Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PACQUIAO,
Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION AND
THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016
FACTS:
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Petitioner Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. (Total Gas) is a VAT registered
taxpayer with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) engaged in the
business of selling, transporting and distributing industrial gas. It is also
engaged in the sale of gas equipment and other related businesses.
On April 20, 2007 and July 20, 2007, Total Gas filed its Original
Quarterly VAT Returns for the First and Second quarters of 2007,
respectively and subsequently amended it on May 20, 2008 to reflect it
sales subject to VAT, ZERO RATED SALES, and domestic purchases of
non-capital goods and services with the BIR.
On May 15, 2008, Total Gas filed an administrative claim for refund of
excess unutilized input VAT for the first two quarters of taxable year 2007,
inclusive of supporting documents amounting to P7,898,433.98.
On January 23, 2009, Total Gas elevated the matter to the CTA in
view of the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).
In its January 13, 2011 Decision, the CTA Division dismissed the
petition for being prematurely filed. It explained that Total Gas failed to
complete the necessary documents to substantiate a claim for refund of
unutilized input VAT on purchases of goods and services.
As to the first issue, the CTA En Banc ruled that the CTA Division had no
jurisdiction over the case because Total Gas failed to seasonably file its
petition. Counting from the date it filed its administrative claim on May 15,
2008, the CTA En Banc explained that the CIR had 120 days to act on the
claim (until September 12, 2008), and Total Gas had 30 days from then, or
until October 12, 2008, to question the inaction before the CTA.
Considering that Total Gas only filed its petition on January 23, 2009, the
CTA En Banc concluded that the petition for review was belatedly filed. For
the tax court, the 120-day period could not commence on the day Total
Gas filed its last supporting document on August 28, 2008, because to
allow such would give the taxpayer unlimited discretion to indefinitely
extend the 120-day period by simply filing the required documents
piecemeal.
As to the second issue, the CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division that
Total Gas failed to submit the complete supporting documents to warrant
the grant of its application for refund. Quoting the pertinent portion of the
decision of its division, the CTA En Banc likewise concurred in its finding
that the judicial claim of Total Gas was prematurely filed because the 120-
day period for the CIR to decide the claim had yet to commence to run due
to the lack of essential documents.
ISSUES:
a) Whether the judicial claim for refund was belatedly filed on 23
January 2009, or way beyond the 30-day period to appeal as provided in
Section 112(c) of the Tax Code, as amended; and
FACTS:
Respondent filed with the BIR its Annual Income Tax Return for
taxable year ending December 31, 2001.On September 24, 2003,
respondent received a copy of the Letter of Authority signed by the RDO
authorizing Revenue Officer Nenita Crespo to examine respondents books
of accounts. Ma. Lida Sarmiento, respondents Director of Finance,
subsequently executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to
extend the prescriptive period of assessment for taxes due in taxable year
ending December 31, 2001 .
On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter
of demand to pay deficiency income tax. October 25, 2005, respondent
received a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Assessment
Notices/Demand No. 43-734 both dated October 17, 2005 from the BIR,
demanding payment of deficiency income tax, final withholding tax (FWT),
expanded withholding tax (EWT), increments for late remittance of taxes
withheld, and compromise penalty for failure to file returns/late filing/late
remittance of taxes withheld, in the total amount of 313,339,610.42 for the
taxable year ending December 31, 2001.On November 23, 2005,
respondent filed its protest against the FLD and requested the
reinvestigation of the assessments. On July 28, 2009, respondent received
a letter from the BIR denying its protest. Thus, on August 27, 2009,
respondent filed a Petition for Review before the CTA.
FACTS:
ING Bank is a foreign banking corporation incorporated in the
Netherlands, duly authorized by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to operate
as a branch with full banking authority in the Philippines.
After trial, the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division rendered its
Decision partially granting the petition. It declared that the 1996 and 1997
deficiency income tax, 1996 and 1997 deficiency branch profit remittance
tax and 1997 deficiency documentary stamp tax on IBCLs exceeding five
days are hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN. However, the
assessments for 1996 and 1997 deficiency withholding tax on
compensation, 1996 deficiency onshore tax and 1996 and 1997 deficiency
documentary stamp tax on special savings accounts are UPHELD.
ING Bank prayed that this court issue a resolution taking note of its
availment of the tax amnesty, and confirming its entitlement to all the
immunities and privileges under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9480,
particularly with respect to the "payment of deficiency documentary stamp
taxes on its special savings accounts for the taxable years 1996 and 1997
and deficiency tax on onshore interest income derived under the foreign
currency deposit system for taxable year 1996.
On another issue, Petitioner ING Bank claims that it is not liable for
withholding taxes on bonuses accruing to its officers and employees during
taxable years 1996 and 1997. It maintains its position that the liability of the
employer to withhold the tax does not arise until such bonus is actually
distributed. It cites Section 72 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code,
which states that "[e]very employer making payment of wages shall deduct
and withhold upon such wages a tax," and BIR Ruling No. 555-88
(November 23, 1988) declaring that "[t]he withholding tax on the bonuses
should be deducted upon the distribution of the same to the officers and
employees. Since the supposed bonuses were not distributed to the
officers and employees in 1996 and 1997 but were distributed in the
succeeding year when the amounts of the bonuses were finally determined,
petitioner ING Bank asserts that its duty as employer to withhold the tax
during these taxable years did not arise.
ISSUE:
1. Whether petitioner ING Bank may validly avail itself of the tax
amnesty granted by Republic Act No. 9480; and
FACTS:
The case involves the proper tax treatment of the discount or interest
income arising from the P35 billion worth of 10-year zero-coupon treasury
bonds issued by the Bureau of Treasury on October 18, 2001
(denominated as the Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates or the
PEACe Bonds by the Caucus of Development NGO Networks).
ISSUES:
1. Whether 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; and
FACTS:
Petitioner PHILAMLIFE offered to sell its shareholdings in
PHILAMCARE through competitive bidding. Thus, petitioners class A
shares were sold for USD 2,190,000 or Php 104,259,330 based on the
prevailing exchange rate at the time of the sale, to STI investments, Inc.,
who emerged as the highest bidder.
After the sale was completed, Philamlife filed an application for a
certificate authorizing registration/tax clearance with the BIR Large
Taxpayers Division to facilitate the transfer of the shares. Months later,
petitioner was informed that it needed to secure a BIR Ruling in connection
with its application due to potential donors tax liability. In compliance,
petitioner requested a ruling to confirm that the sale was not subject to
donors tax.
Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied Philamlifes
request through BIR Ruling No. 019-12. As determined by the
Commissioner, the selling price of the shares thus sold lower than their
book value based on financial statements of PhilamCare. As such, the
Commissioner held, donors tax become imposable on the price difference
pursuant to Sec. 100 of the NIRC.
Aggrieved, petitioner requested respondent Secretary of Finance to
review BIR Ruling No. 015-12, but to no avail. Not contended with the
adverse results, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via
Petition for Review under Rule 43, but was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the CA
Petition for lack of jurisdiction; and
FACTS:
San Roque prays that the rule established in our 12 February 2013
Decision be given only a prospective effect, arguing that "the manner by
which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Court of Tax
Appeals(CTA) actually treated the 120 + 30 day periods constitutes an
operative fact the effects and consequences of which cannot be erased or
undone."
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not doctrine of operative fact should apply to the case
of San Roque.