Learning without thinking is useless Thinking without learning is dangerous Confucius Aban, Law of Basic T ation in the Philippines, rev. ed. Dimaampao, Tax Principles and Remedies De Leon, The National Intemal Revenue Code Annotated PART A: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION TAXATION Definition a. Paseo Realty & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 119286, October 13, 2004 Nature of Internal Revenue Law a. Hilado v. CIR, 100 Phil. 288 Scope and Nature of Taxation 28, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution nv, Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654 CIR v. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105 Phil. Guaranty v. CIR, 13 SCRA 775 Collector v. Yuseco,3 SCRA 313 CIR v, Algue, Inc. L-28896, Feb. 17,1988 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 (1996) h. Abakada Guro Party List v. Sec. Ermita, et al., GR No, 168056, September 1, 2005 Underlying Theory and Basis; Necessity Theory; Benefit-Received Principle a. 71 AmJur 2+ 346-347 b. CIR v. Algue, 158 SCRA 9 cc. NPC v,Cabanatuan, GR No. 149110, April 19,2003 d. Lorenzo v. Posadas, 64 Phil 353 Purpose of Taxation a. General/Fiscal/Revenue i. CIR v. Algue, supra. ii, PAL y, Edu, 164 SCRA 320 iii, Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630; 249 SCRA 628 b. Non-Revenue/Special or Regulatory . Osmena v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703 . Caltex v. COA, 208 SCRA 755 Principles of a Sound Tax System a, Chavez v. Ongpin, 186 SCRA 331 ere aosv, Secretary of Finance, GR No, 193007, July 19,2011 nt Domain b. Di G. Comparison with Police Power and Er a, Roxas v. CTA, 23 SCRA 276 ada v. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997 ¢. LTO v. City of Butuan, GR No. 131512, January 20,2000 4. Phil Match Co. v. Cebu, 81 SCRA 99 ce, Matalin v, Mun, Council of Malabang, 143 S f. Lutz v, Araneta, 98 Phil. 48 NTC v. CA, 311 SCA 508 RA 404 TAXES A. Definition a. 71 Am Jur 2+343-346 B. Essential Characteristics of Taxes a. Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 b. CIR v, Santos, GR No. 119252, August 18, 1997 ¢.Gerochi v. DOE, GR No. 159796, July 17,2007 C. Taxes Distinguished from: a. Debts i, Caltex v. COA, 208 SCRA 726 li, Francia v. IAC, 162 SCRA 735 iii, RP v. Bricta and Sampaguita Pictures, 172 SCRA 653 iv. Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Company, 4 SCRA 622 v. Philex Mining v. CIR, GR No. 125704, August 28, 1998 vi. Domingo v. Carlitos, 8 SCRA 443 b. License Fees i, Progressive Dev. Corp. v. QC, 172 SCRA 629 PAL v. Edu, 164 SCRA 320 ESSO v. CIR, 175 SCRA 149 c. Special Assessments/Levies i. Apostolic Prefect v. Treasurer of Baguio, 71 Phil 547 d. Toll i, 71 AM Jur351 ji, Diaz v. Secretary of Finance, GR No. 193007, July 19,2011 ¢. Penalties i, NDC v. CIR, 151 SCRA 472 £. Customs Duties i, Collector of Customers v. Torres, GR No. L-22977, May 31,1972 D. Tax Evasion; Tax Avoidance ix Code, Sec. 254 Republic v. Gonzales, 13 SCRA 633 Delpher Traders v. IAC, 157 SCRA 349 CIR y, Lincoln Life, GR No. 119176, March 19, 2002 CIR v. Toda, GR No. 147188, September 14,2004 Sources of Tax Law A. Constitution B. Statutes a. RA 8424, as amendedRA 9337 RA 10963 - TRAIN b © 4. Tariff and Customs Code ¢. Book IT, Local Government Code f.. Special Laws Administrative Issuances a, Revenue Re issuances signed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that specify, prescribe or define rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the NIRC and related statutes i, Tax Code, Sees. 244-245 Civil Code, Article 7 Asturias Sugar Central v. Comm, 29 SCRA 617 . Tan v. Del Rosatio, 237 SCRA 234 v. CIR v. Seagate Technology, GR No. 153866, February 11, 2005 vi. CIR v. Bicolandia Drug Corporation, GR No. 148083, July 21, 2006 vii. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 222743, April 5, 2017 b. Revenue Memorandum Orders ~ issuances that provide directives or instructions; prescribe guidelines; and outline processes, operations, activities, workflows, ‘methods and procedures necessary in the implementation of stated policies, goals, objectives, plans and programs of the Bureau in all areas of operations, except auditing, c. Revenue Memorandum Circulars — issuances that publish pertinent and applicable portions, as well as amplifications, of laws, rules, regulations and precedents issued by the BIR and other agencies/offices. 4. Revenue Administrative Orders ~ issuances that cover subject matters dealing strictly ‘with permanent administrative set-up of the Bureau, more specifically, the organizational structure, statements of functions and/or responsibilities of BIR offices, definitions, delegations of authority and personnel requirements and standards of performance. e. Revenue Delegation of Authority Orders — Refer to functions delegated by the Commissioner to revenue officials in accordance with law. BIR Revenue Administrative Order Nos. 1-2014, 2-2014, 3-2014 BIR Rulings i. Tax Code, Sees. 4 and 246 ii. CIR v. Burroughs Ltd., GR No. 66653, June 19, 1986 iii, CIR v, Mega Gen, Merchandising, 166 SCRA 166 iv. PBCom v. CIR, 302 SCRA 241 vy. BDO, etal. v. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 198756, January 13, 2015, h. Tax/Revenue Ordinances i, Tuazon v. CA, 212 SCRA 739 ii. Hagonoy Market Vendor v. Municipality of Hagonoy, GR No. 137621, February 6, 2002 iii, Jardine Davies v. Aliposa, GR No. 118900, February 27, 2003 ‘Tax Treaties i. Tanada v, Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997 ii, Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. CIR, GR No. 188550, August 19, 2013 J. Case Laws k. Legislative Materials IV. Limitations upon the Power of TaxationINHERENT LIMITATIONS A. Public Purposes B. D. a. Lutz v, Araneta, 98 Phil. 48 b. Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 Delegation of Taxation Power Constitution, Art. X, See. 5 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28(2) Tariff and Customs Code, Sec. 401 Phil. Comm. Satellite Corp. v. Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218 Meralco v. Prov. Of Laguna, 306 SCRA 750 Pepsi-Cola Co. v. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 789 ‘Smith Bell & Co. v. CIR, L-28271,, July 25, 1975 City of Government of Quezon City v. Bayantel, GR 162015, March 6, 2006 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 210 SCRA 219 ‘Osmena v. ORbos, 220 SCRA 703 CIR v. CA,GR No. 119761, August 29, 1996 Mindanao Shopping Destination Corporation, et al. v. Duterte, GR No. 211093, June 6,2017 Exemption of Government Agencies a. Tax Code, See. 27(C) and 30(1) b. Mactan Cebu Airport v. Marcos, supra. c. Maceda v. Macaraig, supra. Terttoiality of Situs of Taxation Manila Gas v. Collector, 62 Phil 895 Vegetable Oil Corp. v. Trinidad, 45 Phil. 822 Wells Fargo Bank v. Col, 70 Phil. 325 Iloilo Bottlers v. lloilo City, 164 SCRA 607 CIR v. BOAC, 149 SCRA 395 Collector v. Lara, 102 Phil. 813 reeege International Comity a. Constitution, Art. 1, See. 2 b. Tanada v. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997 cc. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mitsubishi Metal Corp., GR Nos. 54908, 80041, January 22, 1990 d. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, GR No. 188497, April 25, 2012 Double Taxation a. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Mun. of Jagna, 94 SCRA 894 b. Sanchez v. CIR, 97 Phil. 687 cc. Punzalan v. Mun, Board of Manila, 95 Phil. 46 d._ CIR v. SC Johnson & Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 . CIR v. Goodyear Philippines, Inc., GR No. 216130, August 3, 2016 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS. A. Due Process Clause a. Constitution, Art. II, See. 1 b. Com. Of Customs v. CTA & Campos Rueda Co., 152 SCRA 641 ¢. Phil. Bank of Comm v, CIR, 302 SCRA 2414. Sison V. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654 Equal Protection Clause a, Constitution, Art, III, Sec. | b. Ormoe Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603 ©. Shell Co. v. Vano, 94 Phil. 388 d. Tiuv, CA, 301 SCRA 279 ce, Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 f, Phil, Rural Electric v. Secretary, GR No. 143706, June 10, 2003 g. Southern Luzon Drug Corporation v. DSWD, GR No. 199669, April 25,2017 °. Rule of Taxation shall be Uniform and Equitable a. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28(1) b. Pepsi-Cola v. Butuan City,24 SCRA 789 c. Manila Race Horse v. dela Fuente, 88 Phil. 69 4d. Sison v. Ancheta 130 SCRA 654 €. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 249 SCRA 628 Non-Impairment of Contracts a. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 10 and Art. XIL, See. 11 b. CIR v. Lingayen Gulf Electric Co., 164 SCRA 67 c. Misamis Oriental y. CEPALCO, 181 SCRA 38 4d, Phil. Rural Blectric v. Secretary, supra. Non-Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Poll Tax a. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 20 Prohibition Against Taxation of Religious and Charitable Institutions a. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 28(3) b. Lladoe v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292 c. Province of Abra v. Hernando, 107 SCRA 1021 d._Abra Valley College v. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106 Prohibition Against Taxation of Non-Stock Non-Profit Educational Institutions Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 43) Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 283) ‘Tax Code, Secs. 27(B) and 30(H) DOF Order 137-87 DOF Order 149-95 BIR RMC 76-2003 BIR RMC 45-95 BIR RR 13-98 CIR v.CA and YMCA, 298 SCRA 83 CIR v. De La Salle University, Inc., GR No, 196596, November 9, 2016 CIR v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Ine. GR No. 203514, February 13,2017 Freedom of Religious Worship a. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5 b. American Bible Society v. Manila, 101 Phil. 386 Passage of Tax Bills/Granting of Tax Exemption a. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 24 b. Constitution, Art, VI, Sec. 28(4) ¢. Tolentino y. Sec. of Finance, supra Veto Power of the President a. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27(2) . Non-Impairment of SC Jurisdiction a. Constitution, Art, VIII, Sec. 5(2)(b)V. Construction of Tax Laws, Feneral Rules of Construction of Tax Laws a. Stevedoring v, Trinidad, 43 Phil. 803 b. Lorenzo v. Posada, 64 Phil, 353 cc. Unali y, Estanislao, 209 SCRA 446 «CIR y, Solidbank, GR No. 148191, Nov. 25,2003 ¢. Collector v. La‘Tondena, 5 SCRA 665 B. Mandatory v. Directory Provisions a. Serafica v. Treasurer of Ormoc City,27 SCRA 110 b. Roxas v. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 958 cc. Peeson v. CA, 222 SCRA 580 C. Application of Tax Laws, a. Civil Code, Art.2 b. CIR v.CA,GR No. 119761, August 29, 1996 c. CIR v. Telefunken, 249 SCRA 401 d. Cl No. 150947, July 25, 2003 ©. CIR y, Benguet Corp., GR No. 134587, July 8, 2005 VI. Exemption from Taxation A. In General Greenfield v. Meer, 77 Phil. 394 Basco v. PAGCOR, 196 SCRA 52 CIR v. Botelho Shipping Corp., 20 SCRA 487 CIR v. CTA, GCL Retirement Plan, 207 SCRA 487 CIR v. Guerrero, 21 SCRA 180 Phil. Acetylene v. CIR, 20 SCRA 1056 Maceda v. Macaraig, Jt, 197 SCRA 771 Sea-Land Service v. CA, 357 SCRA 441 Davao Gulf v. CUR, GR No. 117359, July 23, 1998 |. PLDT v. Davao City, GR No. 143867, August 22,2001 B. Compared with Other Terms ‘a, Tax Remission/Condonation i, Surigao Con. Min. v. Collector, 9 SCRA 728 b. Tax Amnesty i, CIR v.CA,240 SCRA 368 ii, CIR v. Marubeni, GR No. 137377, December 18, 2001 c. Exclusion/Deduction i, Tax Code, Sec. 32(B) fi, Tax Code, Sec. 34 C. Construction of Tax Exemptions E, Rodriguez v. Collector, 28 SCRA 119 Republic Flour Mills v.CIR, 31 SCRA 148 Wonder Mechanical Engineering v. CTA, 64 SCRA 555 Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CTA, 163 SCRA 647 Floro Cement v. Hen. Gorospe, 200 SCRA 480 CIR v. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95 Resins, Inc. v. Auditor Gen., 25 SCRA 754 CIR v. CA & YMCA, supra CIR v.CA, GR No, 124043, October 14, 1998Misamis Oriental Ass. V. DOF, 238 SCRA 63 . Nestle Philippines v. CA,GR No. 134114, July 6,201 Coconut Oil Refiners v. Torres, GR No, 132527, July 29, 2005 . Maceda v. Macaraig, 196 SCRA 771 Maceda v. Macaraig, 223 SCRA 217 ©. Soriano, et al. v. Secretary of Finance, GR No. 184450, January 24, 2017 p._ Secretary of Finance v. Lazatin, GR No. 210588, November 29, 2016 PART B: TAX REMEDIES ‘Tax Remedies under the National Internal Revenue Code I. Bureau of Internal Revenue A. BIR Organizational Structure, Tax Code, Secs 3,9, 10, 11, 13 1. National Office a, Commissioner of Internal Revenue b. Deputy Commissioners and National Evaluation Board c. Assistant Commissioners d. Division Chiefs 2. Regional Offices a. Regional Directors b. Assistant Regional Directors ¢. Division Chiefs d. Revenue District Officers, LTDO, and Special Investigation Division B. Duties of the BIR, Tax Code, Sec. 2 C. Collecting Agents of the BIR, Tax Code, Sec. 12 D. Powers of the Commissioner, Tax Code, Secs. 4, 5, 6,7, 246; Rev. Regulations No. 10-2010 IL. Assessment of Internal Revenue Taxes A. Definition’ nature / effects, Tax Code, Secs. 4, 6, 203, 222, 223, 228; Rev. Regulations 12-99; Revenue Regulations 18-2013; Revenue Regulations 7-2018 . Tax Assessment (Self-Assessment) Tax Audit Letter of Authority/Audit Notice }. Notice for Informal Conference . Pre-Assessment Notice (PAN); when not required . Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) . Deficiency/delinquency Jeopardy assessment . Power of the Commissioner to assess deficiency tax/best evidence obtainable Pet aveene a. CIR v. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., GR No. 136975, March 31, 2005 b. CIR v. Enjay Hotels, Inc., CTA (En Banc) Case Nos. 1498 and 1500, May 22, 2018B. Period to assess deficiency tax a, Onilinary - Tax Code, Sec. 203 b. Extraordinary ~ Tax Code, Sec. 222 2, Suspension of prescriptive period/exceptions a, Tax Code, Secs. 203, 222, and 223 b, Revenue Memorandum Order No, 14-2016, April 14,2016; RMO No. 20-1990; Revenue Delegated Authority Order No. 5-2001; and Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 6-2005 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc., GR No. 212825, December 7, 2015 dd. RMC No. 48.90, April 23, 1990 CIR v.CTA, 195 SCRA 444 f, Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner , GR 162852, December 16, 2004 g CIR. The Stanley Works Sales (Phils.), Incorporated, GR 187589, December 3,2014 h. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR 172509, February 4,2015 i, CIR. Standard Chartered Bank, GR 192173, July 29,2015 — withholding taxes; estoppel (partial payment) j. Aznar v. CTA, 58 SCRA 519 Kk. CIRy. Air India, GR 72443, January 29, 1988 1. CIRy. BASF Coating + Inks Phils., Inc., GR 198677, November 26, 2014- wrong address m. Estate of Fidel F. Reyes v. CIR, CTA EB No. 189, March 21,2007 n. The Premier Insurance & Surety Corp. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 6707, December 24, 2008 0. Ayala Hotels, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 6002 Pp. Samar-I Electric Cooperative (SIEC) v. CIR, GR 193100, December 10, 2014 - falsity q. CIR v. Philippine Daily Inquirer ,GR 213943, March 22, 2017 nr CIR v. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., GR 202695, February 29,2016 1. RCBC v. CIR, GR No. 170257, September 7, 2011 Requisites of a valid assessment J. Rev. Regulations 12-99, as amended by Revenue Regulations 18-2013, Sec. 3 Acucena Reyes v. CIR, GR 159694/16358 1, January 27,2006 Barcelon Roxas Securities, Ine. v. CIR, GR 157064, August 7, 2006 CIR v. BIR, GR 134062, April 17,2007 CIR v. Metro Star Superama, Inc.,GR 185371, December 8, 2010 CIR v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., GR 197515, July 2, 2014 Medtees International Corporation Limited v. CIR, CTA Case No. 8538, November 15,2016 g. Collector of Internal Revenue v. Benipayo, GR 1.-13656, January 31, 1962 h. Farcon Marketing Corporation v. BIR, CTA Case No. 8367, February 3,2015 i, CIR. Agrinurture, Inc., CTA EB 1054, January 13, 2015IIL, Protesting an Assessmenl/Remedy BEFORE payment A. How to protest or dispute an assessment administratively c. Tax Code, Sec. 228 Rev. Regulations 12-99, as amended by Revenue Regulations 18-2013, Sec. 3 1, When to file protest a, Fishwealth Canning Corp. v. CIR, GR No. 179343, January 21,2010 2. Where to file 3. Other requirements a, Submission of additional documents, when required; CIR v. First Express Pawnshop Co., Inc.,GR Nos. 172-45-46, June 16,2009 4, Effect of protest — assessment deemed disputed; suspension of the prescriptive period to collect a. BPI v. CIR, GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005, b. BPI v. CIR, GR No, 174942, March 7, 2008 c. BPI v, CIR, GR No. 181836, July 9, 2014 d. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR 172509, February 4, 2015 5. Effect of failure to protesU/failure to submit additional documents a. Ocean Wireless Network, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 148380, December 9, 2005 b. Allied Banking Corp. v. CIR, GR No. 175097, February 5,2010 c. CIR v. BPI, GR No. 134062, April 17, 2007 6. Pre-Assessment Notice (PAN); when not required CIR Renders a Decision on the Disputed Assessment 1. Period to decide ~Tax Code, Sec. 228 2. CIR’s actions equivalent to denial of protest a. CIR v. Ayala Securities Corporation, 70 SCRA 204 b. CIR v. Union Shipping Corporation, 185 SCRA 547 ‘c.Antam Consolidated, Inc. v. CTA, CA-GR No. 33588, March 31,2004 Remedy of the Taxpayer Rev. Regulations 12-99, as amended by Revenue Regulations 18-2013, See. 3 ‘Tax Code, Secs, 4 and 228 RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282 1. If protest denied 2. CIR fails to act on the protest within 180 days from submission of relevant documentsLascona Land Co., Ine. v. CIR, GR No. 171251, March 5, 2012 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. BIR, GR No. 208731 , January 27,2016 3. Effect of failure to appeal 4, Matter appealable to the CTA; What constitutes the final decision of the CIR on the disputed assessment? a. Ocean Wireless Network, Inc. v. CIR, supra. b. Allied Banking Corp. v. CIR, supra. TIL, Claims for refund and credit of taxes/Remedy AFTER payment A. Who may file claim for refund/tax eredit Cebu Portland v. Collector, GR No. L-20563, October 29, 1968 CIR