
11[1], RP-Belgium
Tax Treaty)
Industrial
Bank of
Japan
Japan
10%
(Article
11[3], RP-Japan
Tax Treaty)
Raiffesen
Zentral
Bank
Osterreic
h AG
Austria
10%
(Article
11[3], RP-Japan
Tax Treaty)
Mizuho
Corporate
Bank
Japan
10%
(Article
11[3], RP-Japan
Tax Treaty)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the BIR may add a
requirement prior application for an ITAD
ruling that is not found in the income tax
treaties signed by the Philippines before a
taxpayer can avail of preferential tax rates
under said treaties?
RULING:
- G.R. Nos. 193383-84: The Court
holds that the CTA En Banc committed
reversible error in affirming the reduction
of the amount of refund to CBK Power
from 15,672,958.42 to P14,835,720.39 to
exclude its transactions with Fortis-
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA En Banc
correctly affirmed the CTA Divisions
outright dismissal of petitioners claim for
tax refund/credit on the ground of
prematurity?
RULING:
The petition is partly meritorious. In
the Aichi case cited by both the CTA
Division and the CTA En Banc, the Court
held that the observance of the 120-day
period is a mandatory and jurisdictional
requisite to the filing of a judicial claim for
refund before the CTA. Consequently, its
non-observance would lead to the dismissal
of the judicial claim on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction.
In CIR v. San Roque Power
Corporation (San Roque), the Court
recognized an exception to the mandatory
and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day
period. It ruled that BIR Ruling No. DA-
6.) WINEBRENNER
&
IIGO
INSURANCE
BROKERS,
INC., Petitioner
VS.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No.
206526, January 28, 2015)
FACTS:
RULING:
CIR is ordered to REFUND to
petitioner the amount of P2,737,903.34 as
excess creditable withholding tax paid for
taxable year 2003. The April 13, 2010
Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals
Special First Division is REINSTATED.
A taxpayer who seeks a refund of
excess and unutilized CWT must:
1) File the claim with the CIR
within the two year period from the
date of payment of the tax;
2) Show on the return that the
income received was declared as
part of the gross income; and
3) Establish the fact of withholding
by a copy of a statement duly
issued by the payor to the payee
showing the amount paid and the
amount of tax withheld.
The irrevocability rule under
Section 76 of the NIRC means that once an
option, either for refund or issuance of tax
credit certificate or carry-over of CWT has
been exercised, the same can no longer be
modified for the succeeding taxable years.
The fact of having carried over
petitioners 2003 excess credits to
succeeding taxable year is in issue.
According to the CTA-En Banc and the
CIR, the only evidence that can sufficiently
show that carrying over has been made is to
present the quarterly ITRs. Some members
of this Court adhere to the same view. The
Court however cannot.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Petitioner,
China
Banking
Corporation (CBC) is a universal
bank duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines.
For the taxable years 1982 to 1986,
CBC was engaged in transactions
involving sales of foreign exchange
to the Central Bank of the
Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas), commonly known as
ISSUE:
RULING:
The court grants the Petition on
the ground that the right of the BIR to
collect the assessed DST is barred by the
statute of limitations.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued the assessment for deficiency
DST on 19 April 1989, when the applicable
rule was Section 319(c) of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as
amended. In that provision, the time limit
for the government to collect the assessed
tax is set at three years, to be reckoned from
the date when the BIR mails/releases/sends
the assessment notice to the taxpayer.
Further, Section 319(c) states that the
assessed tax must be collected by distraint
or levy and/or court proceeding within the
three-year period.
In this case, the records do not show
when the assessment notice was mailed,
released or sent to CBC. Nevertheless, the
latest possible date that the BIR could have
released, mailed or sent the assessment
notice was on the same date that CBC
received it, 19 April 1989. Assuming
therefore that 19 April 1989 is the
reckoning date, the BIR had three years to
collect the assessed DST. However, the
records of this case show that there was
neither a warrant of distraint or levy served
on CBC's properties nor a collection case
filed in court by the BIR within the threeyear period.
The attempt of the BIR to collect the
tax through its Answer with a demand for
CBC to pay the assessed DST in the CTA
on 11 March 2002 did not comply with
Section 319(c) of the 1977 Tax Code, as
amended. The demand was made almost
FACTS:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the CTA acquired
jurisdiction over the claim for a
refund of input VAT covering the
3rd and the 4th quarters of taxable
year 1999 and on 25 July 2001
covering all the quarters of taxable
year 2000?
