Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOCTRINES IN TAXATION
1
Because taxes are burdens and should not be
imposed without due process of law. Belle Corp. v. CIR,
G.R.181298, Jan. 10, 2011
2
Lorenzo v. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353; CIR. v. Filipinas
Cia. de Seguros, 107 Phil. 1055
3
CIR v. Marubeni Corporation, 372 SCRA 576
(2001)
II. Doctrine of Imprescriptibility
4
CIR v. Ayala Securities Corp., 101 SCRA 231
As the provision5 of the law stands in
the statute book (and to this day it has
remained unchanged), prescription is a matter
of defense and the information does not need
to anticipate and meet it. The defendant could,
at most, object to the introduction of evidence
to defeat his claim of prescription. Anyway, the
law says that prescription begins to run from ...
"the institution of judicial proceedings for its ...
punishment."
5
Sec. 281, NIRC
6
Emilio E. Lim, Sr., v. CA, GR Nos. L-48134-37, Oct.
18, 1990
3. What is the meaning of double
taxation? BQ2015, 2014, 2013, 2012
7
Nursery Care Corp v. City of Manila, GR 180651,
July 30, 2014
Otherwise described as “direct
duplicate taxation,” the following are the
elements of direct double taxation:
8
Swedish Match Phils. Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of
Manila, G.R. 181277, July 3, 2013 (700 SCRA 428)
Ibid; Nursery Care Corp. v. Anthony Acevedo & the
City of Manila, GR 180651, July 30, 2014.
there are two or more pecuniary impositions,
but the ABSENCE OF ONE OR MORE of the
above-mentioned elements makes the
double taxation indirect. The Constitution
does NOT prohibit the imposition of double
taxation in the broad sense because it does not
violate the substantive due process since no
actual double taxation occurred.
9
Punzalan v. Mun. Board of Manila, 95 Phils. 46
(1994); City of Baguio v. De Leon, 25 SCRA 38 (1968)
10
CIR v. SC Johnson and Son., Inc. 309 SCRA 87
(1999)
The Supreme Court held that there is
no constitutional prohibition against double
taxation in the Philippines.11 Therefore, it is not
a valid defense against the validity of a tax
measure.12 However, it is not favored but the
same is permissible, provided some other
constitutional requirements are not thereby
violated.13 For example, double taxation
becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is
taxed twice for the benefit of the same
governmental entity14 or by the same
jurisdiction for the same purpose,15 but not in a
case where one tax is imposed by the State and
the other by a province, city or municipality. 16
11
Villanueva v. Iloilo, 26 SCRA 578, Dec. 28, 1968
12
Pepsi Cola v. Mun. of Tanauan, GR L-31156, Feb.
27, 1976 (69 SCRA 460)
13
Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. City of Butuan, GR L-
22814, Aug. 28, 1968
14
CIR v. Lednicky GR L-18169, July 31, 1964 (11
SCRA 609)
15
SMB, Inc. v. City of Cebu, GR L-20312, Feb. 26,
1972 (43 SCRA 280)
16
Punzalan v. Mun. Board of City of Manila, 50 OG
2485
No. Double taxation standing alone
and not being forbidden by our fundamental law
is not a valid defense against the legality of a
tax measure.17 However, if double taxation
amounts to a direct duplicate taxation, that the
same subject is taxed twice when it should be
taxed but once, in a fashion that both taxes are
imposed for the same purpose by the same
taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or
taxing district, for the same taxable period and
for the same kind or character of a tax, then it
becomes legally objectionable for being
oppressive and inequitable.
17
Pepsi Cola v. Mun. of Tanauan, GR L-31156, Feb.
27, 1976 (69 SCRA 460)
No. There is no double taxation here in
the prohibited sense. Double taxation in the
prohibited sense means (1) taxing for the same
tax period, (2) the same thing or activity twice,
(3) when it should be taxed
but once, (4) by the same taxing authority, (5)
for the same purpose, and
(6) with the same kind or character of tax.
18
Villanueva v. City of Iloilo, 26 SCRA 578
subjected to the 5% gross receipts tax on
its interest income from its loan
transactions? BQ2012
19
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. City
of Manila, 8 SCRA 367 (1963)
with reasonable accuracy; the right to receive
income, and not the actual receipt, determines
when to include the amount in gross income.
