Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tax 2. Case Digests (Remedies)

Tax 2. Case Digests (Remedies)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,362|Likes:
Published by pa3cia
tax 2. (prof lucenario) assigned case digests of SC and CTA rulings.
tax 2. (prof lucenario) assigned case digests of SC and CTA rulings.

More info:

Published by: pa3cia on Mar 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Surigao vs CTA 57 SCRA 523Facts:
Petitioner Surigao Electric Co., grantee of a legislative electric franchise, contested a warrant of distraintand levy to enforce the collection from "Mainit Electric" of a deficiency franchise tax plus surcharge.Thereafter the Commissioner, by letter dated April 2, 1961, advised the petitioner to take up the matter with the General Auditing Office, enclosing a copy of the 4th Indorsement of the Auditor General dated November 23, 1960. This indorsement indicated that the petitioner's liability for deficiency franchise taxfor the period from September 1947 to June 1959 was P21,156.06, excluding surcharge. Subsequently, ina letter to the Auditor General dated August 2, 1962, the petitioner asked for reconsideration of theassessment, admitting liability only for the 2% franchise tax in accordance with its legislative franchiseand not at the higher rate of 5% imposed by Sec. 259 of the NIRC, which latter rate the Auditor Generalused as basis in computing the petitioner's deficiency franchise tax. An exchange of correspondence between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the Commissioner and the Auditor General, on the other,ensued, all on the matter of the petitioner's liability for deficiency franchise tax. The controversyculminated in a revised assessment dated April 29, 1963 in the amount of P11,533.53, representing the petitioner's deficiency franchise-tax and surcharges thereon for the period from April 1, 1956 to June 30,1959. The petitioner then requested a recomputation of the revised assessment in a letter to theCommissioner dated June 6, 1963. The Commissioner, however, in a letter dated June 28, 1963 deniedthe request for recomputation.Petitioner appealed to the CTA which was subsequently dismised on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day period of appeal provided by Sec. 11 of Republic Act 1125.
WON the petitioner's appeal to the CTA was time-barred.
YES. To sustain the petitioner's contention that the Commissioner's letter of June 28, 1963 denying itsrequest for further amendment of the revised assessment constitutes the ruling appealable to the tax courtand that the thirty-day period should, therefore, be counted from July 16, 1963, the day it received theJune 28, 1963 letter, would, in effect, leave solely to the petitioner's will the determination of thecommencement of the statutory thirty-day period, and place the petitioner — and for that matter, anytaxpayer — in a position, to delay at will and on convenience the finality of a tax assessment. This absurdinterpretation espoused by the petitioner would result in grave detriment to the interests of theGovernment, considering that taxes constitute its life-blood and their prompt and certain availability is animperative need.
Silkair vs CIR CA GR SP No. 82902, September 13, 2004Facts:
Silkair, an online international air carrier, filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a writtenapplication for the refund of P4,567,450.79 excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchases of jet fuelfrom Petron Corporation from January to June 2000. As the BIR had not yet acted on the application,Silkair filed a Petition for Review before the CTA. Opposing the petition, respondent CIR alleged that petitioner failed to prove that the sale of the petroleum products was directly made from a domestic oilcompany to the international carrier.CTA denied Silkair’s petition on the ground that as the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation asthe manufacturer of petroleum products, any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser, the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes anadded cost of the goods purchased. Hence, this appeal.
Whether Silkair may claim for the refund of excise taxes erroneously paid.
 NO. As the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products,any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser,the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost of the goods purchased.Therefore, the right to claim for the refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products lies with PetronCorporation who paid and remitted the excise tax to the BIR. Respondent, on the other hand, may onlyclaim from Petron the reimbursement of the tax burden shifted to the former by the latter. The excise tax partaking the nature of an indirect tax, is clearly the liability of the manufacturer or seller who has theoption whether or not to shift the burden of the tax to the purchaser. Where the burden of the tax is shiftedto the purchaser, the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost on the goods purchased which constitutes a part of the purchase price. In sum, the incidence of taxation or the personstatutorily liable to pay the tax falls on Petron though the impact of taxation or the burden of taxation fallson another person, which in this case is petitioner Silkair.
Republic vs Enriquez 166 SCRA 608Facts:
Enriquez, respondent deputy sheriff, levied on 2 barges belonging to Maritime Company of thePhilippines pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the RTC of Manila in favor of the plaintiff Genstar Containers. Accordingly, respondent sheriff scheduled a public auction sale of the levied barges. The CIR then wrote to respondent sheriff, registering an adverse claim, informing the latter that the barges, particularly Barge MCP-1 and Barge MCP-4, were among properties previously distrained and seized bythe petitioner Republic, through the CIR, to satisfy various deficiency taxes of said company. Nevertheless, respondent sold at public auction the 2 barges and issued the corresponding sheriffscertificate of sale to the highest bidder, which was the levying creditor. Petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to desist and refrain from further proceedings in connection with the execution and thatrespondent's notice of levy be declared null and void.CA dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal.
WON the writ of execution issued by the RTC and the levy on execution and auction sale of the barges inquestion is valid and should be given effectivity.
 NO. It is settled that the claim of the government predicated on a tax lien is superior to the claim of a private litigant predicated on a judgment. The tax lien attaches not only from the service of the warrant of distraint of personal property but from the time the tax became due and payable. Besides, the distraint onthe subject properties of Maritime Company as well as the notice of their seizure were made by petitioner,through the CIR, long before the writ of execution was issued by the RTC. There is no question then thatat the time the writ of execution was issued, the 2 barges were no longer properties of the Maritime.

Activity (73)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Myra De Guzman liked this
Jetzon Lee liked this
Edlyn Galinato liked this
raneleneo liked this
Eric Parilla liked this
ceejaye2002 liked this
arestomenor liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->