2.) Whether or not Section 4.108-1 of
Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 795 which expanded the statutory
requirements for the issuance of
official receipts and invoices found
in Section 113 of the 1997 Tax Code
by providing for the additional
requirement of the imprinting of the
terms zero-rated is constitutional?
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA En Banc
correctly affirmed the CTA Divisions
outright dismissal of Cargills claims for
refund of unutilized input VAT on the
ground of prematurity?
RULING:
The
petition
is
partly
meritorious. Considering that Cargills
claims for refund covered periods before
the effectivity of RA 9337, Section 112 of
the NIRC, as amended by RA 8424, should,
therefore, be the governing law.
In this case, records disclose that
anent Cargills first refund claim, it filed its
administrative claim with the BIR on June
27, 2003, and its judicial claim before the
CTA on June 30, 2003, or before the period
when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in
effect, i.e., from December 10, 2003 to
October 6, 2010. As such, it was incumbent
upon Cargill to wait for the lapse of the 120day period before seeking relief with the
CTA, and considering that its judicial claim
was filed only after three (3) days later, the
CTA En Banc, thus, correctly dismissed
Cargills petition in CTA Case No. 6714 for
being prematurely filed.
In contrast, records show that with
respect to Cargills second refund claim, its
administrative and judicial claims were
both filed on May 31, 2005, or during the
2.) PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK, Petitioner
VS.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No.
206019, March 18, 2015)
FACTS:
Pre-Assessment
Notice
dated
November 10, 1999 against TRB.
QUESTION:
Differentiate
final
withholding tax (FWT) from creditable
withholding tax (CWT). Cite your legal
basis.
3.) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner VS.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK, Respondent
(G.R. No. 167134, March 18, 2015)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Trust Indenture
Agreements constituted deposits or trusts?
RULING:
The BIR posits that the Agreements
were deposits subject to DST; while TRB
proffers that the Agreements were trusts
exempt from DST. Surprisingly, not a
single copy of a Trust Indenture Agreement
and/or the Certificate of Participation
(issued to the client as evidence of the trust)
could be found in the records of the case.
The burden fell upon TRB to produce the
Trust Indenture Agreements, not only
because the said Agreements were in its
possession, but more importantly, because
its protest against the DST assessments was
entirely grounded on the allegation that said
Agreements were trusts. TRB was the
petitioner before the CTA in C.T.A. Case
1997
P 567,500,927.000 P 55,783,860.92
.30/200
.30/200
Basic Tax
851,251.50
83,676.00
Add: Surcharge
212,812.88
20,919.00
P 1,064,064.38
P 104,595.00
Total
FACTS:
SPI
filed
a
Motion
for
Reconsideration but said Motion
was denied for lack of merit by the
CTA En Banc in a Resolution dated
June 26, 2006.
ISSUE:
Whether or not SPI is entitled to
claim from refund of Input VAT
attributable to its zero-rated sales?
RULING:
No, because the Petition for Review
of Silicon Philippines, Inc. seeking tax
credit/refund of the input Value-Added Tax
attributable to its zero-rated sales and on its
purchases of capital goods for the Third
Quarter of 1998, docketed as CTA Case No.
6170 before the Court of Tax Appeals
Division, is filed out of time. SPI filed
on May 6, 1999 its administrative claim for
tax credit/refund of the input VAT
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Late
filing
is
absolutely
prohibited, even during the time
when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03
was in force. (San Roque)
REVENUE, Respondent
183531, March 25, 2015)
(G.R.
No.
International
Telegraph
and
Telephony
and
implemented
between the contracting parties in
consonance with a set of procedural
guidelines denominated as Traffic
Settlement Procedure.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA erred in
denying ETPIs claim for refund of input
taxes resulting from its zero-rated sales?
RULING:
No. The word zero-rated is
required on the invoices or receipts
issued by VAT-registered taxpayers.