v. Procter and Gamble, 204 SCRA 377 Silkair (Singapore) PTE Ltd., v. CIR, GR 166482, January 25, 2012 CIR v. CA and Citytrust Banking Corp., 234 SCRA 348 CIR v. Petron Corporation, GR No. 186668, March 21, 2012 Diageo Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 183553, November 12, 2012 University Physicians Services, Inc. ~ Management Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 205955, March 7, 2018 NauUpene B. Tax Credit v. Tax Deduction c D. 1. CIRy. Bicolandia Drug Corporation, GR No. 148083, July 21,2006 Administrative Claim for Refund 1. Cases where refund not allowed - Tax Code, Sec. 204 Air Canada v. CIR, GR No. 169507, January 11,2016 2. Refund without claim (payment under protest not a requirement) ~ Tax Code, Sec. 204(C), 229, 112 3. Filinvest Development Corp. v. CIR, GR No. 146941, August 9, 2017 4, CIR v. Far East Bank and Trust Co.,GR No. 173854 5. CIR. Philamlife, GR No. 105208, May 29, 1995 6. CIR v. Tokyo Shipping, GR No. 68252, May 25, 1995 7, San Carlos v. CIR, 228 SCRA 135 8. CIRv.CAand Citytrust Banking, 234 SCRA 348 9. CIRv.CA and Atlas Consolidated, 232 SCRA 321 10. Calamba Steel Center v. CIR, GR 151857, April 28, 2005 J]. United International Pictures v. CIR, GR No. 168331 , October 11,2012 12. Deutsche Bank AG v. CIR, GR No. 188550, August 19, 2013 Remedy of the ‘Taxpayer Tax Code, Secs, and 229, 112 1. CIR~no decision2. CIR renders a decision "1. Maceda v. Macaraig, 223 SCRA 217 3. Appeal to CTA by filing a Petition for Review Pr ithin 2 years from date of payment co initiate judicial remedy CIR v. Concepcion, 22 CRA 1058 CIR v. Philamlife, supra CIR v. Meralco, GR No. 181459, June 9, 2014 CIR v. TMX Sales, 205 SCRA 184 CIR v. PNB, GR No. 161997, October 25, 2005 ‘Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. CIR, GR No. 182582, April 17, 2017 +b. 30-day period to appeal is jurisdictional Gibbs v, CIR, 15 SCRA 318 «. The two periods (30 days and 2 years) must concur; exception CE Luzon Geothermal Power Co. Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 197526, July 26, 2017 ‘Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. . CTA, GR No. 193625, August 30,2017 CIR v. Team Sual Corp.,GR No. 194105, February 53,2014 Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 207112, December 8, 2015 E. Requirements for Refund Cases 1. Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 192024, July 1, 2015 2. Collector v. Prieto,2 SCRA 1007 3. ACCRA Investment v. CA, 204 SCRA 957 4. Calamba Steel Center v.CIR, GR No. 151857, April 28, 2005 5. Philam Asset Management, Inc. . CIR, GR Nos. 156637 and 162004, December 14,2005 %. CIR v. Mirant (Phil.) Operations Corp.,GR No. 171742, June 15,2011 IV. Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals A. Why was the CTA created? 1, Phil. Refining Co. v. CA, 256 SCRA 661 B. Jurisdiction of the CTA 1. RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, Sec. 7 2. Revised Rules of the CTA, Rule 4 3. Pacquiao v. CTA, GR No. 213394, April 6,20164. Tridharma Marketing Corp. ¥. CTA, GR No. 215950, June 20, 2016 5. CIR v. CTA,GR No. 207843, July 15,2015 &. Duty Free Phil. v. BIR,GR No, 197228, October 8, 2014 7. SMLED Technology, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 175410, November 12,2014 C. Final decisions of the CIR — disputed assessment Rule 4, Sec. 3(a)(2), Revised Rules of the CTA D. Who may appeal to the CTA RA 1125,as amended, Secs. 7 and I E, New issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; exceptions 1. CIR v. PG-PMC, 204 SCRA 377 2. Lim v. CTA, 105 Phil 974 3. CIR v. Villa, 22 SCRA 4 4. CIR v. Joseph, 5 SCRA 895 5. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR. Nos. 206079-80, 206309, January 17,2018 F. Procedure in the CTA Revised Rules of the CTA, Rules 7-9, 11-16 CTA Circular No. 1-2013 CTA En Bane Resolution 8-2013 CTA En Bane Resolution 8-2016 G. Appeal from the CTA Division to CTA En Bane, from CTA En Banc to the Supreme Court RA 1125, as amended, Secs. 18-19 Revised Rules of the CTA, Rules 15-16 Magsaysay Lines v. CA, GR No. 111184, August 12, 1996 Liboro v.CA, 173 SCRA 285 VI. Collection of Internal Revenue Taxes ‘A. Prescriptive period to collect 1, Tax Code, Sec. 203 - 3 years 2. Tax Code, Sec. 222-5 years CIR v. Wyeth Suaco, 202 SCRA 125 CIR v. Philippine Global Communication, Inc., GR No. 167146, October 31, 2006 BPI y, CIR, GR No. 181836, July 9, 2014 VIL. Remedies Available to the Government A. Administrative remedies/summary remedies ‘Tax Code, Secs, 205 ~ 277 CIR v. Wyeth Suaco,202 SCRA 1251. Distraint of personal property, Tax Code, Secs. 205-207, 217, 208-209, 210-212 2. Levy of real property, Tax Code, Secs. 205-207, 217, 208-209, 213-214; RMC No. 46-2018, May 21,2018 BPI y, Commissioner, GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005 3. Forfeiture, Tax Code, Sec. 215 4, Tax lien, Tax Code, Sec. 219; Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 2-94 Republic v. Enriquez, 166 SCRA 608 CIR v. NLRC, 238 SCRA 42 Hongkong and Shanghai Bank v. Rafferty, 39 SCRA 145 B. Ju al remedies ‘Tax Code, Sec. 281 Tax Code, Secs. 220-221 Ungab v. Cusi,97 SCRA 877 CIR v. CA, 257 SCRA 200; Resolution on MR (February 1997) CIR v. Pascor Realty, GR No. 128315, June 29, 1999 ‘Adamson v. CA, GR No. 120935, May 21, 2009 VIII. Statutory Offenses and Penalties A. Civil penalties/surcharge/interest ‘Tax Code, Secs. 247-251 Revenue Regulations No, 12-99; RMC No. 54-2018, May 29, 2018 1. Applicable interest rate 2. Computation of interest 3. Deficiency v. delinquency tax 4, Surcharge ~ 25% or 50% Tektite Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CVA (First Division) Case No. 8903, April 12, 2018 ‘Moog Controls Corporation ~ Philippine Branch v CIR, CTA (Second Division) Case Nos. 9077, February 22, 2018 ‘Tax Code, Sec. 248 a. False v. Fraudulent return Aznar v. CTA, 58 SCRA 519. b. Fraud assessment Javier v. CIR, 199 SCRA 824cc. Mandatory impos ial underdeck jement of deduction ; Registration of name; Violation; Penalties B. Issuance offprinting receipts Tax Code, Secs, 236-243 C. Compliance Requirements 1. Keeping of books of accounts, Tax Code, Secs. 232-235 2. Securing of a Tax Identification Number, Sec. 236 D. Crimes/Offenses/Penalties/Forfeitures 1. Revised penalties, Tax Code, Secs. 224-227; 253-281 2. Compromise penalty, Rev. Reg. 12-99, Sec. 6; Rev. Memo Order, 1-90 3. Tax Evasion, Tax Code, Sec. 254 a. Elements of tax evasion ' Persons liable in case taxpayer is a juridical entity cc Payment of tax not a valid defense 4. Prescription of violations of the Tax Code Rev. Memo Circular 101-90 (Determination of when cause of action for willful failure to pay deficiency tax occurs under Section 280 of the Tax Code) Ungab v. Cusi,97 SCRA 877 CIR v. JAL,202 SCRA 450 CIR v. Pascor Realty, GR No. 128315, June 29, 1999 Agitinaldo Industries Corporation v. CIR, GR No. L-29790, February 25, 1982 IX. Abatement of Tax / Tax Compromise Tax Code, Sec. 204 ‘A. Authority of the Commissioner to abate taxes Revenue Regulations No. 15-06 RMC No. 66-06 1. Grounds for abating taxes and penalties 2. Conditions B, Power to compromise Revenue Regulations No. 7-01, as amended by Revenue Regulations No. 30-02 and 8-2004 1. Cases that can be compromised 2. Cases that cannot be compromised 3. Basis for acceptance of compromise settlementX. Tax