Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Next Mobile

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their director of Finance,
executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive perios of assessment for
taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay deficiency
income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription period under the NIRC.
That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as there was not false return by the
respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING:

NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO No. 20-90 and
RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.

Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were held in bad faith as
after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to pay, they used the waivers they made
themselves when the consequences were not in their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers did not conform with
RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the nullification of the formal
letter of demand to the CTA.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. KEPCO

FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation.
For failure of petitioner BIR to act upon respondents claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, respondent filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, respondent
filed its Memorandum, but petitioner failed to file its Memorandum despite notice,
thus, the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division rendered a Decision, holding
that respondent is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid. There being
no motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the said decision became final
and executory.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but the same was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals en banc has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner.

RULING:

The Revised Rules of the CTA and even the Rules of Court which apply
suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in which the en banc may
reverse, annul or void a final decision of a division. Verily, the Revised
Rules of the CTA provide(s) for no instance of an annulment of judgment
at all. On the other hand, the Rules of Court, through Rule 47, provides, with certain
conditions, for annulment of judgment done by a superior court, like the Court of
Appeals, against the final judgment, decision or ruling of an inferior court, which is
the Regional Trial Court, based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, in turn, also is empowered to, upon a similar
action, annul a judgment or ruling of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. But, again, the said Rules are silent as to whether a
collegial court sitting en banc may annul a final judgment of its own division. As
earlier explained, the silence of the Rules may be attributed to the need to
preserve the principles that there can be no hierarchy within a collegial
court between its divisions and the en banc, and that a courts judgment,
once final, is immutable.

A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme

Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is
no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory
judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the
same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latters final judgments may not be
annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTAs own decisions similarly may not
be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that
annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases
enumerated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, over which the Supreme
Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an
adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of
facts.

Instead, what remained as a remedy for the petitioner was to file a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been filed as an
original action before this Court and not before the CTA en banc. xxx In any
event, petitioners failure to avail of this remedy and mistake in filing of the wrong
action are fatal to its case and renders and leaves the CTA First Divisions decision
as indeed final and executory. By the time the instant petition for review was filed
by petitioner with this Court, more than sixty (60) days have passed since
petitioners alleged discovery of its loss in the case as brought about by the alleged
negligence or fraud of its counsel.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions dated July 27,2011 and November 15, 2011 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

GOODYEAR

A taxpayer must file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund within 2
years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR, otherwise, the
right to appeal to the CTA would be forfeited. Well-settled is the rule that when the
said 2-year period is about to prescribe and the claim for refund with CIR has not
been acted upon, for the protection of the interest of the taxpayer, he should file a
petition for review with the CTA within the 2-year period; otherwise, if the decision
of the CIR is adverse and it was made after the 2-year period, he can no longer
appeal the same to the CTA.

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc v BIR

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a petition that Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels Inc
(BRHI), a unit of Bloomberry Resorts Corp., filed against the 30 percent corporate income tax
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) slapped on it as a casino operator.
A disclosure by Bloomberry Resorts Corp to the Philippine Stock Exchange said the high court
granted the certiorari petition on August 10 but the company received it only on September 5.

The ruling, an en banc decision, affirmed the argument of Bloomberry that as contracting party
of Pagcor, it was subject only to the 5 percent franchise tax on its gross gaming revenue, in lieu
of all taxes, as provided under Section 13(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR
Charter).

BRHI had petitioned the court to have the provision of the Revenue Memorandum Circular
(RMC) No 33-1023 that the former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares issued in 2013, imposing
30 percent corporate income tax on casinos, nullified.

The high court ordered Pagcor to retain the original license fee structure for BRHI.

Bloomberry, together with unit BRHI, operates the casino and hotel and restaurant components
of integrated casino resort Solaire Resort & Casino.

Aside from Bloomberry, the BIR is also pushing to impose the 30 percent corporate income tax
to the three casino operators which are Travellers International Hotel Group Inc. (operator of
Resorts World Manila), Melco Crown (Philippines) Resorts Corp. (City of Dreams), and Tiger
Resorts Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (Okada Manila).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Next Mobile

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their director of Finance,
executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive perios of assessment for
taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay deficiency
income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription period under the NIRC.
That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as there was not false return by the
respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING:
NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO No. 20-90 and
RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.

Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were held in bad faith as
after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to pay, they used the waivers they made
themselves when the consequences were not in their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers did not conform with
RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the nullification of the formal
letter of demand to the CTA.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. KEPCO

FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation.

For failure of petitioner BIR to act upon respondents claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, respondent filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, respondent
filed its Memorandum, but petitioner failed to file its Memorandum despite notice,
thus, the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division rendered a Decision, holding
that respondent is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid. There being
no motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the said decision became final
and executory.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but the same was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals en banc has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner.
RULING:

The Revised Rules of the CTA and even the Rules of Court which apply
suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in which the en banc may
reverse, annul or void a final decision of a division. Verily, the Revised
Rules of the CTA provide(s) for no instance of an annulment of judgment
at all. On the other hand, the Rules of Court, through Rule 47, provides, with certain
conditions, for annulment of judgment done by a superior court, like the Court of
Appeals, against the final judgment, decision or ruling of an inferior court, which is
the Regional Trial Court, based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, in turn, also is empowered to, upon a similar
action, annul a judgment or ruling of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. But, again, the said Rules are silent as to whether a
collegial court sitting en banc may annul a final judgment of its own division. As
earlier explained, the silence of the Rules may be attributed to the need to
preserve the principles that there can be no hierarchy within a collegial
court between its divisions and the en banc, and that a courts judgment,
once final, is immutable.

A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme

Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is
no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory
judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the
same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latters final judgments may not be
annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTAs own decisions similarly may not
be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that
annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases
enumerated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, over which the Supreme
Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an
adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of
facts.

Instead, what remained as a remedy for the petitioner was to file a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been filed as an
original action before this Court and not before the CTA en banc. xxx In any
event, petitioners failure to avail of this remedy and mistake in filing of the wrong
action are fatal to its case and renders and leaves the CTA First Divisions decision
as indeed final and executory. By the time the instant petition for review was filed
by petitioner with this Court, more than sixty (60) days have passed since
petitioners alleged discovery of its loss in the case as brought about by the alleged
negligence or fraud of its counsel.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions dated July 27,2011 and November 15, 2011 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

GOODYEAR

A taxpayer must file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund within 2
years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR, otherwise, the
right to appeal to the CTA would be forfeited. Well-settled is the rule that when the
said 2-year period is about to prescribe and the claim for refund with CIR has not
been acted upon, for the protection of the interest of the taxpayer, he should file a
petition for review with the CTA within the 2-year period; otherwise, if the decision
of the CIR is adverse and it was made after the 2-year period, he can no longer
appeal the same to the CTA.

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc v BIR

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a petition that Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels Inc
(BRHI), a unit of Bloomberry Resorts Corp., filed against the 30 percent corporate income tax
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) slapped on it as a casino operator.

A disclosure by Bloomberry Resorts Corp to the Philippine Stock Exchange said the high court
granted the certiorari petition on August 10 but the company received it only on September 5.

The ruling, an en banc decision, affirmed the argument of Bloomberry that as contracting party
of Pagcor, it was subject only to the 5 percent franchise tax on its gross gaming revenue, in lieu
of all taxes, as provided under Section 13(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR
Charter).

BRHI had petitioned the court to have the provision of the Revenue Memorandum Circular
(RMC) No 33-1023 that the former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares issued in 2013, imposing
30 percent corporate income tax on casinos, nullified.

The high court ordered Pagcor to retain the original license fee structure for BRHI.

Bloomberry, together with unit BRHI, operates the casino and hotel and restaurant components
of integrated casino resort Solaire Resort & Casino.
Aside from Bloomberry, the BIR is also pushing to impose the 30 percent corporate income tax
to the three casino operators which are Travellers International Hotel Group Inc. (operator of
Resorts World Manila), Melco Crown (Philippines) Resorts Corp. (City of Dreams), and Tiger
Resorts Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (Okada Manila).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Next Mobile

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their director of Finance,
executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive perios of assessment for
taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay deficiency
income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription period under the NIRC.
That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as there was not false return by the
respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING:

NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO No. 20-90 and
RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.

Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were held in bad faith as
after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to pay, they used the waivers they made
themselves when the consequences were not in their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers did not conform with
RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the nullification of the formal
letter of demand to the CTA.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. KEPCO
FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation.

For failure of petitioner BIR to act upon respondents claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, respondent filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, respondent
filed its Memorandum, but petitioner failed to file its Memorandum despite notice,
thus, the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division rendered a Decision, holding
that respondent is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid. There being
no motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the said decision became final
and executory.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but the same was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals en banc has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner.

RULING:

The Revised Rules of the CTA and even the Rules of Court which apply
suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in which the en banc may
reverse, annul or void a final decision of a division. Verily, the Revised
Rules of the CTA provide(s) for no instance of an annulment of judgment
at all. On the other hand, the Rules of Court, through Rule 47, provides, with certain
conditions, for annulment of judgment done by a superior court, like the Court of
Appeals, against the final judgment, decision or ruling of an inferior court, which is
the Regional Trial Court, based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, in turn, also is empowered to, upon a similar
action, annul a judgment or ruling of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. But, again, the said Rules are silent as to whether a
collegial court sitting en banc may annul a final judgment of its own division. As
earlier explained, the silence of the Rules may be attributed to the need to
preserve the principles that there can be no hierarchy within a collegial
court between its divisions and the en banc, and that a courts judgment,
once final, is immutable.

A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme

Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is
no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory
judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the
same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latters final judgments may not be
annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTAs own decisions similarly may not
be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that
annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases
enumerated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, over which the Supreme
Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an
adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of
facts.

Instead, what remained as a remedy for the petitioner was to file a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been filed as an
original action before this Court and not before the CTA en banc. xxx In any
event, petitioners failure to avail of this remedy and mistake in filing of the wrong
action are fatal to its case and renders and leaves the CTA First Divisions decision
as indeed final and executory. By the time the instant petition for review was filed
by petitioner with this Court, more than sixty (60) days have passed since
petitioners alleged discovery of its loss in the case as brought about by the alleged
negligence or fraud of its counsel.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions dated July 27,2011 and November 15, 2011 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

GOODYEAR

A taxpayer must file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund within 2
years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR, otherwise, the
right to appeal to the CTA would be forfeited. Well-settled is the rule that when the
said 2-year period is about to prescribe and the claim for refund with CIR has not
been acted upon, for the protection of the interest of the taxpayer, he should file a
petition for review with the CTA within the 2-year period; otherwise, if the decision
of the CIR is adverse and it was made after the 2-year period, he can no longer
appeal the same to the CTA.
Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc v BIR

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a petition that Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels Inc
(BRHI), a unit of Bloomberry Resorts Corp., filed against the 30 percent corporate income tax
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) slapped on it as a casino operator.

A disclosure by Bloomberry Resorts Corp to the Philippine Stock Exchange said the high court
granted the certiorari petition on August 10 but the company received it only on September 5.

The ruling, an en banc decision, affirmed the argument of Bloomberry that as contracting party
of Pagcor, it was subject only to the 5 percent franchise tax on its gross gaming revenue, in lieu
of all taxes, as provided under Section 13(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR
Charter).

BRHI had petitioned the court to have the provision of the Revenue Memorandum Circular
(RMC) No 33-1023 that the former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares issued in 2013, imposing
30 percent corporate income tax on casinos, nullified.

The high court ordered Pagcor to retain the original license fee structure for BRHI.

Bloomberry, together with unit BRHI, operates the casino and hotel and restaurant components
of integrated casino resort Solaire Resort & Casino.

Aside from Bloomberry, the BIR is also pushing to impose the 30 percent corporate income tax
to the three casino operators which are Travellers International Hotel Group Inc. (operator of
Resorts World Manila), Melco Crown (Philippines) Resorts Corp. (City of Dreams), and Tiger
Resorts Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (Okada Manila).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Next Mobile

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their director of Finance,
executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive perios of assessment for
taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay deficiency
income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription period under the NIRC.
That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as there was not false return by the
respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING:

NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO No. 20-90 and
RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.

Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were held in bad faith as
after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to pay, they used the waivers they made
themselves when the consequences were not in their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers did not conform with
RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the nullification of the formal
letter of demand to the CTA.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. KEPCO

FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation.