ETPI posits that the NIRC allows
VAT-registered taxpayers to file a claim for
refund of input taxes directly attributable to
zero-rated
transactions
subject
to
compliance with certain conditions. To
bolster its averment, ETPI pointed out that
the imprint of the word zero-rated on the
face of the sales invoice or receipt is merely
required in RR No. 7-95 which cannot
prevail over a taxpayers substantive right
to claim a refund or tax credit for its input
taxes. And, that the lack of the word zerorated on its invoices and receipts does not
justify an outright denial of its claim for
refund or tax credit considering that it has
FACTS:
Petitioner
Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) was created by Congress
on July 31, 1990 under Republic
Act No. 6958 to "undertake the
economical, efficient and effective
control,
management
and
supervision
of
the
Mactan
International Airport in the
Province of Cebu and the Lahug
Airport in Cebu City and such other
airports as may be established in the
Province of Cebu." It is represented
in this case by the Office of the
Solicitor General.
Respondent City of Lapu-Lapu is a
local government unit and political
subdivision, created and existing
under its own charter with capacity
to sue and be sued. Respondent
Elena T. Pacaldo was impleaded in
her capacity as the City Treasurer of
respondent City.
However,
upon
motion
of
respondents, the RTC lifted the writ
of preliminary injunction. The RTC
reasoned as follows:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner is a
Government Instrumentality exempt from
paying Real Property Taxes?
RULING:
The petition is GRANTED.
Petitioner is an instrumentality of the
government; thus, its properties actually,
solely and exclusively used for public
purposes, consisting of the airport terminal
building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the
lots on which they are situated, are not
subject to real property tax and respondent
City is not justified in collecting taxes from
petitioner over said properties. The
2006 MIAA case governs. A government
instrumentality like MIAA falls under
Section 133(o) of the Local Government
Code, which states:
SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the
Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. - Unless
otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing
powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangays shall not extend to the levy of the
following:
(o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on
the National Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities and local government units.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals
correctly referred the records of the
collection case to the Court of Tax Appeals
for proper disposition of the appeal taken by
respondent?
RULING:
The Court finds that the CA erred in
referring the records of the collection case
to the CTA for proper disposition of the
appeal taken by respondent.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
No.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Ordinance No.
SP-2095, S-2011 or the
Socialized Housing Tax is
valid?
2. Whether or not Ordinance No.
SP-2235, S-2013 on Garbage
Fees is valid?
a. Whether or not
Ordinance No. SP-2235, S-2013 on
Garbage Fee violates the rule on
double taxation?
RULING:
1. The constitutionality and legality of
Ordinance No. SP-2095, S-2011, or the
"Socialized Housing Tax of Quezon City,"
is sustained for being consistent with
Section 43 of Republic Act No. 7279.
Ordinance No. SP-2095 imposes a
Socialized Housing Tax equivalent to 0.5%
on the assessed value of land in excess of
Php100,000.00. This special assessment is
FACTS:
Petitioner
is
the
manufacturer/producer of, among
others, the following cigarette
brands, with tax rate classification
based on net retail price prescribed
by Republic Act No. 4280:
Brand
Tax Rate
Champion M 100
Camel F King
Camel Lights Box 20's
Camel Filters Box 20's
Winston F King
Winston Lights
P1.00
P1.00
P1.00
P1.00
P5.00
P5.00
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient
evidence to warrant the grant of petitioner's
claim for tax refund?
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Honorable Court
of Tax Appeals gravely erred in
disregarding the law and interest of
substantial justice by reversing the ruling of
the trial court solely because of its assumed
pronouncement that the original petition
was filed one (1) day beyond the
reglementary period?
RULING:
The petition lacks merit. The Court,
however, is of the view that the period
within which the City Treasurer must act on
the protest, and the consequent period to
appeal a "denial due to inaction," should be
reckoned from January 15, 2007, the date
CBC filed its protest, and not March 27,
2007. Consequently, the Court finds that
the CTA En Banc did not err in ruling that
CBC had lost its right to challenge the City
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not The Secretary of
Finance acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing RR 2-2012 that
imposes VAT and excise tax on the
importation of petroleum and petroleum
products from abroad and into Freeport or
Economic Zones, as it is claimed to have
unilaterally revoked tax exemption granted
by RA 7227 and RA 9400?
RULING:
The Court denied the petition for
being an improper remedy.
FIRSTLY, a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, is a special civil
action that may be invoked ONLY against
COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner
VS.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.
(PAL), Respondent (G.R. Nos.
211733-34)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sections 6 and 10 of
R.A. 9334 repealed Section 13 of P .D.
1590?