Amnesty Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Covanta Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc.,GR No. 203160, January 24,2018 LG Electronics v. CIR, GR No. 165451 , December 3, 2014 CIR y. APO Cement Corporation, GR No. 193381, February 8, 2017 XI. Informers Reward Tax Code, Sec. 282 Revenue Memorandum Order No. 12-93 (Guidelines in the Filing of Confidential Information for Violation of the NIRC and Investigation by Authorized Revenue Officer) Meralco Securities v. Savellano, 117 SCRA 704 Penid v. Virata, 121 SCRA 166 CIR v. CIR on Audit, 218 SCRA 203 MEI IRNME! Local Taxes in General Local Government Code (LGC), Sees. 129 - 133, 134-164 Petron v. Pililla, 198 SCRA 82 Palma Dev. Corp. v. Mun. of Malangas, Zambo del Sur,413, SCRA 572 (2003) Progressive Development Corporation v. Quezon City, GR No. 36081 , April 24, 1989 Panaligan v. City of Tacloban, GR No. L-9319, September 27, 1957 Batangas Power Corporation v. Batangas City, 428 SCRA 250 (2004) City of Pasig. et al. v. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 181710, Mach 7, 2018 A. AssessmenUCollection 1. Accrual / tax period / manner of payment / surcharge and penalties LGC, Secs. 165-171 Pajaro v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 763 Ericson Telecommunications v. City of Pasig, GR No. 176667, November 22, 2007 2. Collection of the tax ees, 172-185 Estate of the late Mercedes Jacob v, Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 474 (1997) 3. Assessment of defici acy / delinquent tax 6LGC, Sec. 194 B. Taxpayers’ remedies 1. Protesting an assessment LGC, See. 195 a, Protest to the city/municipal treasurer b. Appeal to the regular court of competent jurisdiction Claim for refund/tax credit LGC, Sec. 196 D. Contesting the validity of a new tax ordinance LGC, Secs. 186-193 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corporation, 234 SCRA 225 Figuerres v.CA,GR No. 119172, March 25, 1999 Hagonoy Market Vendor Association v. Municipality of Hagonoy, GR No. 137621, February 6, 2002 Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc. v. City of Manila, GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006 a. When a taxpayer can contest the legality of a tax ordinance: 30 days from effectivity 1b. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice: 60 days to decide cc. Appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction II. Real Property Taxes LGC, Sees. 198-218 ‘A. Assessment/Collection 1. Assessment of land value FELS Energy, Inc. v. The Prov. Of Batangas, GR No. 168557, February 16, 2007 Caltex Phils. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 114 SCRA 296 LGC, Secs. 219-225 2. Collection of real property tax >, Secs. 246-251 a, Payment in installments — LGC, See. 250 tion of tax LGC, Sec n/Discount ~ LG . Remedies of government to collect ~ L wSpouses Ramon and Rosita Tan v, Bantegui, GR No. 154027, October 24, 2005 . Taxpayers” remedies L. Contesting the assessment of land value LGC, 226-231 a. Appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, GR No. 146382, August 7, 2003 b. Appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) Caltex v. CBAP, 114 SCRA 296 Chaves. v. Ongpin, 186 SCRA 331 Cagayan Robina Sugar Milling v. CA, GR No. 122451, October 12,2000 2, Payment of real property tax under protest LGC, See. 252 Manila Electric Company v. Barlis, GR No. 114231, May 18,2001 a, File protest with the local treasurer b. Protest to be filed with the LBAA; days to decide ithin 60 days from receipt of assessment; 120 City Government of Quezon City v. Bayantel, GR No. 162015, March 6, 2006 4. Appeal to the CBAA: within 30 days from receipt of denial e. Appeal to the CTA f. Appeal to the SC