For failure of petitioner BIR to act upon respondents claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, respondent filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, respondent
filed its Memorandum, but petitioner failed to file its Memorandum despite notice,
thus, the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division rendered a Decision, holding
that respondent is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid. There being
no motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the said decision became final
and executory.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but the same was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals en banc has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner.

RULING:

The Revised Rules of the CTA and even the Rules of Court which apply
suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in which the en banc may
reverse, annul or void a final decision of a division. Verily, the Revised
Rules of the CTA provide(s) for no instance of an annulment of judgment
at all. On the other hand, the Rules of Court, through Rule 47, provides, with certain
conditions, for annulment of judgment done by a superior court, like the Court of
Appeals, against the final judgment, decision or ruling of an inferior court, which is
the Regional Trial Court, based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, in turn, also is empowered to, upon a similar
action, annul a judgment or ruling of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. But, again, the said Rules are silent as to whether a
collegial court sitting en banc may annul a final judgment of its own division. As
earlier explained, the silence of the Rules may be attributed to the need to
preserve the principles that there can be no hierarchy within a collegial
court between its divisions and the en banc, and that a courts judgment,
once final, is immutable.

A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme

Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is
no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory
judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the
same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latters final judgments may not be
annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTAs own decisions similarly may not
be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that
annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases
enumerated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, over which the Supreme
Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an
adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of
facts.

Instead, what remained as a remedy for the petitioner was to file a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been filed as an
original action before this Court and not before the CTA en banc. xxx In any
event, petitioners failure to avail of this remedy and mistake in filing of the wrong
action are fatal to its case and renders and leaves the CTA First Divisions decision
as indeed final and executory. By the time the instant petition for review was filed
by petitioner with this Court, more than sixty (60) days have passed since
petitioners alleged discovery of its loss in the case as brought about by the alleged
negligence or fraud of its counsel.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions dated July 27,2011 and November 15, 2011 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

GOODYEAR

A taxpayer must file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund within 2
years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR, otherwise, the
right to appeal to the CTA would be forfeited. Well-settled is the rule that when the
said 2-year period is about to prescribe and the claim for refund with CIR has not
been acted upon, for the protection of the interest of the taxpayer, he should file a
petition for review with the CTA within the 2-year period; otherwise, if the decision
of the CIR is adverse and it was made after the 2-year period, he can no longer
appeal the same to the CTA.

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc v BIR

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a petition that Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels Inc
(BRHI), a unit of Bloomberry Resorts Corp., filed against the 30 percent corporate income tax
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) slapped on it as a casino operator.

A disclosure by Bloomberry Resorts Corp to the Philippine Stock Exchange said the high court
granted the certiorari petition on August 10 but the company received it only on September 5.

The ruling, an en banc decision, affirmed the argument of Bloomberry that as contracting party
of Pagcor, it was subject only to the 5 percent franchise tax on its gross gaming revenue, in lieu
of all taxes, as provided under Section 13(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR
Charter).

BRHI had petitioned the court to have the provision of the Revenue Memorandum Circular
(RMC) No 33-1023 that the former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares issued in 2013, imposing
30 percent corporate income tax on casinos, nullified.

The high court ordered Pagcor to retain the original license fee structure for BRHI.

Bloomberry, together with unit BRHI, operates the casino and hotel and restaurant components
of integrated casino resort Solaire Resort & Casino.

Aside from Bloomberry, the BIR is also pushing to impose the 30 percent corporate income tax
to the three casino operators which are Travellers International Hotel Group Inc. (operator of
Resorts World Manila), Melco Crown (Philippines) Resorts Corp. (City of Dreams), and Tiger
Resorts Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (Okada Manila).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Next Mobile

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their director of Finance,
executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the prescriptive perios of assessment for
taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay deficiency
income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription period under the NIRC.
That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as there was not false return by the
respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING:

NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO No. 20-90 and
RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.
Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were held in bad faith as
after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to pay, they used the waivers they made
themselves when the consequences were not in their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers did not conform with
RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the nullification of the formal
letter of demand to the CTA.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. KEPCO

FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation.