RULING:
The petitions are denied and ruled
that R.A. 9334 was not expressly repealed
by P.D. 1590.The controversy before the
Court is not novel. In CIR v. PAL, the Court
has already passed upon the very same
issues raised by the same petitioners. The
only differences are the taxable period
involved and the amount of refundable tax.
A reading of the pertinent
provisions of P.D. 1590 and R.A. 9334
shows that there was no express repeal of
the grant of exemption:
P.D. NO. 1590-SECTION 13. In
consideration of the franchise and rights hereby
granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine
Government during the life of this franchise
whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will
result in a lower tax:
(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the
grantee's annual net taxable income computed in
FACTS:
Respondent
Pilipinas
Shell
Petroleum Corporation operates an
oil refinery and depot in Tabagao,
Batangas City, which manufactures
and produces petroleum products
that are distributed nationwide.
1.
2.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, the judgment/order of the RTC
Branch II of Batangas City is hereby
MODIFIED. As to the business taxes on the
manufacture and distribution of petroleum
products, we find the [respondent] not
liable for the same. As to the mayor's
permit, we find that it is excessive.
Accordingly, the [petitioner] is hereby (a)
declared legally proscribed from imposing
business taxes on the manufacture and
distribution of petroleum products and (b)
to refund in the form of tax credit the
excessive mayor's permit in the amount of
THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
SEVENTY
THOUSAND
EIGHT
HUDNRED
SIXTY
PESOS
(P3,870,860.00)
RULING:
SO ORDERED.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a Local Government
Unit is empowered under the Local
Government Code to impose business taxes
on persons or entities engaged in the
Section
263. Purchase
of
Property By the Local Government Units
for Want of Bidder. - In case there is no
bidder for the real property advertised for
sale as provided herein, the real property
tax and the related interest and costs of
sale, the local treasurer conducting the
sale shall purchase the property in behalf
of the local government unit concerned to
satisfy the claim and within two (2) days
thereafter shall make a report of his
proceedings which shall be reflected upon
the records of his office. It shall be the duty
of the Registrar of Deeds concerned upon
registration with his office of any such
declaration of forfeiture to transfer the title
of the forfeited property to the local
government unit concerned without the
necessity of an order from a competent
court.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the one (1) year
redemption period of forfeited tax
delinquent properties purchased by the
local government for want of a bidder is
reckoned from the date of the auction or
sale or from the date of the issuance of the
declaration of forfeiture?
RULING:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA En Banc
erred in ruling that respondent is exempt
from payment of DST?
RULING:
The petition is denied. The court
ordered CIR to grant respondent's claim
for tax refund or tax credit in the amount
of P14,140,980.00,
representing
its
erroneously paid DST for the taxable
year 2001.
In Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, the Supreme Court already
ruled that Section 196of the NIRC does not
include the transfer of real property from
one corporation to another pursuant to a
merger. It explained that:
[W]e do not find merit in petitioners
contention that Section 196 covers all transfers and
conveyances of real property for a valuable
consideration. A perusal of the subject provision
would clearly show it pertains only to sale
transactions where real property is conveyed to a
purchaser for a consideration. The phrase "granted,
assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed" is
qualified by the word "sold" which means that
documentary stamp tax under Section 196 is
imposed on the transfer of realty by way of sale and
does not apply to all conveyances of real property.
Indeed, as correctly noted by the respondent, the fact
that Section 196 refers to words "sold", "purchaser"
and "consideration" undoubtedly leads to the
conclusion that only sales of real property are
contemplated therein.
8.) COMMISSION
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner
VS.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
(SECOND DIVISION) and
PETRON
CORPORATION,
Respondents (G.R. No. 207843,
July 15, 2015)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Court of Tax
Appeals had jurisdiction?
RULING:
The CTA had no jurisdiction. The
case does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the CTA because the phrase "other matters
arising under this Code," as stated in the
second paragraph of Section 4 of the NIRC,
should be understood as pertaining to those
matters directly related to the preceding
phrase "disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties imposed in relation
thereto". It cannot extend to evaluating the
soundness of the interpretation of tax laws
by the CIR.
Moreover, Section 4 of the NIRC
confers upon the CIR both: (a) the power to
interpret tax laws in the exercise of her
quasi-legislative function; and (b) the
power to decide tax cases in the exercise of
her quasi-judicial function. It also
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA gravely
erred and has no authority to deviate from
the clear and literal meaning of Section 112
(D) of the NIRC by counting the 120-day
period from the filing of the administrative
claim and not from the last submission of
complete documents in the administrative
proceedings with the BIR?