The imposition of local business tax based on
petitioner's gross revenue will inevitably result
in the constitutionally proscribed double
taxation - taxing of the same person twice by
the same jurisdiction for the same thing --
inasmuch as petitioner's revenue or income for
a taxable year will definitely include its gross
receipts already reported during the previous
year and for which local business tax has
already been paid. Thus, respondent
committed a palpable error when it assessed
petitioner's local business tax based on its gross
revenue as reported in its audited financial
statements, as Sec. 143 of the LGC and Sec.
22(e) of the Pasig Revenue Code clearly provide
that the tax should be computed based on gross
receipts.20
20
Ericsson Telecom vs. City of Pasig, GR 176667,
Nov. 22, 2007( 538 SCRA 99)
The usual methods of avoiding the
occurrence of double taxation are:
(c ) Allowance of deduction/tax
credit for foreign taxes paid - The rigors of
international double taxation may also be
lessened by the allowance of deduction or tax
credit taxes paid to foreign countries. 22
Example: A resident Filipino citizen has the
option to either claim the amount of income tax
21
Reciprocity is used to denote the relation between
two states when each of them, by their respective laws or by
treaty, gives the citizens or nationals of the other State certain
privileges, as in the practice of a profession, on condition that its
own citizens or nationals shall enjoy similar privileges in the latter
state. Sison v. Board of Accountancy, 85 Phil. 276 (1949)
22
Sec. 34(C), NIRC
withheld abroad as a deduction from his gross
income in the Philippines or to claim it as a tax
credit23 provided that he includes the subject
income in the computation of his worldwide
gross income considering that he is a resident
Filipino citizen. A resident Filipino citizen is
subject to tax on his income derived from within
and without the Philippines or his worldwide
income.
23
Sec. 34(C)(1)(B), NIRC
24
Sec. 28(B)(5)(b), NIRC; CIR v. PGMC, GR 66838,
Dec. 2, 1991
flow of goods and services and the movement
of capital, technology and persons between
countries, conditions deemed vital in creating
robust and dynamic economies. 25
25
CIR v. SC Johnson and Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87
(1999)
“Shifting of tax burden” simply
means that the imposition of tax is transferred
from the statutory taxpayer, or the person who
is required by law to pay the tax, to another
person who shall bear the burden of the tax
without violating the law. Only the payment of
indirect taxes may be shifted to another
taxpayer, but not direct taxes. Example: Under
the VAT system, the seller can shift the burden
of the VAT to the buyer, the said tax (VAT)
being an indirect tax.
C. Tax Evasion
26
Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. v. CTA, 1 SCRA 160
(1961); Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. v. CIR, 24 SCRA 767
(1968)
22. What is the meaning of “tax evasion”?
Tax Avoidance
27
CIR v. CA, 327 Phil. 1
“Tax avoidance” is a tax saving device “Tax evasion
wherein the taxpayer uses legal means to avoid or
to reduce tax liability within the means tax.
sanctioned by law, hence legal.28
It is used by the taxpayer in good faith It connotes
and at arm's length. pretenses a
lessen or def
taxes.
Taxpayer is not subjected to civil or When availe
criminal liabilities because it is a legal taxpayer to
tax saving device. liabilities.
It is “tax minimization”. It is “tax do
28
Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. v. CIR, 24 SCRA 767
(1968)
willful or deliberate and not merely accidental;
and
29
CIR v. The Estate of Benigno P. Toda, Jr.,
G.R.147188, Sept. 14, 2004. (48SCRA 290)
has knowingly and willfully filed a fraudulent
return with intent to evade and defeat a part or
all of the tax.30
30
Ungab v. Judge Cusi, Jr., 186 Phil. 604 (1980)
31
Greenfield v. Meer, 77 Phil 394
(b) The grant of tax exemption is a
matter of legislative policy that is within the
exclusive prerogative of Congress.32
32
Diaz v. Sec. of Finance, 654 SCRA 96 (2011)
33
Manila Gas Corp. v. Collector, 71 Phil. 513
(f) It is an ancient rule that exemptions
from taxation are construed in strictissimi juris
against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
taxing authority. Tax exemptions are looked
upon with disfavor and may almost be said to
be odious to the law.34
34
MERALCO v. Vera, 67 SCRA 351; Phil.
