List Case No. Date Promulgated Case Title

DATE
LIST CASE NO. CASE TITLE

PROMULGATED
1 9722 March 12, 2020 MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES PTY. LTD-PHILIPPINE BRANCH, v. COMM
2 9590 March 12, 2020 JONES LANG LASALLE (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
3 9147 March 12, 2020 JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
4 8918 March 12, 2020 RIZAL PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT V. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
5 EB 1928 March 11, 2020 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI CITY AND THE CITY TREASURER OF M
6 9084 March 11, 2020 LENNIE DE SAGUN ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
7 EB CRIM-065 March 09, 2020 BENEDICTO P. CAGUIMBAL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
8 EB 1947 March 09, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FRANKFORT, INC.
9 EB 2018 March 09, 2020 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
10 EB 1984 March 09, 2020 RIOFIL CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
11 EB 1895 March 09, 2020 CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
12 9433 March 03, 2020 TANN PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
13 9603 March 02, 2020 LIBERTY FLOUR MILLS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
14 9118 March 02, 2020 RURAL BANK OF BACNOTAN (LA UNION), INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
15 9538 March 02, 2020 ---NO FILE FOUND---
19 EB 1864 February 28, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. NEXT MOBILE, INC. (FORMER
20 EB 2147 February 27, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MSCI HONG KONG LIMITED
21 9556 February 26, 2020 ---NO FILE FOUND---
22 EB 1844 February 26, 2020 AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
23 O-407 February 26, 2020 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ENVIROAIRE, INC.
24 EB 1812 February 26, 2020 JOSEPHINE P. CALAJATE, ACTING AS THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF THE
25 9000 February 24, 2020 FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
26 EB 1926 February 24, 2020 HEDCOR SIBULAN, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
27 EB 1906 February 24, 2020 SAN MIGUEL ENERGY CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
28 EB 1854 February 21, 2020 ---FILE NOT FOUND---
29 9438 February 19, 2020 AIG SHARED SERVICES CORPORATION (PHILIPPINES) V. COMMISSIONER O
30 9498 February 19, 2020 EMMANUEL C. OÑATE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVIEW
31 9466 February 19, 2020 AIRGLOBE, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
32 9230 February 14, 2020 FONTERRA BRANDS PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
33 9206 February 12, 2020 ACTUATE BUILDERS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
34 EB 1963 February 12, 2020 NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CENTRAL BOARD
35 EB 1944 February 12, 2020 MAKATI CITY AND THE INCUMBENT CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CITY V.
36 EB 1831 February 12, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FIRST SUMIDEN CIRCUITS, INC
37 EB 1974 February 12, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MEGABUCKS MERCHANDISIN
38 9280 February 10, 2020 MARKET STRATEGIC FIRM, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
39 9712 February 10, 2020 GENIOGRAPHICS INCORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
40 9059 February 06, 2020 GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
41 9012 February 05, 2020 DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
42 EB 1945 February 05, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. PHILMAY PROPERTY, INC.
43 EB 1917 February 05, 2020 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
44 EB 1721 February 05, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CRISTETA MAY GALANG ET AL
45 EB 1862 February 05, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. STATELAND, INC.
46 9717 February 04, 2020 ORICA PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
47 EB 1925 February 04, 2020 MYRNA S. LEONIDA - OIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR REVENUE REGION NO
48 AC-192 February 03, 2020 NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY V. PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA
49 EB 1892 February 03, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPIN
50 EB 1901 February 03, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.
51 EB 1921 February 03, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
52 EB 2049 January 31, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SR METALS, INC.,
53 9704 January 29, 2020 WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
54 9557 January 28, 2020 PILIPINAS KYOHRITSU INC., v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
55 9499 January 28, 2020 MAXIMA MACHINERIES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
56 EB 1811 January 23, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CTA COLLECTOR OF BATAAN v. COURT O
57 EB 1934 January 22, 2020 MAKATI CITY AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CITY v. METRO PACIF
58 O-266 January 21, 2020 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RITCHE S . BARRIGA,
59 8922 January 17, 2020 GETZ PHARMA (PHILS.), INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
60 9605 January 17, 2020 NUEVA ECIJA II ELECTRIC CTA CASE NO. 9605 COOPERATIVE, INC.- Area 2
61 8717 January 16, 2020 LYNARD ALLAN BIGCAS v.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANILA
62 8923 January 15, 2020 LOTTE CONFECTIONERY PILIPINAS CORPORATION v.COMMISSIONER OF I
63 9609 January 15, 2020 ALPHALAND MAKATI PLACE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
64 9545 January 15, 2020 ROSEMARIE G. CLEMENTE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES as represente
65 EB 1902 January 15, 2020 GRANDWORTH RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
66 8986 January 14, 2020 THE ORCHARD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
67 9504 January 14, 2020 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
68 9530 January 14, 2020 UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
69 9475 January 14, 2020 NEW FARMER'S PLAZA, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, N
70 EB 1840 January 10, 2020 WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
71 EB 1853 January 09, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATION
72 9130 January 07, 2020 MERIDIEN EAST REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIO
73 9071 January 07, 2020 APO INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF
74 8485 January 06, 2020 AC CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
75 EB 1885 January 03, 2020 BATINO CORPORATION, REALTY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
76 9428 January 03, 2020 COSNER TRADING CORPORATION V. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
77 9516 January 03, 2020 TRANS-ASIA RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION v. COMMISIONER OF IN
78 EB 1957 January 02, 2020 MAKATI CITY TREASURER AND MAKATI CITY v. CORULLON HOLDINGS, INC
79 EB 1829 January 02, 2020 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALAMBA v. THE CITY OF MAKATI AND FUJI-
80 EB 1846 January 02, 2020 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
81 8991 December 17, 2019 FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
82 9402 December 17, 2019 PHILSAGA MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
83 9672 December 17, 2019 VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
84 9610 December 13, 2019 ALPHALAND SOUTHGATE TOWER, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
85 9553 December 12, 2019 PUEBLO DE ORO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
86 9361 December 11, 2019 DUNLEVY FOOD CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
87 EB 1933 December 09, 2019 UCPB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION ( ULFC) v. CAGAYAN DE ORO
88 EB 1953 December 09, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. YUSEN LOGISTICS CENTER, INC
89 9029 December 04, 2019 FIRST LIFE FINANCIAL CO. INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
90 O-313 December 04, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMMEL YNION
91 EB 1980 December 04, 2019 ESCA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
92 EB 1924 December 04, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. NUBE STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC
93 AC-203 December 03, 2019 SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. v. HON. LUCINAALPAEZ-DAYAON
94 9216 December 03, 2019 LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
95 OC-021 December 03, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GEORGE A. TALAMAYAN, JR.
96 8814 December 03, 2019 ERLINDA ABACAN v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
97 EB 1820 December 02, 2019 M.E.T.R.O. (MANUFACTURE, EXPORT, TRADE, RESEARCH OFFICE) INCORP
98 EB 2015 November 29, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CITCO INTERNATIONAL SUPPO
99 9357 November 28, 2019 SC JOHNSON PHILIPPINES, ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
100 O-659 November 27, 2019 PEOPLE vs. SIXTA LEE GO
101 EB 2002 November 26, 2019 TECHNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. COMMIS
102 EB 1838 November 26, 2019 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
103 EB 1979 November 26, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, vs. MIFFI LOGISTICS CO. INC.,
104 EB 1966 November 22, 2019 SORSOGON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE II vs. THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REV
105 EB CRIM-049 November 22, 2019 STEVEN GO LO, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
106 9352 November 19, 2019 MAGSAYSAY LINES, INC.vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
107 9632 November 18, 2019 NICKELBASE, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
108 9574 November 18, 2019 KOKOLOKO NETWORK CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
109 EB 1809 November 14, 2019 MOOG CONTROLS CORPORATION-PHILIPPINE BRANCH vs. COMMISSIONE
110 O-599 November 13, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REBECCA S. TIOTANGCO
111 9578 November 12, 2019 WELLS FARGO SOLUTIONS INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
112 9476 November 12, 2019 HOBBIES OF ASIA, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
113 9315 November 11, 2019 KULTURA STORE, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
114 9445 November 11, 2019 DELTEK SYSTEMS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
115 9128 November 08, 2019 TAGANITO HPAL NICKEL CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
116 9069 November 08, 2019 SKY CABLE CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
117 EB 1837 November 08, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PACIFIC HUB CORPORATION
118 9710 November 08, 2019 SUNNYPHIL INCORPORATED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
119 9715 November 08, 2019 ALBERTO B. FINEZ vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
120 9944 November 08, 2019 AVON COSMETICS, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
121 9546 November 07, 2019 IBEX PHI LIPPINES INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
122 9473 November 06, 2019 JINZAI EXPERTS, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
123 EB 1869 November 06, 2019 CITY OF MANILA AND RIZAL DEL ROSARIO vs. SMART COMMUNICATIONS
124 9700 November 04, 2019 MISAMIS ORIENTAL RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE I, INC. (MOR
125 9700 November 04, 2019 ---SAME AS ABOVE---
126 EB 1742 November 04, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERV
127 EB 1774 November 04, 2019 SALCEDO RISTORANTE ITALIANO, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
128 EB 1822 October 28, 2019 DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
129 EB 2004 October 28, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SOUTH LUZON TOLLWAY COR
130 9329 October 25, 2019 AG COUNSELORS CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
131 9532 October 25, 2019 SABRE TRAVEL NETWORK (PHILIPPINES) INC. (FORMERLY ABACUS DISTRI
132 EB 1861 October 25, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMIT
133 EB CRIM-054 October 24, 2019 KINGSAM EXPRESS INCORPORATION AND SAMUEL S. SANTOS V. PEOPLE
134 9386 October 23, 2019 ERWIN CASACLANG V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
135 9432 October 23, 2019 MAERKS GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRES (PHILIPPINES) LTD. V. COMMISSION
136 EB CRIM-064 October 23, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. IZUMO CONTRACTORS, INC.
137 EB 1795 October 22, 2019 ZUELLIG PHARMA ASIA PACIFIC LTD. PHILS. ROHQ V. COMMISSIONER OF
138 9594 October 21, 2019 OCEANAGOLD (PHILIPPINES), INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
139 9552 October 21, 2019 HONDA CARS KALOOKAN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
140 EB 1940 October 16, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. PHILIPPINE POWER MC DISTR
141 EB 1900 October 16, 2019 PHILIPPINE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V. THE COMMISSION
142 9507 October 15, 2019 NATIONWIDE HEALTH SYSTEMS BAGUIO, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INT
143 9375 October 15, 2019 TOLEDO HOLDINGS CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
144 9389 October 15, 2019 CRU CONCEPTS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
145 8720 October 14, 2019 DEUTCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
146 EB 1898 October 14, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SOUTH PREMIERE POWER CO
147 EB 1884 October 14, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. COLT COMMERCIAL, INC.
148 EB 1801 October 14, 2019 GREEN VALLEY MARKETING CORPORATION V. COMISSIONER OF INTERNA
149 EB 1744 October 14, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. JVC (PHILIPPINES), INC.
150 9047 October 14, 2019 OMYA CHEMICAL MERCHANTS, INC V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
151 9661 October 14, 2019 MSCI HONG KONG LIMITED V. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
152 9743 October 14, 2019 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC. V. COMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
153 8769 October 11, 2019 LANAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COPPERATIVE( LANECO ) V. COMMISSIONER
154 EB 1874 October 11, 2019 LIGHT RAIL ATHORITY V. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
155 EB 1889 October 11, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. COLT COMMERCIAL, INC.
156 9155 October 09, 2019 TRIDHARMA MARKETING CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
157 9307 October 09, 2019 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
158 9421 October 09, 2019 SUNNYPHIL INCORPORATED V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
159 AC-204 October 09, 2019 METRO PACIFIC TOLLWAYS CORPORATION V. MAKATI CITY AND HON. JES
160 EB 1976 October 09, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MARIA LORENA DINO, ET AL
161 9164 October 08, 2019 ALTUS ANGELES, INC V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
162 9541 October 07, 2019 CALAMBA PREMIER REALTY CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
163 9631 October 07, 2019 FINANCIAL TIMES ELECTRONICS PUBLISHING PHILIPPINES, INC V. COMMI
164 9154 October 04, 2019 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE, LTD V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
165 EB 1863 October 04, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MAIBARARA GEOTHERMAL IN
166 EB 1859 October 04, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. IRISH FE N AGUILAR, ET AL.
167 9129 October 03, 2019 ACTATE BUILDERS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
168 9762 October 03, 2019 EAST WEST BANKING CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
169 EB 1788 October 03, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SPOUSES MICHAEL GAVIN, RI
170 9515 October 02, 2019 TITANIUM CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
171 9518 October 02, 2019 ASURION HONG KONG LIMITED- ROHQ V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
172 9321 October 02, 2019 MARIA AMPARO M. DATO et. al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
173 9241 October 02, 2019 SAN MIGUEL FOODS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
174 9585 October 01, 2019 MISAMIS ORIENTIAL RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIV I, INC. v. COM
175 9367 October 01, 2019 VY DOMINGO JEWELLRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
176 EB 1875 October 01, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALPHA 245 INC.
177 EB 1793 October 01, 2019 ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
178 EB 1960 October 01, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HARD ROCK CAFE MAKATI CIT
179 EB CRIM-048 September 27, 2019 ALICIA O. FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
180 EB 1847 September 27, 2019 VESTA PROPERTY HOLDINGS INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
181 9478 September 26, 2019 BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
182 AC-199 September 25, 2019 CITY OF MANILA AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA v. ASIAN TERMIN
183 9540 September 24, 2019 COMPANIA DE GARAY INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
184 9574 September 24, 2019 KOKOLOKO NETWORK CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
185 9269 September 24, 2019 INDRA VERHOMAL MENGHRAJANI v. HON. KIM JACINTO-HENARES
186 9490 September 24, 2019 FORT 1 GLOBAL CITY CENTER, INC., v. HON. CAESAR R. DULAY
187 EB 1807 September 24, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MINDANAO SANITARIUM AND
188 EB 1843 September 24, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GREAT HOLIDAY ENTERTAINM
189 EB 1922 September 24, 2019 SR METALS, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
190 EB 1827 September 24, 2019 WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
191 9649 September 23, 2019 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
192 9448 September 23, 2019 BW SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
193 9480 September 20, 2019 VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINNES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
194 9880 September 18, 2019 BARRIO FIESTA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF I
195 O-411 September 16, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. RASHDI CAMLIAN SAKALURAN
196 8943 September 13, 2019 JOPAUEN REALTY CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
197 EB 1903 September 13, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. NES GLOBAL TALENT LIMITED
198 9638 September 12, 2019 EAGLE I LANDHOLDINGS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
199 9219 September 11, 2019 PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION V. COMMISSIO
200 O-634 September 11, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROSALINDA VALISNO CANDO, OWNER OF
201 9637 September 10, 2019 EAGLE II HOLDCO, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
202 9067 September 09, 2019 FIRST PHILIPPINE POWERS SYSTEMS INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
203 9531 September 06, 2019 MERCURY GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
204 EB 1909 September 05, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORA
205 0-048 September 04, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENVIROAIRE, INC., represented by TYRONE
206 9296 September 04, 2019 BENCHMARK MARKETING CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
207 EB 1790 September 03, 2019 UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
208 9626 September 02, 2019 ESTATE OF MR. CHARLES MARVIN ROMIG REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE HEI
209 8740 September 02, 2019 IBM PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
210 9483 September 02, 2019 JOBSTREET.COM PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