RULING:
The Petition lacks merit. The
requirements for a taxpayer be able to claim
a refund or credit of its input tax are found
in Section 112 of the NIRC, as amended,
the relevant portions of which read:
Sec. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input
Tax.
(C) Period within which Refund or Tax
Credit of Input Taxes shall be made. In proper
cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or
issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input
taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
date of submission of complete documents in support
of the application filed in accordance with
Subsection (A) hereof. In case of full or partial
denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the
failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the
application within the period prescribed above, the
taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from
the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after
the expiration of the one hundred twenty day period,
appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the
Court of Tax Appeals.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the Court of Appeals
erred in declaring the subject articles
forfeited in favour of the Government
considering that the rice shipment was
produced and purchased locally.
b. Whether
or
not
the
factual
determination of the Court of Tax
Appeals can be reversed by the Court
of Appeals despite the fact that the
decision of the Tax Court is supported
by substantial evidence.
c. Whether or not the rice shipment
constituted smuggling or unlawful
importation.
RULING:
The action of Collector of Customs was
appealable to the Commissioner of Customs,
whose decision was subject to the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CTA, whose
decision was in turn appealable to the CA.
FACTS:
Internal
Revenue
on
its
administrative claim.
CTA 2nd Division Ruling denied
judicial claim for having been filed
beyond the thirty (30) day period
prescribed in Sec. 112 of the Tax
Code.
CTA En Banc Ruling appeal was
denied relying upon the ruling in
Aichi case which provides that:
The 120 and 30 day periods
under Section 112 (c) of the Tax
Code are mandatory, and noncompliance is fatal to a judicial
claim for refund.
ISSUE/S:
a. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals
En Banc erred in denying petitioner
CE Casecnan claim for refund due
to prescription.
RULING:
a. Petitioners judicial claim was filed
beyond the thirty-day period
required in Section 112 (c) of the
Tax Code. The administrative claim
for refund was filed on September
26, 2007. Thus, the 120 day perio
for the BIR to act on the claim
lapsed on January 24, 2008.
Petitioner had until February 23,
2008 to file a petition before the
CTA, but it filed only on March 14,
2008. Petitioner was late by 19
days.
Similarly, this court rejects
petitioners claim that Aichi and
San Roque should not be applied
retroactively as it would be unjust to
the other claimants who relied on
the old doctrine (that both
administrative and judicial claims
in
the
total
amount
of
P238,545,052.38
inclusive
of
surcharges; (b) deficiency onshore
tax for the taxable year 1996 in the
total amount of P997,333.89
inclusive of surcharges and interest;
and (c) deficiency withholding tax
on compensation for the taxable
years 1996 and 1997 in the total
amount of P564,542.67 inclusive of
interest. The Resolution denied ING
Bank's Motion for Reconsideration.
FACTS:
b.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner
ING Bank may validly avail itself of the tax
amnesty granted by Republic Act No.
9480? And
13.) COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner
VS.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
AND
CBK
POWER
COMPANY
LIMITED, Respondents (G.R.
Nos. 203054-55, July 29, 2015)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law but the filing of a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court?
RULING:
Private respondent claims that
petitioner chose an erroneous remedy when
it filed a petition for certiorari with us since
the proper remedy on any adverse
resolution of any division of the CTA is an
appeal by way of a petition for review with
the CTA en bane; that it is provided under
Section 2 (a)(l) of Rule 4 of the Revised
Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals
(RRCTA) that the Court en bane shall
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review by appeal the decision or resolutions
on motions for reconsideration or new trial
of the Court in division in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases
arising from administrative agencies such
as the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The
court is not persuaded.
14.) COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner VS. AIR
LIQUIDE
PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondent (G.R. No.
210646, July 29, 2015)
FACTS:
Respondent
Air
Liquide
Philippines, Inc. (ALPI) is a
domestic corporation registered
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) as a Value-Added Tax (VAT)
entity. It sells chemical products
and renders certain related services
to the Philippine Economic Zone
Authority (PEZA) enterprises. On
January 22, 2008, ALPI filed with
the BIR its Quarterly VAT Return
for the 4th quarter of 2007.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA Division
acquired jurisdiction over Respondents
Petition for Review?
RULING:
15.) COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE, Petitioner
VS.