Petroleum Corp. v. Mun. of Pililla, Rizal, 198 SCRA 82 (1991)
(2) Implied tax exemption (or
exemption by omission) – This is the tax
exemption which may be either accidental or
intentional, as where the tax is laid on certain
classes of persons, properties or transactions
without mentioning other classes. All subjects
for which taxation is not provided are
exempted, and the subjects selected are alone
taxable. Tax exemptions are not presumed, but
when public property is involved, exemption is
the rule, and taxation, the exception
35
PAGCOR v. BIR, John Doe & Jane Doe, GR
172087, March 15, 2011
under a franchise, which is not a contract within
the context of non-impairment clause of the
Constitution.36
36
Cagayan Electronic Co. v. CIR, 138 SCA 629
37
PAL v. Commissioner of Customs, BTA No.184,
Sept. 10, 1954
30. What are the grounds for tax
exemption?
38
Art. 17(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Phil. Constitution; CIR
v. Botelho Shipping Corp., L-21633-34, June 29, 1967 (20 SCRA
487)
31. May tax exemption be granted on the
ground of equity?
39
BPI v. Trinidad, 45 Phil. 384
public utilities, the Constitution provides that no
franchise shall be granted unless subject to the
condition that it shall be subject to repeal or
amendment. Therefore, any exemption
granted under a franchise may be revoked by
Congress.
40
Republic v. Caguioa, GR 168584, Oct. 15, 2007
VI. Tax Refund
41
South African Airways v. CIR, 612 SCRA 665
because both obligations are not yet fully
liquidated. While the amount of the TCC has
been determined, the amount of deficiency tax
is yet to be determined through the completion
of the audit. To reopen the claim for TCC or
Tax Refund in order to give way to the
introduction of evidence of a deficiency
assessment will lead to an endless litigation,
which is not allowed.42
42
CIR v. Citytrust Banking Corp., 499 SCRA 477
(2006)
of deficiency tax assessment be resolved
jointly with the taxpayer’s claim for tax refund,
to determine once and for all in a single
proceeding the true and correct amount of the
tax due or refundable.43
43
CIR v. CA, Citytrust Banking Corp. and CTA, 234
SCRA 348 (1994)
already been determined. In the instant case,
the claim of the taxpayer for VAT refund is still
pending and the amount has still to be
determined. Thus, the liquidated obligation of
the taxpayer to the government cannot be set-
off against the unliquidated claim which the
taxpayer conceived to exist in his favor.44
VII. Compromise
A compromise agreement is a
contract whereby the parties, by making
reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put
an end to one already commenced. 45 It involves
a reduction of a person’s tax liability.
Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial, if
the objective is to put an end to a pending
litigation, or extrajudicial, if the objective is to
avoid a litigation.46
44
Philex Mining v. CIR, GR 125704, Aug. 29, 1998
45
Art, 2928, New Civil Code
46
Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils., Inc., 705 SCRA 242
(2013)
contracts dictated by law; and its terms and
conditions must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public policy, and public order.
47
Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511 (2005) cited in
Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. v. City
Treasurer of Manila, GR 190818, Nov. 10, 2014
37. Discuss the “Doctrine of
Compensation and Set-Off.” May taxes be
the subject of set-off or compensation?
48
Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Co., 6 SCRA 522;
Caltex Phils v. COA, 208 SCRA 726
off or compensation between these two
different classes of obligations is allowed.
49
South African Airways v. CIR, 612 SCRA 665
(2010)
collection of a tax cannot await the results of a
lawsuit against the government.50
Examples:
50
Francia v. IAC, GR L- 76749, June 28, 1988 (162
SCRA 753)
Exception: However, if the
obligation to pay taxes and the taxpayer’s claim
against the government have already become
both due, and demandable, as well as fully
liquidated, compensation takes place by
operation of law51 and both obligations are
extinguished to their concurrent amounts. 52
51
Art. 1200, in relation to Arts. 1279 and 1290, NCC
52
Domingo v. Garlitos, 8 SCRA 443 (1963)
53
Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR, GR 125704, Aug. 29,
1998;.Montemayor v. Millora, 654 SCRA 580 (2011)
The doctrine of “equitable recoupment”
arose from common law origin allowing the
offsetting of a prescribed claim for refund
against a tax liability arising from the same
transaction on which an overpayment is made
on one hand and underpayment is due on the
other hand. In other words, when the refund
of a tax supposedly due to the taxpayer has
already been barred by prescription, and the
same taxpayer is assessed with a tax at present,
the two taxes may be set-off with each other.
It allows a taxpayer whose claim for refund has
prescribed to offset tax liabilities with his claim
of overpayment.
X. Tax Amnesty
54
Collector v. UST, 104 Phil. 1062 (1958)
39. What is the meaning of “tax
amnesty”?