211 EB 2008 September 02, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DGA ILIJAN B.V.,
212 EB 1870 September 02, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BISAZZA PHILIPPINES, INC.
213 EB 1768 August 30, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v . MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL
214 EB 1883 August 30, 2019 PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN & MARILOU E. UTANES IN HER CAPACITY AS
215 9132 August 29, 2019 PTT PHILIPPINES TRADING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM
216 EB 1799 August 29, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CO
217 EB 1877 August 28, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERV
218 EB 1850 August 28, 2019 IBEX PHILIPPINES, INC., v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
219 8980 August 28, 2019 FPIP PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. COM
220 AC-214 August 27, 2019 PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND, INC., represented by its Presiden
221 EB 1855 August 27, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RIECKERMANN PHILIPPINES, I
222 EB 1754 August 27, 2019 MAKATI CITY AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CITY v. METRO PACIF
223 EB 1956 August 22, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINE
224 EB 1904 August 18, 2019 OCEANA GOLD (PHILIPPINES), INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
225 EB 1824 August 16, 2019 NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
226 9584 August 16, 2019 CROMA MEDIC, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
227 EB 1778 AugustCOMMISSIONER
15, 2019 OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY
228 9074 August
SUBIC WATER
14, 2019& SEWERAGE CO., INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
229 9502 August 13, 2019 THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
230 EB 1893 PHILIPAugust
MORRIS13,PHILIPPINES
2019 MANUFACTURING INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
231 EB 1781 August 13, 2019
AGFHA, INCORPORATED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
232 EB 1856 August 13, 2019 CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
PURECHEM
MISSIONER OF INTERNAL
233 REVENUE
EB 1798 KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES
August 13, 2019 & REGIONAL DIRECTOR JONAS DP. AMORA, REVENUE REGION NO. 7, QUE
234
MAKATI CITY
EBAND
1814THE CITYAugust
TREASURER
13, 2019
OF MAKATI CITY v. METRO PACIFIC RESOURCES, INC. (formerly: Cypress Harbou
235 EB 1767 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MY SOLID TECHNOLOGIES & DEVICES CORPORATION
August 09, 2019
236 9435 AugustPHILIPPINE
08, 2019 AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
237 EB 1717 August 08, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ROWENA VICENTE ET. AL.
238 9394 August 08, 2019 PGA SOMPO INSURANCE CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTE
239 EB 1867 August 07, 2019HEDCOR, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
240 EB 1825 TAISEI
AugustPHILIPPINES
07, 2019 CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
241 9464 August 06,JOVITA
2019 G. PANOPIO v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
242 9172 August 06, 2019 FIRST GLOBAL BYO CORPORATION v. HONORABLE KIM HENARES AS THE
COMMISSIONER
243 OF
EBINTERNAL
1880 REVENUE
Augustv.06,SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (as surviving corporation in a merger Involving MONTERE
2019
244 EB 1716 August
COMMISSIONER
06, 2019 OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION
245 EB 1836 August 05, 2019HEDCOR, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
246 CAGAYAN
9260 DE ORO DOCTORS,
August 05, 2019 INC., (MADONNA AND CHILD HOSPITAL) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
247 EB 1834 AugustIBEX PHILIPPINES, INC. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
05, 2019
248 9376 August 05, 2019 AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF
249 9310 August 05, 2019 EDMUND BERMEJO IV v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
250 8858 MILESTONE
July 31, 2019HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
251 9450 July
NEW31,YORK
2019 BAY PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
252 EB 1832COMMISSIONER
July 29,OF2019
INTERNAL REVENUE v. ROYAL CLASS TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
253 9457 July
CARMEN
23, 2019COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
254 9563 NUEVA
July 23,
ECIJA2019
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
255 8648 July 19, 2019 CLARK WATER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
256 EB 1835 July 19,PETRON
2019 CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
257 9251 July 18, 2019 TROREV REALTY CO., as represented by it President, Roberto Ignacio v. C
258 8557 July 18, 2019 AMIRA FOODS INTERNATIONAL DMCC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
259 EB 1735 July
COMMISSIONER
18, 2019 OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION
260 9766 July 15, 2019 DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
261 9572 July 11, 2019 PREMIUM LEISURE AND AMUSEMENT, INC. (PLAI) v. COMMISSIONER OF
262 EB CRIM-044
PEOPLE OFJuly
THE09,
PHILIPPINES
2019 v. BIENVENIDO DIMSON AND GILBERT DIMSON (DIMSON MANILA, INC.)
263 9231 July 05, 2019 VITALO PAKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
264 9126 July
MANULIFE
05, 2019 DATA SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
265 EB 1881 COMMISSIONER
July 05, 2019 OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION
266 EB 1802 July 05, 2019 OPULENT LANDOWNERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
267 EB 1775 JulyCOMMISSIONER
05, 2019 OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GE CONSUMER FINANCE, INC.
ES CORPORATION
268v. BUREAU
EB 1911
OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
July 05, 2019
REPRESENTED BY KIM S, JACINTO-HENARES, AND/OR NESTOR VALEROSO, OIC-A
269 HON.
EB 1782
THELMA MALIBAO
July 05,
OIC2019
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REGION 18 v. DIONESIA P
270 THE
EBSECRETARY
1776 OF FINANCE
July 05, 2019
v. CENTURY PEAK DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND KINGSVILLE INTERNATIONAL RESOUR
271 9038 July 02, 2019 PCI MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., v. KIM S. JACINTO - HENARES IN HER
272 EB NO. 1760 July 02, 2019 COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE v. NORTHERN TOBACCO RE-DRYING
273 EB NO. 1878 July 02, 2020 COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE v. LICE-L CALDERON, ET AL.
274 9387 June 28, 2019 AMPARO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENU
275 7565 June 27, 2019 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING CORPORATION v. THE
276 8141 June 26, 2019 LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
277 9579 June 24, 2019 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING (PASAR) CORPORATIO
278 9575 June 21, 2019 UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly NISSAN MOTOR PHILIPP
279 EB CRIM. No. 043 June 18, 2019 MOISES BAGAN RODRIGUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE BU
280 9408 June 14, 2019 MONTALBAN METHANE POWER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
281 9513 June 13, 2019 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
282 EB NO. 1800 June 13, 2019 KINGSON INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. HON. COMMISSION
283 EB NO. 1786 June 13, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CEN
284 EB NO. 1833 June 13, 2020 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORP
285 9150 June 11, 2019 MALINGAS MULTI - PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTO
286 9444 June 11, 2020 BAHAY BONDS 2 SPECIAL PURPOSE TRUST, administered by LAND BANK O
287 EB No. 1745 June 10, 2019 HEDCOR, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
288 EB NO. 1710 June 06, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BANFF REALTY DEVELOPMEN
289 EB No. 1763 June 07, 2019 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE.LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
290 9147 March 12, 2020 JG SUMMIT HOLDINGS, INC. v. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
291 9692 May 31, 2019 BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
292 9573 May 31, 2019 PRIME INVESTMENT KOREA, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
293 9548 May 30, 2019 DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION V. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENU
294 O-656 May 29, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANALIZA SAN MIGUEL DAVID
295 EB 1813 May 28, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ADMORLINA L. FONTEJON
296 9388 May 23, 2019 ROBERTO O. YANGCO VS. THE REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER OF REVENUE D
297 EB 1796 May 23, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATIO
298 AC-185 May 20, 2019
299 EB 1711 May 20, 2019 TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
300 9596 May 16, 2019 THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HON. AL
301 EB 1791 May 14, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMI
302 EB 1727 May 14, 2019 LIFEBANK FOUNDATION, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
303 EB 1752 May 10, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. PHILIPPINES AIRLINES, INC.
304 EB 1574 May 07, 2019 NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMMISSIONER
305 O-415 May 06, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BERNARDO ANACTA Y BASADA A.K.A. BE
306 8673 May 06, 2019 MINDANAO SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL COLLEGE INC., VS. COMMISSIONER