STANDARD
CHARTERED
BANK, Respondent (G.R. No.
192173, July 29, 2015)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioners right to
assess respondent for deficiency income
tax, final income tax FCDU, and EWT
covering taxable year 1998 has already
prescribed?
RULING:
Petition is denied for lack of merit.
Under Sec. 203 of the NIRC, the
period for petitioner to assess and collect an
internal revenue tax is limited only to three
years. Thus, in the present case, petitioner
only had three years, counted from the date
of actual filing of the return or from the last
date prescribed by law for the filing of such
return, whichever comes later, to assess a
national internal revenue tax or to begin a
court proceeding for the collection thereof
ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Petitioner VS. THE CITY
ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER
OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents (G.R.
No. 166102, August 05, 2015)
FACTS:
MERALCO
appealed
Tax
Declaration No. 019-6500 before
the LBAA of Lucena City.
MERALCO claimed that its capital
investment consisted only of its
substation facilities, the true and
correct value of which was only
P9,454,400.00;
and
that
MERALCO was exempted from
payment of real property tax on said
substation facilities.
LBAA
rendered
a
Decision, finding that under its
franchise, MERALCO was required
to pay the City Government of
ISSUE:
Whether or not transformers,
electric
posts,
transmission
lines,
insulators, and electric meters of Manila
Electric Company are real properties
subject to real property tax?
RULING:
Yes, the Court finds that the
transformers, electric posts, transmission
lines, insulators, and electric meters of
MERALCO are no longer exempted from
real property tax and may qualify as
"machinery" subject to real property tax
under the Local Government Code.
Nevertheless, the Court declares null and
void the appraisal and assessment of said
properties of MERALCO by the City
Assessor in 1997 for failure to comply with
the requirements of the Local Government
Code and, thus, violating the right of
MERALCO to due process.
Just when the franchise of
MERALCO in Lucena City was about to
expire, the Local Government Code took
effect on January 1, 1992, Sections 193 and
234 of which provide:
Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax
Exemption Privileges. - Unless otherwise provided
electric
posts,
insulators, and
MERALCO.
transmission
lines,
electric meters of
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not TPC is entitled to
the refund of its alleged unutilized input
VAT for the first and the second quarters of
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA En
Banc correctly ordered the outright
dismissal of CE Luzon's claims for tax
refund of unutilized input VAT on the
ground of prematurity?
RULING:
No. The CTA En Banc erred when
it outrightly dismissed CE Luzons
petition on the ground of prematurity.
Records show that CE Luzon's
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Chevron was
entitled to the tax refund or the tax credit for
the excise taxes paid on the importation of
petroleum products that it had sold to CDC
in 2007?
RULING:
Yes, Chevron was entitled to the
refund or credit of the excise taxes
erroneously paid on the importation of the
petroleum products sold to CDC.
Pursuant to Section 135(c),
petroleum products sold to entities that are
by law exempt from direct and indirect
taxes are exempt from excise tax. As a dulyregistered enterprise in the Clark Special
Economic Zone, CDC has been exempt
from paying direct and indirect taxes
pursuant to Section 24 of Republic Act No.
7916 (The Special Economic Zone Act of
1995), in relation to Section 15 of Republic
Act No. 9400 (Amending Republic Act No.
7227, otherwise known as the Bases
Conversion Development Act of 1992).
Inasmuch as its liability for the
payment of the excise taxes accrued
immediately upon importation and prior to
the removal of the petroleum products from
the customs house, Chevron was bound to
pay, and actually paid such taxes. But the
status of the petroleum products as exempt
from the excise taxes would be confirmed
only upon their sale to CDC in 2007. Before
then, Chevron did not have any legal basis
to claim the tax refund or the tax credit as
to the petroleum products. Consequently,
the payment of the excise taxes by Chevron
upon its importation of petroleum products
was deemed illegal and erroneous upon the
sale of the petroleum products to CDC.
Section 204 of the NIRC explicitly allowed
Chevron as the statutory taxpayer to claim
the refund or the credit of the excise taxes
thereby paid.
FACTS:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CTA properly
granted Nippon's motion to withdraw?
RULING:
No. The CTA committed a
reversible error in granting Nippon's
motion to withdraw. The August 10, 2011
Decision of the CTA Division should
therefore be reinstated, without prejudice,
however, to the right of either party to
appeal the same in accordance with the
Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals
(RRCTA).