For failure of petitioner BIR to act upon respondents claim for refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, respondent filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, respondent
filed its Memorandum, but petitioner failed to file its Memorandum despite notice,
thus, the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division rendered a Decision, holding
that respondent is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid. There being
no motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner, the said decision became final
and executory.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but the same was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals en banc has jurisdiction to take cognizance
of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by petitioner.

RULING:

The Revised Rules of the CTA and even the Rules of Court which apply
suppletorily thereto provide for no instance in which the en banc may
reverse, annul or void a final decision of a division. Verily, the Revised
Rules of the CTA provide(s) for no instance of an annulment of judgment
at all. On the other hand, the Rules of Court, through Rule 47, provides, with certain
conditions, for annulment of judgment done by a superior court, like the Court of
Appeals, against the final judgment, decision or ruling of an inferior court, which is
the Regional Trial Court, based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court, in turn, also is empowered to, upon a similar
action, annul a judgment or ruling of the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts
within its territorial jurisdiction. But, again, the said Rules are silent as to whether a
collegial court sitting en banc may annul a final judgment of its own division. As
earlier explained, the silence of the Rules may be attributed to the need to
preserve the principles that there can be no hierarchy within a collegial
court between its divisions and the en banc, and that a courts judgment,
once final, is immutable.

A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme

Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is
no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory
judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the
same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latters final judgments may not be
annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTAs own decisions similarly may not
be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that
annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases
enumerated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5, over which the Supreme
Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an
adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of
facts.

Instead, what remained as a remedy for the petitioner was to file a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been filed as an
original action before this Court and not before the CTA en banc. xxx In any
event, petitioners failure to avail of this remedy and mistake in filing of the wrong
action are fatal to its case and renders and leaves the CTA First Divisions decision
as indeed final and executory. By the time the instant petition for review was filed
by petitioner with this Court, more than sixty (60) days have passed since
petitioners alleged discovery of its loss in the case as brought about by the alleged
negligence or fraud of its counsel.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The
assailed Resolutions dated July 27,2011 and November 15, 2011 of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

GOODYEAR
A taxpayer must file both its administrative and judicial claims for refund within 2
years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR, otherwise, the
right to appeal to the CTA would be forfeited. Well-settled is the rule that when the
said 2-year period is about to prescribe and the claim for refund with CIR has not
been acted upon, for the protection of the interest of the taxpayer, he should file a
petition for review with the CTA within the 2-year period; otherwise, if the decision
of the CIR is adverse and it was made after the 2-year period, he can no longer
appeal the same to the CTA.

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc v BIR

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled in favor of a petition that Bloomberry Resorts & Hotels Inc
(BRHI), a unit of Bloomberry Resorts Corp., filed against the 30 percent corporate income tax
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) slapped on it as a casino operator.

A disclosure by Bloomberry Resorts Corp to the Philippine Stock Exchange said the high court
granted the certiorari petition on August 10 but the company received it only on September 5.

The ruling, an en banc decision, affirmed the argument of Bloomberry that as contracting party
of Pagcor, it was subject only to the 5 percent franchise tax on its gross gaming revenue, in lieu
of all taxes, as provided under Section 13(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1869 (the PAGCOR
Charter).

BRHI had petitioned the court to have the provision of the Revenue Memorandum Circular
(RMC) No 33-1023 that the former BIR Commissioner Kim Henares issued in 2013, imposing
30 percent corporate income tax on casinos, nullified.

The high court ordered Pagcor to retain the original license fee structure for BRHI.

Bloomberry, together with unit BRHI, operates the casino and hotel and restaurant components
of integrated casino resort Solaire Resort & Casino.

Aside from Bloomberry, the BIR is also pushing to impose the 30 percent corporate income tax
to the three casino operators which are Travellers International Hotel Group Inc. (operator of
Resorts World Manila), Melco Crown (Philippines) Resorts Corp. (City of Dreams), and Tiger
Resorts Leisure and Entertainment Inc. (Okada Manila).
FACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power CorporationFACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power CorporationFACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power CorporationFACTS:

Respondent KEPCO ILIJAN Corporation filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its claim for refund for input tax incurred for the first and second quarters of
the calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic purchases of capital
goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of electricity to the
National Power Corporation