307 EB 1757 May 06, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS.. SUGAR CRAFTS, INC.
308 EB 1720 May 03, 2019 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INT
309 EB 1732 May 03, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CONAL HOLDINGS CORPORA
310 9374 May 03, 2019 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
311 EB 1704 May 02, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (APC)
312 9441 April 30, 2019 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
313 AC-197 April 30, 2019 SOUTH CHINA RESOURCES INC. (NOW KNOWN AS "SOCRESOURCES, INC.
314 EB 1804 April 29, 2019 MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRES (PHILIPPINES), LTD VS. COMMISSION
315 EB 1736 April 29, 2019 ASURION HONG KONG LIMITED- ROHQ VS CIR
316 EB 1818 April 29, 2019 CIR VS. CATERING PROFESSIONALS INC.
317 8696 April 29, 2019 !ZONE TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES VS CIR
318 EB 1755 April 22, 2019 CIR VS. PREMIUM TOBACCO REDRYING & FLUECURING CORP.
319 9153 April 15, 2019 MONZA SPV - AMC ("ASSET MANAGEMENT CO."), INC. VS CIR
320 9454 April 15, 2019 INTERGRAPH PROCESS & BUILDING SOLUTIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. CIR
321 EB 1797 April 15, 2019 TELSTAR MANUFACTURING COPRORATION VS. CIR
322 EB 1873 April 15, 2019 CIR VS. MEINAN PHILIPPINES, INC.
323 EB 1758 April 15, 2019 NEW COASTAL HOTEL, INC. VS. CIR
324 9320 April 12, 2019 TULLETE BREBON (PHILIPPINES) VS. CIR
325 9223 April 11, 2019 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY VS. CIR
326 9395 April 10, 2019 SM RESIDENCES CORP. VS CIR
327 9340 April 10, 2019 COLT COMMERCIAL INC. VS CIR
328 9570 April 08, 2019 BAP CREDIT BUREAU, INC. VS CIR
329 9396 April 08, 2019 SM DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS CIR
330 EB 1762 April 08, 2019 KODEC PRECISION, INC. VS CIR
331 EB 1761 April 08, 2019 HEDCOR, INC. VS CIR
332 EB 1750 April 05, 2019 CIR VS ISLAND QUARRY AND AGGREGATES CORP.
333 9255 April 04, 2019 NCR CEBU DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. VS CIR
334 EB CRIM-042 April 04, 2019 ZENAIDA N. VALENCIA, JENNIFER VALENCIA, GENEVIEVE OCHAVE, EDWAR
335 EB 1747 April 04, 2019 CIR VS SATURN HOLDINGS CORP.
336 Q-627 April 03, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS TERESA E. SISON
337 9087 April 03, 2019 MARIA DONA ALIBOSO et. al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
338 9239 April 02, 2019 AECOM PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
339 8783 March 28, 2019 LINDE PHILIPPINES INC. (formerly, CONSOLIDATED INUSTRIAL GASES INC
340 8896 March 26, 2019 THERMAPRIME WELL SERVICES, INC., v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNATION
341 EB 1686 March 25, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RITEGROUP INCORPORATED
342 EB 1728 March 25, 2019 ACTIVE MULTI-MARKETING MERCHANDISING SERVICES, INC., v. COMMIS
343 9550 March 25, 2019 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. INC., v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNATIONAL R
344 9471 March 18, 2019 FLUID SOLUTIONS, INC., v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNATIONAL REVENUE
345 EB 1765 March 14, 2019 MAIBARARA GEOTHERMAL, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
346 EB 1771 March 13, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. ARTURO E. VILLANUEVA,
347 EB 1689 March 13, 2019 HEDCOR SIBULAN, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
348 9617 March 11, 2019 WELLS FARGO ENTERPRISE GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC-PHILIPPINES, VERSUS,
349 9358 March 11, 2019 MAXIMA MACHINERIES, INC., VERSUS, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
350 8959 March 11, 2019 NORTHERN MINDANAO SALES CORPORATION, VERSUS, COMMISSIONER
351 EB 1852 March 08, 2019 Hon. KIM HENARES in her capacity a(s) Commissioner of Internal Revenu
352 5 March 07, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, -versus- ENGR. REYNALDO A. MATANGUIHA
353 9152 March 06, 2019 NORTHWIND POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, -versus- COMMISS
354 9287 March 06, 2019 HINATUAN MINING CORPORATION, -versus- COMMISIONER OF INTERNA
355 9019 March 05, 2019 BOSTIK PHILIPPINES, INC., -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
356 9322 March 04, 2019 SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
357 9119 March 04, 2019 MAIBARARA, GEOTHERMAL, INC., -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
358 EB 1700 February 28, 2019 ANTHONY ORTILE TUASON, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
359 O-212 February 26, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM R. VILLARICA
360 9291 February 21, 2019 ERMILO TAN NG HUA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
361 9305 February 21, 2019 SPOUSES MICHAEL GAVIN RICHARD L. DE LOS REYES AND JENNIFER C. CO
362 EB 1662 February 21, 2019 1MAPLE SALES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
363 EB 1693 February 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLARK WATER CORPORATION
364 O-606 February 20, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GENEROSA P. ORTEGA, LALAINE P. ORTEG
365 9392 February 20, 2019 MSCI HONG KONG LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
366 EB 1685 February 20, 2019 CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
367 9496 February 12, 2019 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE., L TD., v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
368 8735 February 12, 2019 ASIA UNITED LEASING & FINANCE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF I
369 EB 1733 February 11, 2019 HEDCOR, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
370 9199 February 08, 2019 FIRST PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
371 9156 February 08, 2019 RMJR GRAINS CENTER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
372 9017 February 07, 2019 TANDUAY DISTILLERS, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
373 EB 1701 February 07, 2019 ALARIC VIVENCIO C. DE ANDRES v. SPOUSES ATANACIO S. CRISTOBAL and
374 EB 1731 February 07, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
375 9211 February 06, 2019 KURIMOTO (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
376 9094 February 04, 2019 MA. CARMELA LOCSIN, ET AL., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
377 9434 February 04, 2019 FINANCIAL TIMES ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMI
378 8901 January 31, 2019 XYLEM WATER SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL (formerly GOULDS PUMPS [N.Y
379 EB 1697 January 31, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TRUSTMARK HOLDINGS CORP
380 EB 1664 January 31, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO., IN
381 9210 January 30, 2019 MAXIMA MACHINERIES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
382 9213 January 30, 2019 3M PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
383 8867 January 30, 2019 MANILAMEDICAL SERVICES, INC.(MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL), v. COM
384 EB-1673 January 30, 2019 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as The
385 AC-191 January 29, 2019 METRO PACIFIC TOLLWAYS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MAKATI CIT
386 EB-1589 January 29, 2019 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA CTA EB NO. 1589 LINDA N. TANJILI, in her
387 EB-1681 January 28, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. FILMINERA RESOURCES CORP
388 8984 January 25, 2019 FIRST BALFOUR, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
389 9273 January 24, 2019 ENJAY HOTELS, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
390 9100 January 24, 2019 AIG SHARED SERVICES CORPORATION (PHILIPPINES) v. COMMISIONER OF
391 EB-1738 January 24, 2019
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. HONDA CARS MAKATI, INC.,
392 EB 1644 January 23, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OCE HOLDING B.V.,
393 EB 1611 January 22, 2019 E. E. BLACK LTD. PHILIPPINE BRANCH, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
394 EB 1749 January 22, 2019 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N.TANJILI in her official
395 9298 January 21, 2019 AYALA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISION OF INTE
396 9399 January 21, 2019 ANAPI MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
397 8782 January 21, 2019 UNISPHERE INTERNATIONAL, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
398 EB 1656 January 21, 2019 ZUELLIG PHARMA ASIA PACIFIC LTD. PHILS. ROHQ, v. COMMISSIONER OF
399 EB 1743 January 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. PORT BARTON DEVELOPMEN
400 9349 January 18, 2019 HOTEL SPECIALIST (TAGAYTAY), INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
401 EB 1753 January 18, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. GIC PRIVATE LIMITED (FORM
402 EB 1682 January 18, 2019 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
403 O-287 January 17, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REX CHUA CO HO
404 9332 January 17, 2019 MCKINSEY & CO. PHILS VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
405 8730 January 17, 2019 HIGHLAND GAMING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
406 9148 January 17, 2019 IFC CAPITALIZATION (EQUITY) FUND, LP v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
407 EB 1581 January 17, 2019 COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by ATTY. MARIA NORINA S. TA
408 9134 January 15, 2019 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
409 EB 1708 January 15, 2019 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as City
410 EB 1729 January 15, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. 2100 CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC
411 9442 January 14, 2019 ONCHO PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
412 9539 January 14, 2019 COLT COMMERCIAL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
