Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Castaneda2008[Tax Cases)]

Castaneda2008[Tax Cases)]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 400|Likes:
Published by jojitus

More info:

Published by: jojitus on Jun 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

03/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI)TAX SEMINAR
Tuesday, April 22, 2008, Dusit Hotel Nikko, Makati City
RECENT SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS ON TAXATION
JUANITO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
Associate Justice, Court of Tax Appeals 
In
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) vs. Michel J. Lhuiller,
G.R. No. 150947, July 15, 2003, 406 SCRA 178, the Supreme Court (SC),held: “The Supreme Court by tradition and in our system of judicialadministration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whosedecisions all other courts should take their bearings.”
A. IRREVOCABLE CARRY-OVER OF EXCESSINCOME TAX; NO SECOND MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION; DECISIONS OF COURT OFAPPEALS (CA) ARE NOT BINDING ON CO-EQUALCTA; SC HAS FINAL SAY
In its March 28, 2007 resolution, the Supreme Court denied taxpayer’spetition filed on March 9, 2007 assailing the January 18, 2007 decision of theCTA for: (a) failure of counsel to submit his IBP proof of payment for currentyear (2006 OR indicated); (b) submitting a verification of the petition,
 
 2
certification of non-forum shopping and affidavit of service that failed tocomply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice with respect to competentevidence of affiants’ identities; and (c) failure to give an explanation whyservice was not done personally as required by Section 11, Rule 13 in relationto Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. On July5, 2007, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Asecond motion for reconsideration was filed claiming extraordinarilypersuasive reasons. The high tribunal held that a second motion forreconsideration is prohibited and that there was no compelling reason toexcuse non-compliance. CA decisions are not superior to CTA, the CA andthe CTA being co-equal under RA 9282. Also, CA decision in an action
in personam
binds only the parties in the case. Most importantly, SC is notbound by the CA decisions & its rulings are binding on all courts.On the merits, the Supreme Court held that under Section 76 of the1997 NIRC, a taxable corporation with excess quarterly income tax paymentsmay choose to claim for a refund or tax credit certificate or to automaticallycarry-over the excess tax for crediting against its income tax liabilities in thesucceeding years. Once the carry-over option is taken,
actually orconstructively
, it becomes
irrevocable
.
“Since the petitioner elected to carry
 
 3
over its excess credits for the year 2000 in the amount of P4,627,976 as taxcredits for the following year, it could no longer claim a refund. Again, at therisk of being repetitive, once the carry-over option was made, actually orconstructively, it became forever irrevocable regardless of whether the excesstax credits were actually or fully utilized. Nevertheless, as held in
Philam Asset Management, Inc.
, the amount will not be forfeited in favor of thegovernment but will remain in the taxpayer’s account. Petitioner may claimand carry it over in the succeeding taxable years, creditable against futureincome tax liabilities until fully utilized.”
Systra Philippines, Inc.
 
vs. CIR
, G.R No. 176290, September 21, 2007.
B. ONLY FINAL ADJUSTMENT RETURN FORPREVIOUS – NOT SUCCEEDING – TAXABLE YEARIS REQUIRED TO CLAIM EXCESS INCOME TAXCREDIT
The taxpayer’s claim for refund of 1997 unutilized tax credit wasallowed although it marked “x” indicating “to be carried as tax credit nextyear” on the box appearing on its 1998 income tax return. Under Section 69of the pre-1997 NIRC, excess income tax credit may only be carried over tothe succeeding taxable year. Hence, the explanation of the taxpayer that themarking was only meant to indicate that it meant to carry over its 1998 excess

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Irene Dimapilis liked this
Katerina Paguio liked this
isamoker liked this
Katrina Mordeno liked this
Dhadha Alojado liked this
niks1 liked this
adobopinikpikan liked this
zhanleri liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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