55
CIR v. Gonzalez, 633 SCRA 139 (2010)
56
ING Bank N.V., Manila Branch v. CIR, GR
167679, July 22, 2015
to impose penalties on persons or entities guilty
of violating a tax law. Tax amnesty aims to
grant a general reprieve to tax evaders who
wish to come clean by giving them an
opportunity to straighten out their records. 57
Tax Amnesty T
Tax amnesty is an immunity from all Tax exempti
criminal, civil and administrative the civil lia
liabilities arising from non- immunity or
payment of taxes. It is a general a charge or b
pardon given to all taxpayers. subjected.
It applies only to past tax periods, It is generall
hence of retroactive application.58 application.
In a tax amnesty, however, there will In tax exemp
be a revenue loss since there was revenue los
actually taxes due but the collection actual taxes
was just waived by the Government. transaction i
exemption.
57
MBTC v. CIR, G.R. 178797, Aug. 4, 2009 (595
SCRA 234) cited in CS Garment, Inc. v. CIR, GR 182399,
March 12, 2014
58
People v. Castaneda, GR L46881, Sept. 15, 1988
41. How should tax amnesty be
construed?
59
CS Garment, Inc. v. CIR , G.R. 182399, March 12,
2014
directly liable. Withholding tax is just a mode
of collecting the tax and the tax that is being
withheld is treated as a trust fund which should
be remitted to the government because it is not
a personal tax liability of the withholding agent,
but that of the payor, which should have been
remitted to the government when the same was
withheld from the taxpayer.60
60
RMC 61-2014 (July 30, 2014)
since 1922, been rejected by the Supreme
Court, the legislature, and our tax authorities. 61
61
CIR v. American Rubber Co., 18 SCRA 842 (1966);
Pp. v. Sandiganayan, 467 SCRA 137 (2005)
62
Kukan International Corp. v. Reyes, 631 SCRA
596 (2010)
are distinct entities and treat them as identical
or as one and the same.63
63
Pantranco Employees Association v. NLRC, GR L-
10689, March 17, 2009 (581 SCRA 598 )
A corporation, upon coming into
existence, is invested by law with a personality
separate and distinct from those of the persons
composing it as well as from any other legal
entity to which it may be related. For this
reason, a stockholder is generally not made to
answer for the acts or liabilities of the
corporation, and vice versa. The separate and
distinct personality of the corporation is,
however, a mere fiction established by law for
convenience and to promote the ends of justice.
It may not be used or invoked for ends that
subvert the policy and purpose behind its
establishment, or intended by law to which the
corporation owes its being. This is true
particularly when the fiction is used to defeat
public convenience, to justify wrong, to protect
fraud, to defend crime, to confuse legitimate
legal or judicial issues, to perpetrate deception
or otherwise to circumvent the law. This is
likewise true where the corporate entity is being
used as an alter ego,64 adjunct, or business
conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders
or of another corporate entity. In such
64
In applying the "instrumentality" or" alter ego"
doctrine, the courts are concerned with reality, not form, and with
how the corporation operated and the individual defendant's
relationship to the operation.
instances, the veil of corporate entity will be
pierced or disregarded with reference to the
particular transaction involved.65
65
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. 127181, Sept.. 4, 2001 (364 SCRA 375) cited in
Commissioner of Customs v. Oilink International Corp., GR
161759, July 2, 2014
66
Sunio v. NLRC, 127 SCRA 390 (1984)
67
Tan Tiong Bio v. CIR, 4 SCRA 986 (1962)
46. What is the “Doctrine of Usage”?
68
SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. -
The following are exempted from payment of the real property
tax:
(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the
Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the
beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or
otherwise, to a taxable person;
(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious
cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually,
directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or
educational purposes;
(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually,
directly and exclusively used by local water districts and
government-owned or -controlled corporations engaged in the
XIV. Marshall Dictum
70
Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississipi ex rel Knox 277
U.S. 233 (1928) (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)
contractual limitations of taxation, otherwise
the court has the primordial duty to declare the
same void and unconstitutional, thereby
preventing the destructive nature of the power
of taxation.
71
Eric R. Recalde, A Treatise on Tax Principles and
Remedies, p. 33 (2009)
government is necessary, and it must therefore
collect taxes if it is to survive. Thus, the mistake
or negligence of government officials should not
bind the state, lest it bring harm to the
government and ultimately the people, in whom
sovereignty resides. 72 Upon taxation depends
the ability of the government to serve the
people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To
safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of
government officials entrusted with the
collection of taxes should not be allowed to
bring harm or detriment to the people."73
72
CIR v. Procter & Gamble PMC, GR L-66838,
April 15, 1988 (160 SCRA 560), cited in CIR v. Raul M.