FACTS:
TPC
moved
for
partial
reconsideration contending that as
an existing generation company, it
was not required to obtain a COC
from the ERC as a prerequisite for
its operations, and that the issue of
whether it is a generation company
was never raised during the trial.
FACTS:
ending
December
31,
2001.
Respondent also filed its Monthly
Remittance Returns of Final Income
Taxes
Withheld,
its
Monthly
Remittance Return of Expanded
Withholding Taxes and its Monthly
Remittance Returns of Income Taxes
Withheld on Compensation.
Respondent received a copy of the
Letter of Authority from the Regional
Director Nestor S. Valeroso to examine
respondents books of accounts and
other
accounting
records
and
withholding taxes for the period
covering January 1, 2001 December
31, 2001.
Ma. Lida Sarmiento, respondents
Director of Finance, subsequently
executed several waivers of the Statute
of Limitations to extend the
prescriptive period of assessment of
taxes due in taxable year ending 2001.
On September 26, 2005, respondent
received from the BIR Preliminary
Assessment Notice dated September
16, 2005 to which it filed a Reply. On
October 25, 2005, respondent received
a Formal Letter of Demand and
Assessment
Notices/Demand,
demanding the payment of deficiency
income tax, final withholding tax,
expanded withholding tax, increments
for late remittance of taxes withheld,
and compromise penalty for failure to
file returns/late filing/late remittance of
taxes withheld.
by Sarmiento did not validly extend the threeyear prescriptive period to assess respondent for
deficiency income tax.
CTA En Banc Ruling Denied Petition for
Review and affirmed the Decision of the former
CTA First Division.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the CIRs right to assess
respondents deficiency taxes had
already prescribed.
RULING:
3.) PILIPINAS
TOTAL
GAS,
INC., Petitioner
VS.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent (G.R. No.
207112, December 08, 2015)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
3.) REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED
BY
THE
BUREAU
OF
CUSTOMS, Petitioner
VS.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, Respondent
(G.R. No. 209324, December 09,
2015)
FACTS:
Pilipinas
Shell
Petroleum
Corporation (PSPC), a domestic
corporation registered with the
Board of Investments (BOI), is
engaged in the importation, refining
and sale of petroleum products in
the country. For its importations,
PSPC was assessed and required to
pay customs duties and internal
revenue taxes.
P 2,542,918.00
TCC # 006977
2,573,422.00
TCC# 006978
2,559,493.00
TCC # 006979
2,413,079.00
TOTAL
P10,088,912.00
ISSUE:
FACTS:
ISSUE(S):
a. Whether or not Air Canada as an
offline international carrier selling
passage documents through a
general sales agent in the
Philippines, is a resident foreign
corporation?
b. Whether or not Air Canada is
subject to 2 tax on Gross
FACTS:
RULING:
(b) MPC's claim for the refund of
P836,768.00 as input taxes is denied
due to lack of proof of payment. As a
rule, "input tax on importations should
be supported with Import Entry and
Internal
Revenue
Declarations
FACTS:
shows
that
PAGCOR
has
deficiencies on Value Added Tax
(VAT), Withholding Tax on VAT
(WTV), Expanded Withholding
Tax (EWT), and Fringe Benefits
Tax (FBT).
determination
of
its
protest.
ISSUE(S):
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Pilipinas Shell is not
entitled to a refund/credit of the excise taxes
paid on its sales and deliveries to
international carriers?
RULING:
Pilipinas
Shell
sought
a
refund/credit of the excise taxes allegedly
paid erroneously on sales and deliveries of
gas and fuel oils to various international
carriers during the period of October to
December 2001. As in the present case,
Pilipinas Shell alleged that it was exempt
from payment of excise taxes levied on its
petroleum products sold and delivered to
international carriers of foreign registry.
The same petitioner in this case, the CIR, as
represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General, objected to the tax refund/credit
granted by the CTA, also on the same
ground raised in the present case that the
excise tax on petroleum products is levied
on the manufacturer of the petroleum
product regardless of its purchaser or buyer
and that the grant of exemption under
Section 135 of the NIRC simply means that
the manufacturer cannot pass on to the
international carrier-buyer the excise taxes
it paid on its petroleum products.