413 EB 1691 January 14, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SONOMA SERVICES, INC.
414 8961 January 08, 2019 SECURITIES TRANSFER SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
415 9016 January 08, 2019 METRORAIL TRANSIT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
416 9299 January 08, 2019 IRISH FE N. AGUILAR, RUTH C. MANGROBANG v. HONORABLE KIM S. JACI
417 O-241 January 08, 2019 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTO C. LIGOT AND ERLINDA Y. LIGOT
418 EB 1667 January 07, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MT. BLANC MOTORS, INC.
419 9362 January 04, 2019 WHOLESOME FOODS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
420 9301 January 04, 2019 MARKETING CONVERGENCE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
421 EB 1580 January 04, 2019 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as City
422 EB 1657 January 04, 2019 CITY OF QUEZON, represented by its Mayor, HERBERT M. BAUTISTA and R
423 EB 1714 January 04, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FREELIFE PHILIPPINES DISTRIB
424 EB 1678 January 03, 2019 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRIME STEEL MILL, INCORPOR
425 EB 1705 December 21, 2018 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as City
426 EB 1703 December 19, 2018 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as City
427 9001 December 18, 2018 RCBC SAVINGS BANK, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
428 8914 December 18, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PETRON CORPORATION
429 9202 December 18, 2018 NORTHWIND POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER
430 9167 December 17, 2018 MSEI CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
431 9356 December 18, 2018 COLT COMMERCIAL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
432 EB CRIM-045 December 12, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERT SIA AND JOHN KENNETH L. OCAM
433 9166 December 11, 2018 M. TECH PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
434 9331 December 11, 2018 ROBINSONS DIVERSIFIED CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
435 9149 December 06, 2018 PERPETUAL SUCCOUR HOSPITAL OF CEBU, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
436 9369 December 06, 2018 TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
437 9424 December 06, 2018 LEVEL UP, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
438 EB 1674 December 06, 2018 EDZEN JOGIE B. GARCIA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
439 O-454 December 05, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARNEL CORTEZ MANALOTO, 64B Sto. Enti
440 9162 December 05, 2018 NORTHWIND POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER
441 9342 November 27, 2018 GARDENS BY SANDERS, INC. (GBSI) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
442 9765 November 23, 2018 VICTOR Z. MANLAPAZ, and MARIA CZARINA OLIVEROS MANLAPAZ v. COM
443 EB 1666 November 23, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PPI PRIME VENTURE, INC.
444 9276 November 20, 2018 HEDCOR SABANGAN, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
445 EB 1668 November 20, 2018 THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION
446 EB 1636 November 20, 2018 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as The
447 EB 1679 November 19, 2018 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
448 EB 1612 November 15, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL P
449 9258 November 14, 2018 PENTA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
450 AC-190 November 14, 2018 CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY TREASURER, M
451 9288 November 14, 2018 SAN MIGUEL PAPER PACKAGING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
452 8952 November 14, 2018 CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
453 9253 November 14, 2018 SR METALS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
454 EB 1713 November 13, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINIUM REALTY & CONST
455 EB 1440 November 13, 2018 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF
456 EB 1646 November 13, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA J. CRUZ and JOCELYN
457 9364 November 12, 2018 JOYFOODS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
458 9168 November 08, 2018 TRAVELLERS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP INC v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
459 OC-020 November 08, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. RYAN NEIL ERASMO ALVEZ
460 8907 November 06, 2018 MANILA MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. (MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL) v. COMM
461 EB 1616 November 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOTAL (PHILIPPINES) CORPOR
462 9180 November 06, 2018 MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES PTY LTD.-PHILIPPINE BRANCH v. COMM
463 8993 November 05, 2018 FIRST PHILIPPINE UTILITIES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
464 EB 1655 October 29, 2018 JEANE CATHERINE NAPOLES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
465 9051 October 25, 2018 SOLID VIDEO CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
466 EB 1603 October 25, 2018 TOTAL (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
467 O-594 October 24, 2020 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vDAVID DE LEON AND ANN MARIE DE LE
468 AC-200 October 22, 2018 CITY GOVERNMENT OF BALANGA, BATAAN, and JOSELITO R. EVANGELISTA
469 9554 October 22, 2018 MT ALPINE MAGNOLIAvCOMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND D
470 9311 October 18, 2018 LIBERTY TELECOMS HOLDINGS, INC v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
471 9449 October 18, 2018 HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE LIMITED PHILIPPINE BRANCH v COMMISSION
472 EB 1651 October 19, 2018 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
473 9297 October 19, 2018 MITSUBA PHILS. TECHNICAL CENTER CORP COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
474 9006 October 19, 2018 CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY, INC. V COMMISSIONER O
475 8909 October 19, 2018 FAR EAST SEAFOOD, INC V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
476 9224 October 17, 2018 BENCHMARK MARKETING CORP V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
477 EB 1740 October 17, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SIN
478 AC-196 October 17, 2018 SOUTH CHINA RESOURCES, (NOW KNOWN AS "SOCRESOURCES, INC.") V
479 EB 1724 October 11, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
480 EB 1629 October 11, 2018 NANOX PHILIPPINES, INC. V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
481 EB 1730 October 11, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.,
482 EB 1638 October 11, 2018 MCDONALD'S PHILIPPINES REALTY CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF
483 AC-198 October 11, 2018 THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA V SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINE
484 EB 1684 October 10, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V BELLE CORPORATION
485 EB 1577 October 09, 2018 WILLORE PHARMA CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
486 EB 1671 October 08, 2018 SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V THE MUNICIPALITY OF JONES, ISABEL
487 9323 October 05, 2018 SANOFI-A VENTIS PHILIPPINES, INC. V COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
488 EB 1608 October 05, 2018 CLARK WATER CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
489 8615 October 04, 2018 AIG SHARED SERVICES CORPORATION (PHILIPPINES) (FORMERLY CHARTIS
490 8863 October 04, 2018 TOP DRAW ANIMATION, INC. V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
491 9509 October 04, 2018 TECHNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V COMMISSI
492 9190 October 02, 2018 TRINITY FRANCHISING AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION V THE COMM
493 EB 1588 October 02, 2018 MCKINSEY & CO. (PHILS.) V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
494 EB 1598 October 02, 2018 AVON PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC. V THE COMMISSIONER OF INT
495 9124 October 01, 2018 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
496 EB 1618 October 01, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND
497 8933 October 01, 2018 LANCASTER COLORS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
498 8786 09/28/2018 MAX'S STA. MESA INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
499 9078 09/28/2018 TRANS-ASIA OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS COMMISSIONER
500 9262 09/28/2018 AYALA LAND INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
501 9384 09/28/2018 MAJELLA R. CANZON, HELEN B. CRUDA, VS. HONORABLE CAESAR R. DULA
502 O-336 September 26, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CORAZON C. GERNALE
503 O-546 09/26/2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENEDICTO P. GUIMBAL
504 9083 09/25/2018 MARIA LORENA DINO ET. AL.. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
505 EB 1601 09/20/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. MACARIO LIM GAW, JR.,
506 EB CRIM-037 09/19/2018 JAIME G. NAPOLES VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF INTE
507 EB 1641 09/19/2018 HEDCOR SIBULAN, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
508 EB 1772 09/19/2018 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC.. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
509 EB 1688 09/19/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINE
510 EB 1578 09/18/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. BLOAT AND OGLE INC.
511 EB 1563 09/18/2018 ICONIC BEVERAGES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
512 EB 1654 09/17/2018 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as The
513 EB CRIM-047 September 17, 2018 FELONILA Z. CALUAG, VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
514 9093 09/17/2018 LEAH EMPESANDO, ET. AL. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
515 8941 July 09, 2018 SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
516 8941 July 09, 2018 SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
517 9521 June 09, 2018 RS DE VERA TRUCKING, represented by ROGELIO S. DE VERA VS COMMIS