Gonzales, G.R. 177279, Oct. 13, 2010
73
Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, G.R.
197525, June 4, 2014 (725 SCRA 130) cited in CIR v. Nippon
Express (Phils) Corp., GR 212920, Sept. 16, 2015
74
CIR v. Petron Corp., 668 SCRA 735 (2012)
field of taxation, yet this principle cannot be
applied to work injustice against an innocent
party.
75
Republic v. Ker & Co., 124 Phil. 822 (1966); CIR v.
Gonzalez, 633 SCRA 139 (2010)
of law cannot be attacked collaterally. There is
a legal presumption of validity of these laws and
rules, and unless a law or rule is annulled in a
direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its
validity stands.76
76
Chevron Phils., Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,
561 SCRA 710 (2008)
77
Republic v. Caguioa, GR 168584, Oct. 15,
2007(536 SCRA 193)
The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty cannot by itself
overcome the presumption of innocence nor
constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.78
78
Valdez v. People, GR 170180, Nov. 23, 2007 (538
SCRA 611)
79
CIR v. Gonzalez, 633 SCRA 139 (2010)
valid and lawful where it does not appear to
have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously.
The burden of proof is upon the complaining
party to show clearly that the assessment is
erroneous. Failure to present proof of error in
the assessment will justify the judicial
affirmance of said assessment. All
presumptions are in favor of the
correctness of tax assessments. 80
80
CIR v. Kudos Metal Corp., G.R. 178087. May 5,
2010; CIR v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. L-167134, March 18,
2015
81
Civil Service Commission v. Maala, G.R. 165523,
Aug. 18, 2005 (467 SCRA 390)
XIX. Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
82
RCBC v. CIR, G.R.L-170257, Sept. 7, 2011
(7) when to require exhaustion of
administrative remedies would be
unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a
nullification of a claim,
(9) when the subject matter is a private
land in land case proceedings,
(10) when the rule does not provide a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
(11) when there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention,
and
(12) when the exhaustion will result in
an exercise in futility.83
83
Commissioner of Customs v. Oilink Intl. Corp., GR
161759, July 2, 2014’ Banco De Oro v. RP & CIR, G.R. 198756,
Jan. 13, 2015
subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or
custom or practice to the contrary. When the
courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the
latter shall govern. Administrative or executive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only
when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.”
84
Republic v. CA, GR 79732, Nov. 8, 1993 (227
SCRA 509)
This, in essence is the doctrine of operative fact.
There must, however, be a rule or ruling issued
by the Commissioner or by the judiciary that is
relied upon by the taxpayer in good faith. A
mere administrative practice, not formalized
into a rule or ruling, will not suffice because
such a mere administrative practice may not be
uniformly and consistently applied. An
administrative practice, if not formalized as a
rule or ruling, will not be known to the general
public and can be availed of only by those with
informal contacts with the government
agency.85
85
CIR v. San Roque Power Corp., GR 187485, Oct.
8, 2013; CIR v. Puregold Duty Free, Inc., GR 202789, June 22,
2015
on the part of the states that enter into the
agreement. In this jurisdiction, treaties have the
force and effect of law.86
86
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. CIR, cited
in CBK Power Co. Ltd. v. CIR/CIR v. CBK Power Co. Ltd. v.
CIR,, G.R. 193383-84/G.R. 193407-08, Jan. 14, 2015
to be decided alike. Thus, where the same
questions relating to the same event have been
put forward by the parties similarly situated as
in a previous case litigated and decided by a
competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a
bar to any attempt to relitigate the same
issue.87
87
Fort Bonifacio Devt. Corp. v. CIR, G.R. Nos.
175707 / 180035 / 181092, Nov. 19, 2014; RP, represented by
the Bureau of Customs v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., GR
209324, Dec. 9, 2015
but about national gain. Whether from the birth
pains of reform, this nation can gain a foothold,
nay, a stride into restoring this nation into its
prideful place from the clutches of a
“kleptocratic mafia” that had gained a
strangehold into one of the nation’s primary
sources of revenue.88
88
DOF v. Judge Marino M. de la Cruz, Jr., GR
209331, Aug. 24, 2015
89
Nestle Phils, Inc. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc. 634 SCRA
232 (2010)