Initially, the Court sustained CIR's
arguments, reversed the CTA ruling and
denied Pilipinas Shell's claim for tax
refund/credit. In a Decision dated April 25,
2012, the Court concluded that Pilipinas
Shell's locally manufactured petroleum
products are subject to excise tax under
Section 148 of the NIRC. The Court also
ruled that the exemption from excise tax
payment on petroleum products under
Section 135 (a) "merely allows the
international carriers to purchase petroleum
products without the excise tax component
as an added cost in the price fixed by the
manufacturers
or
distributors/sellers.
Consequently, the oil companies which
sold such petroleum products to
international carriers are not entitled to a
refund of excise taxes previously paid on
the goods."
QUESTION: Explain the extent of
authority of the Commissioner of Internal
FACTS:
from
the
disallowances/understatements.
ISSUE(S):
a. Whether or not the Formal
Assessment Notice (FAN) for
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Tax
Appeals has acquired jurisdiction over the
case?
RULING:
No, the CTA did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case ergo their rulings
are not decisions in contemplation of law.
The Honorable Supreme Court stated that:
Upon
the
filing
of
an
administrative claim, respondent is given a
period of 120 days within which to (1) grant
a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for
creditable input taxes; or (2) make a full or
partial denial of the claim for a tax refund
or tax credit. Failure on the part of
respondent to act on the application within
the 120-day period shall be deemed a
denial.
Note that the 120-day period begins
to run from the date of submission of
complete documents supporting the
administrative claims. If there is no
evidence showing that the taxpayer was
required to submit or actually submitted
additional documents after the filing of the
administrative claim, it is presumed that the
complete documents accompanied the
claim when it was filed.
Considering that there is no
evidence in this case showing that
April 2016
1.) SPOUSES
EMMANUEL
D.
PACQUIAO
AND
JINKEE
J.
PACQUIAO, Petitioners VS. THE
COURT OF TAX APPEALS (1st
DIVISION)
AND
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondents (G.R. No.
213394, April 6, 2016)
FACTS:
the
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Court
acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it imposed a bond requirement which
will effectively prevent Petitioners from
continuing the prosecution of its appeal
FACTS:
than that
FLD/FAN.
contained
in
the
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc erred in partially
upholding the validity of the assessment as
to the withholding tax on compensation but
declaring invalid the assessment on
expanded withholding tax and fringe
benefits tax?
RULING:
A void FDDA does not ipso facto
render the assessment void
Where a taxpayer questions an
assessment and asks the Collector to
reconsider or cancel the same because he
(taxpayer) believes that he is not liable
therefor, the assessment becomes a
disputed assessment that the Collector
must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to
the CTA only upon receipt of the of the
decision of the Collector on the disputed
assessment.
From the foregoing, it is clear that
what is appealable to the CTA is the
decision of the CIR on disputed
assessment and not the assessment itself.
Clearly, a decision of the CIR on a
disputed assessment differs from the
assessment itself. Hence, the invalidity of
one does not necessarily result to the
invalidity of the other unless the law or
regulations otherwise provide.
The FDDA must state the facts
and the law on which it is based to
provide the taxpayer the opportunity to
file an intelligent appeal
The reason for requiring that
taxpayers be informed in writing of the
facts and law on which the assessment is
made is the constitutional guarantee that no
person shall be deprived of his property
FACTS:
Respondent
Pilipinas
Shell
Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) is a
domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing and
selling petroleum products for
distribution in the Philippines.
On January 30, 2009, petitioner
District Collector Juan N. Tan, the
Collector of Customs of the Port of
Batangas, issued a demand letter
asking respondent PSPC to pay the
excise tax and value-added tax
(VAT), plus penalty on its
importation of catalytic cracked
gasoline (CCG) and light catalytic
cracked gasoline (LCCG) for the
years 2006-2008 in the total amount
of P21,419,603,310.00.
PSPC, refused to heed the demand
and, instead, issued a letter dated
February 13, 2009 questioning the
factual or legal basis of the demand.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CTA committed
reversible error when it ruled that
respondents did not commit wilful and
deliberate forum shopping?
RULING:
Petition
is
denied.
Under
prevailing jurisprudence, forum shopping
can be committed in three ways, to wit:
a. Filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and with the
same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (litis
pendentia);
b. Filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and [with] the
same prayer, the previous case
having been finally resolved (res
judicata);
c. Filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action but with
different prayers (splitting of causes
of action, where the ground for
dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata).
Forum shopping exists when a party
seeks a favourable opinion in another