518 O-345 May 09, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FELONILA Z. CALUAG
519 EB 1659 April 09, 2018 FIRST PHILIPPINE UTILITIES CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
520 9101 April 09, 2018 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INT
521 EB 1625 March 09, 2018 FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
522 AC-177 09/18/2018 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) VS.
523 9259 08/31/2018 MANILA GENESIS ENTERTAINMENT & MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. HON. KIM
524 9151 08/31/2018 UNIVERSAL PACIFIC FOOD CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTO
525 9437 08/31/2018 Y & R PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
526 9235 08/28/2018 POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION V
527 EB 1622 08/23/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION
528 8660 08/22/2018 UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
529 EB 1642 08/22/2018 ONE NETWORK BANK, INC. (A RURAL BANK) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
530 EB 1640 08/20/2018 AP HOLDINGS, INC. VS. CITY OF DAVAO AND HON. RODRIGO S. RIOLA
531 9344 08/17/2018 RIOFIL CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
532 9345 08/17/2018 MEGABUCKS MERCHANDISING CORP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
533 9127 08/17/2018 PROCESS MACHINERY CO., INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
534 EB 1585 08/17/2018 NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
535 EB 1634 08/17/2018 CITY OF DAVAO AND BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI VS. AP HOLDINGS, INC.
536 9249 08/15/2018 SONOMA SERVICES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
537 9105 08/15/2018 FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
538 9058 08/15/2018 PHILIPPINE SECURITIES SETTLEMENT CORP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
539 EB 1639 08/14/2018 CITY OF DAVAO AND BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI VS. VALHALLA PROPERTIES
540 EB 1652 08/14/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPOR
541 EB 1632 08/14/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. FRESH N' FAMOUS FOODS, I
542 EB 1645 08/14/2018 PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING AND REFINING CORP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF IN
543 EB 1620 08/14/2018 FCF MINERALS CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
544 9089 August 10, 2018 SHENILYN ABALOS ET. AL.. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
545 9135 October 08, 2018 HARD ROCK CAFÉ (MAKATI CITY), INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
546 AC-183 September 08, 2018 THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLAVER VS. PLATI
547 9091 June 08, 2018 ERWIN CASACLANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (RDO 41
548 8968 March 08, 2018 PHILIPPINE MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC. VS. COMMISSIO
549 9179 February 08, 2018 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
550 9122 January 08, 2018 MIFFI LOGISTICS CO., INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
551 EB 1573 January 08, 2018 HARTE-HANKS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
552 EB 1614 07/31/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. BPI CAPITAL CORPORATION
553 9176 07/30/2018 LOADSTAR INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
554 9133 07/27/2018 SEMIRARA MINING AND POWER CORPORATION VS. THE COMMISSIONER
555 9272 07/27/2018 SOUTH LUZON TOLLWAY CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
556 9104 07/27/2018 PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INT
557 9494 07/26/2018 MTI ADVANCED TEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER
558 9279 December 07, 2018 HARD ROCK CAFÉ (MAKATI CITY), INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
559 9279 July 12, 2018 HARD ROCK CAFE (MAKATI CITY) INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
560 9363 October 07, 2018 FRANKFORT, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
561 9263 June 07, 2018 PHILIPPINE POWER MC DISTRIBUTION, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
562 4 May 07, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GENOVEVA S. SUAREZ
563 EB 1566 April 07, 2018 GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
564 EB 1566 April 07, 2018 THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND THE COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS V JADE B
565 9102 February 07, 2018 CITCO INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED - PHILIPPINE ROHQ C
566 AC-184 February 07, 2018 METRO PACIFIC ASSETSHOLDINGS, INC. , VS. MAKATI CITY AND THEINCUM
567 8911 06/28/2018 DGA ILIJAN B.V., v. COMMISSIONER OFI NTERNAL REVENUE,
568 8820 06/21/2018 ONE WORLD CONNECTIONS, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
569 9318 06/20/2018 PARITY PACKAGINGCORPORATION, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREV
570 EB 1607 06/20/2018 FIRST MERIDIANDEVELOPMENT, INC., v CITY OF DAVAO and HON.RODRIG
571 7863 06/19/2018 PILIPINAS TOTAL GAS, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
572 9013 06/14/2018 DAVAO CITY FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
573 EB 1499 06/14/2018 PETRON CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE, COM
574 9177 06/13/2018 TRINITY FRANCHISING AND MANAGEMENTCORPORATION vs. THE COMM
575 EB 1476 November 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. AA COMMERCIAL
576 EB 1404 November 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. TAGANITO MINING CORPOR
577 EB 1559 August 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. LUDO & LUYM CORPORATIO
578 EB 1569 July 06, 2018 NIKKEN PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
579 9181 June 06, 2018 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC. vs. COMMISSIONER
580 188 June 06, 2018 CORULLON HOLDINGS, INC. VS. MAKATI CITY TREASURER AND MAKATI CI
581 9401 May 06, 2018 SAN MIGUEL HOLDINGSCORP. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
582 EB 1584 April 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED M
583 AC-179 January 06, 2018 METRO PACIFIC HOLDINGS, INC. VS. MAKATI CITY AND NELIA A. BARLIS
584 EB 1582 January 06, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. DOHLE SHIPMANAGEMENT
585 EB 1562 January 06, 2018 SOLID-ONE MILLS, PHILS.,INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
586 AC-180 05/29/2018 NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY,Represented by the Director of itsLegal Affa
587 EB 1712 05/29/2018 EHS LENS PHILIPPINES, INC.(formerly HOYA LENSMANUFACTURING PHILIP
588 9125 05/29/2018 STRADCOM CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
589 9025 05/23/2018 ZUELLIG PHARMA ASIAPACIFIC LTD. PHILS. ROHQ vs. COMMISSIONER OF
590 8764 05/23/2018 PHILMAY PROPERTY,INCORPORATED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
591 O-379 May 21, 2018 PP VS MAXIMO HERNANDEZ y MANIEGO
592 9063 May 22, 2018 UPS-DELBROS TRANSPORT INC. VS CCIR
593 EB 1498 May 22, 2018 CIR VS ENJAY HOTELS, INC
594 EB 1545 May 22, 2018 CIR VS AIR CORPORATION
595 8926 May 21, 2018 DEDONG MANUFACTURING, INC VS CIR
596 EB 1537 May 21, 2018 CIR VS AIR PHILIPPINE CORPORATION
597 8580 May 18, 2018 MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES VS CIR
598 9045 May 18, 2018 MCC TRANSPORT SINGAPORE LTD VS CIR
599 EB 1604 May 17, 2018 GREENHILLS PROPERTIES VS CIR
600 EB 1568 May 17, 2018 ASC INVESTORS INC VS CITY OF DAVAO
601 EB 1418 May 17, 2018 CIR VS CCORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION
602 9256 May 15, 2018 SR METALS INCORPORATED VS CIR
603 9036 May 10, 2018 MARY SUSAN FROTICH VS MYRNA LEONIDA
604 EB 1505 May 10, 2018 LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT VS CENTRAL BOARD
605 8752 May 09, 2018 AGC FLAT GLASS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
606 8791 May 09, 2018 PHILLIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC. v. COMMISSIONER
607 9382 May 09, 2018 VESTA SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
