CIR v.

Primetown, GR 162155, August 28, 2007

FACTS:
Gilbert Yap, Vice Chair of Primetown applied on March 11, 1999 for a refund or
credit of income tax which Primetown paid in 1997. He claimed that they are entitled
for a refund because they suffered losses that year due to the increase of cost of labor
and materials, etc. However, despite the losses, they still paid their quarterly income tax
and remitted creditable withholding tax from real estate sales to BIR. Hence, they were
claiming for a refund. On May 13, 1999, revenue officer Elizabeth Santos required
Primetown to submit additional documents to which Primetown complied with.
However, its claim was not acted upon which prompted it to file a petition for review in
CTA on April 14, 2000. CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed beyonf the 2-year
prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for tax refund according to Sec 229 of NIRC.
According to CTA, the two-year period is equivalent to 730 days pursuant to Art 13 of
NCC. Since Primetown filed its final adjustment return on April 14, 1998 and that year
2000 was a leap year, the petition was filed 731 days after Primetown filed its final
adjusted return. Hence, beyond the reglementary period. Primetown appealed to CA.
CA reversed the decision of CTA. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petition was filed within the two-year period?

HELD:
Pursuant to EO 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987, a year shall be
understood to be 12 calendar months. The SC defined a calendar month as a month
designated in the calendar without regard to the number of days it may contain. The
court held that Administrative Code of 1987 impliedly repealed Art 13 of NCC as the
provisions are irreconcilable. Primetown is entitled for the refund since it is filed within the
2-year reglementary period.