608 AC-187 May 09, 2018 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKA
609 9355 May 08, 2018 DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENU
610 9123 May 07, 2018 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER
611 EB 1613 May 07, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SWIFT FOODS , INC.
612 8971 May 07, 2018 AECOM PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
613 9115 May 07, 2018 B.W. SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
614 9286 May 03, 2018 CLARK WATER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
615 EB 1630 May 03, 2018 COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BAHAY BONDS 2 SPECIAL PURP
616 9109 April 26, 2018 YUSEN LOGISTICS CENTER, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
617 EB 1702 April 25, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PREMIUM LEISURE CORP. (FO
618 EB 1615 April 25, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
619 9068 April 19, 2018 BONIFACIO LAND CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
620 9542 April 18, 2018 BATINO REALTY CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
621 8970 April 18, 2018 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
622 EB 1556 April 18, 2018 SORIANO SHARES, INC. v. CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S, RIOLA in
623 9252 April 17, 2018 MACINTER, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
624 8765 April 17, 2018 GRANDWORTH RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
625 9011 April 13, 2018 DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
626 EB 1539 April 11, 2018 COMPOSITE MATERIALS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
627 EB 1628 April 10, 2018 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA T. TANJILI v. SAN MIGUEL OFFICERS CO
628 EB 1484 April 10, 2018 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
629 9225 April 06, 2018 ALPHA 245 INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
630 9292 April 06, 2018 PHILIPPINE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONE
631 EB 1532 April 05, 2018 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
632 O-424 April 04, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FERDINAND P. MAHUSAY
633 9335 April 03, 2018 UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly, NISSAN MOTOR PHILIPP
634 9270 October 11, 2019 COLT COMMERCIAL INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
635 9228 April 03, 2018 PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC vs. COMMISSIONER O
636 EB 1426 April 03, 2018 TYCO INFORMATION SOLUTIONS CORP vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENU
637 EB 1565 April 03, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE, REVENUE DISTRICTOFFICER (RDO
638 EB 1525 April 02, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PHILEX MINING CORPORATIO
639 EB 1548 April 02, 2018 MARUBENI PHILIPPINES CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
640 EB 1553 April 02, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPI
641 EB 1594 April 02, 2018 JOWELLES AUTOPARTS INC vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
642 8936 March 27, 2018 MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES PTY. LTD.PHILIPPINE BRANCH vs. COM
643 9090 March 27, 2018 LICEL CALDERON, ET.AL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
644 9022 March 26, 2018 NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
645 8995 March 22, 2018 OCEANAGOLD PHILIPPINES INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
646 EB 1549 March 22, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SER
647 9048 March 21, 2018 PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMALPRODUCTION COMPANY INC vs. COMMISSIONE
648 EB 1575 March 21, 2018 THE ARISTOCRAT FRANCHISE CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INT
649 EB 1610 March 21, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. MINDANAO SANITARIUM AN
650 EB 1449 March 21, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. G & W ARCHITECTS, ENGINEE
651 EB 1508 March 21, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC
652 O-247 March 21, 2018 JUAN MIGUEL M. ARROYO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
653 8945 March 20, 2018 UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
654 AC-170 March 20, 2018 UCPB FINANCE (ULFC) vs. CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY and GLENN C. BANEZ
655 8837 October 08, 2018 GS MTE GRAINS CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
656 8397 March 19, 2018 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SYSTEM ADMIN vs. COMMISSIONER OF
657 8915 March 19, 2018 PANGASINAN III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INT
658 EB 1649 September 25, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. FILMINERA RESOURCES CORP
659 8977 March 19, 2018 ADVANCED WORLD SYSTEMS, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
660 AC-182 March 14, 2018 DESTINY CABLE, INC vs. THE CITY OF MAKATI AND HON. NELIA A. BARLIS,
661 8946 March 14, 2018 CHEVRON HOLDINGS vs.CCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
662 EB 1501 March 13, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. ABB, INC
663 EB 1560 March 13, 2018 MEDTECS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER O
664 O-522 March 12, 2018 KINGSAM EXPRESS INCORPORATION and SAMUELS. SANTOS vs. PEOPLE O
665 9372 March 07, 2018 BISAZZA PHILIPPINES, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
666 EB 1523 March 07, 2018 ROCA SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC vs. COMMISSIONER O
667 EB 1515 March 07, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. LINDE PHILIPPINES, INC. DEL
668 9330 March 05, 2018 CHRISTIAN OLIVER C. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
669 EB 1507 March 01, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. INTERVET PHILIPPINES, INC
670 EB 1522 February 28, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. LUCIO L. CO, SUSAN P. CO, FE
671 9337 February 27, 2018 SOUTH PREMIER POWER CORP. VS. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
672 9488 February 27, 2018 UNLIMITED EXCHANGE GLOBAL CORP. (UNEX) represented by Charles Ta
673 EB 1459 February 27, 2018 NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CENTRAL BOARD
674 EB 1572 February 23, 2018 COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. G&W ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS
675 EB 1591 February 20, 2018 CITY OF DAVAO AND BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY A
676 EB 1540 February 20, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES PROPERT
677 9080 February 20, 2018 HEDCOR SIBULAN INC. v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
678 EB 1542 February 19, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS CORPORATION
679 EB 1596 February 19, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVIC
680 EB 1486 February 19, 2018 PNOC DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIO
681 8833 February 15, 2018 TRIDHARMA MARKETING CORPORATION, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
682 8678 February 15, 2018 SABRE TRAVEL NETWORK(PILIPPINES), INC.,(formerly ABACUS DISTRIBUT
683 8555 February 14, 2018 TEKTITE INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
684 EB 1438 February 14, 2018 BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
685 8998 February 14, 2018 ALE MART CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
686 EB 1465 February 14, 2018 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI, THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CI
687 9024 February 13, 2018 AYALA CORPORATION v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
688 EB 1513 February 12, 2018 HIMLAYANG PILIPINO PLANS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
689 EB 1555 February 12, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FLUOR DANIEL, INC.-PHILIPPIN
690 9046 February 12, 2018 SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (as surviving corporation in a merger involving
691 EB 1530 February 09, 2018 THE CITY OF MAKATI AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CITY v. METR
692 EB 1558 February 08, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHINA STATE PHILIPPINES CO
693 9205 February 06, 2018 COLT COMMERCIAL, INC. v. THE COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE
694 9107 February 06, 2018 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
695 9021 February 05, 2018 CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
696 9056 February 05, 2018 ARDCI NGO GROUP, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OFINTERNAL REVENUE,
697 8904 February 02, 2018 SPLASH CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE,
698 8853 February 02, 2018 8199 CONVENIENCE CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
699 9221 February 02, 2018 SAN MIGUEL ENERGY CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREV
700 9189 February 01, 2018 NUBE STORAGE SYSTEMS,INC v. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated:INTERN
701 EB 1534 February 01, 2018 COMMISIONER OF INTERNATIONAL REVENUE v.. SONY MOBILE COMMU
702 EB 1479 February 01, 2018 PETNET, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
703 EB 1599 January 31, 2018 PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING & REFINING CORP., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
704 EB 1624 January 31, 2018 CIR v. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED
705 9127 January 30, 2018 RIO TUBA NICKEL MINING CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
706 EB 1412 January 30, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VS ICONIC BEVERAGES, INC.,
707 9032 January 24, 2018 MITSUBA PHILS. TECHNICAL CENTER CORP., -versusCOMMISSIONER OF IN
708 8932 January 24, 2018 LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, -versus COMMISSIONER OF INTER
709 EB 1521 January 24, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 1521 INTERNAL REVENUE, v. MISSOURI S
710 8790 January 18, 2018 CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
711 8839 January 18, 2018 MEINAN PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
712 O-445 January 17, 2018 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, v. MAILA LAXAMANA Y BALUYOT,
713 8746 January 17, 2018 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
714 EB 1536 January 17, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING & R
715 EB 1544 January 17, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TEKTITE INSURANCE BROKERS
716 9169 January 12, 2018 ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL R
717 EB 1695 January 12, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SPOUSES EDUARDO X. GENA T
718 9106 January 11, 2018 CEBU AIR, INC v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
719 EB 1490 January 11, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASIAN NAVIGATION ANDTRAC
720 9079 January 09, 2018 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE. L TO., v. COMMISSIONER OF INT
721 9108 January 09, 2018 SURIGAO MICRO CREDIT CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTER
722 9002 January 05, 2018 IBEX PHILIPPINES INC. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
723 9076 January 05, 2018 KEANSBURG MARKETING CORPORATION, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INT
724 8664 January 05, 2018 DRUGMAKER'S BIOTECH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.v. THE COMMIS
725 EB 1471 January 04, 2018 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES INC VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
726 EB 1535 January 04, 2018 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v MCDONALD'S PHILIPPINES REA
727 EB 1502 January 04, 2018 ASIA RENAL CARE PHILS., INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
728 8921 January 03, 2018 M.E.T.R.O. INCORPORATED V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
729 8924 January 03, 2018 FIRST SUMIDEN CIRCUITS, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
730 9003 January 03, 2018 KABALIKAT PARA SA MAUNLAD NA BUHAY, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF IN
731 9077 January 03, 2018 MOOG CONTROLS CORPORATION -PHILIPPINE BRANCH v. COMMISSION
732 AC-164 December 27, 2017 DIGITEL MOBILE PHILIPPINES, INC v THE CITY GOVERNMENT, THE CITY TR
733 EB 1324 December 20, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER M. CA
734 EB 1451 December 19, 2017 DANILO G. GALANG, doing business under the name and style of ST. HILD
735 EB 1590 December 18, 2017 CITY OF DAVAO and BELLA LINDA N. TANJILI in her official capacity as The
736 AC-171 December 18, 2017 CITY OF MANILA VS SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
737 EB 1463 December 15, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V MID-LAND QC REALTY CORPO
738 EB 1519 December 15, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPO
739 EB 1374 December 15, 2017 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, PTE. LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INTER
740 9066 December 14, 2017 LKY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., V HON. KIM HENARES in her capacity as C
741 9136 December 12, 2017 DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION V BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENU
742 EB 1477 December 12, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V GIC PRIVATE LIMITED
743 EB 1177 December 12, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON IN
744 O-370 December 11, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v TAHA CALI, MARGARITA SANTIAGO, MARIA
745 AC-167 December 11, 2017 THE CITY OF MAKATI V THE CITY TREASURER AND THE CITY GOVERNMEN
746 8964 December 11, 2017 HEDCOR, INC V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
747 8951 December 08, 2017 SARTORIOUS AKETIENGESELLSCHAFT v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
748 EB 1460 December 07, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V PHIL. GOLD PROCESSING & RE
749 9023 December 07, 2017 GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
750 EB 1467 December 06, 2017 BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v COMMISSIONER
751 8942 December 06, 2017 FITNESS FIRST PHILIPPINES, INC v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
752 AC-168 December 06, 2017 CITY GOVERNMENT OF CAGAYAN DE ORO v CAGAYAN ELECTRIC POWER
753 O-380 December 06, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v UGNAYANG MAGBUBUKID NG SAN ISIDRO
754 8659 December 05, 2017 FEATI UNIVERSITY, INC v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
755 EB 1531 December 05, 2017 FERNANDEZ HOLDINGS, INC., v CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S. RIO
756 EB 1464 December 04, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v HONDA CARS MAKATI, INC.
757 9008 December 01, 2017 TAISEI PHILIPPINES CONSTRUCTION, INC v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
758 9073 December 01, 2017 AGUILAR v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
759 9314 November 28, 2017 ADMORLINA L. FONTEJON v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
760 8852 11/28/2017 CATERING PROFESSIONALS INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
761 9234 11/28/2017 VESTA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVEN
762 8869 11/27/2017 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
763 9086 11/27/2017 WELLFORM TRADINGCORPORATION v. COMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
764 8804 11/23/2017 CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
765 EB 1469 11/22/2017 MD EXPRESS MANILA, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
766 AC-174 11/21/2017 METRO PACIFIC RESOURCES,INC. (Formerly: Cypress HarbourProperties, I
767 9037 11/21/2017 NETREPRENEUR CONNECTIONSENTERPRISES, INC. VS COMMISSONER OF
768 9110 11/17/2017 COLT COMMERCIALINC., VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
769 9015 11/17/2017 MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRES (PHILIPPINES) LTD VS COMMISSIONE
770 8829 11/17/2017 DAEWOO ENGINEERING &CONSTRUCTION COMPANYLIMITED VS COMMI
771 EB 1381 11/17/2017 CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY, INC., v. THE PROVINCIAL
772 EB 1473 11/17/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.. HOYA GLASS DISK PHILIPPINE
773 EB 1551 11/17/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.. ITHIEL CORPORATION
774 8844 11/16/2017 ROYAL CLASS TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION v.COMMISSIONE
775 EB 1461 11/16/2017 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
776 EB 1510 11/16/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS CE CASECNAN WATER AND EN
777 EB 1441 11/16/2017 FSM CINEMAS, INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
778 EB 1380 11/16/2017 CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY COMPANY, INC., v. THE PROVINCE O
779 8988 March 11, 2017 GREEN VALLEY MARKETING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
780 O-309 March 11, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VSPAULIASI MATEAKI TAULAVA
781 8834 March 11, 2017 CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
782 8966 March 11, 2017 BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COMMISSIONER
783 8879 March 11, 2017 FOSECO PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
784 8824 March 11, 2017 SPARKLAND REALTY INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE KIM
785 8903 March 11, 2017 TEKTITE INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
786 8969 March 11, 2017 TRUMP MARKS PHILIPPINES LLC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
787 AC-173 March 11, 2017 TEAM SUAL CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN AND MARILOU
788 9092 March 11, 2017 HINATUAN MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
789 9111 October 26, 2017 PETRON CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
790 9240 October 26, 2017 CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
791 9144 October 25, 2017 GE CONSUMER FINANCE INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
792 EB 1520 October 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TOENEC PHILIPPINES INC.
793 EB 1583 October 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. NEXT MOBILE INC.
794 EB 1470 October 20, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ESPER R. VARGAS, JR.
795 9088 October 19, 2017 SPOUSES MICHAEL GAVINRICHARD L. DE LOS REYES AND JENNIFER C. CO
796 EB 1446 October 19, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SPOUSES JOSEPH EJERCITO ES
797 EB 1403 October 19, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ACE/SAATCHI & SAATCHI ADV
798 EB 1466 October 19, 2017 FILMINERA RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
799 EB 1456 October 18, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION
800 EB 1376 October 18, 2017 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
801 EB 1433 October 18, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
802 8917 October 13, 2017 TAGUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSION
803 8934 October 11, 2017 MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRES (PHILIPPINES) LTD. V. THE COMMISSI
804 8793 October 10, 2017 PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
804 8793 October 10, 2017 PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v CIR
805 8574 October 10, 2017 WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
806 8876 October 10, 2017 NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
807 EB 1483 October 09, 2017 AMADEUS MARKETING PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
808 8931 October 03, 2017 HEDCOR, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
809 EB 1489 October 03, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINE
810 9055 October 03, 2017 ZUELLIG PHARMA ASIA PACIFIC PHILS., ROHQ V. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
811 EB 1407 September 28, 2017 TRANS PACIFIC AIR SERVICE CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
812 EB 1480 September 28, 2017 SMARTMATIC-TIM CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
813 EB 1411 September 28, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. AXIA POWER HOLDINGS PHIL
814 EB 1431 September 28, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. PERCEPTION GAMING, INC.
815 9027 September 22, 2017 UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY NISSAN MOTOR PHILI
816 AC-172 September 20, 2017 MAKATI CITY AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI CITY V. METRO PACIF
817 9137 September 20, 2017 SENECA TOBACCO PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
818 8065 September 20, 2017 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
819 O-133 September 20, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JEFFREY TAN KING ET AL.
820 8956 September 19, 2017 OPULENT LANDOWNERS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
821 9146 September 19, 2017 NEW COAST HOTEL V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
822 8928 September 19, 2017 LEPANTO MINING COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
823 EB 1506 September 19, 2017 MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICES CENTRES (PHILIPPINES) LTD. V. COMMISSION
824 8825 September 19, 2017 PARITY PACKAGING CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
825 9004 September 18, 2017 ZMG WARD HOWELL, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
826 EB 1454 September 18, 2017 R.A. OBEN HOLDINGS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
827 EB 1514 September 18, 2017 MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES PTY LTD. - PHILIPPINE BRANCH V. COM
828 EB 1442 September 18, 2017 AYALA CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
829 EB 1478 September 15, 2017 TULAY SA PAG-UNLAD, INC (TSPI) V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
830 8927 September 15, 2017 MINDANAO SANITARIUM AND HOSPITAL INC. V. COMMISSION OF INTERN
831 8726 September 14, 2017 WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V. CO
832 EB 1400 September 13, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AN
833 EB 1472 September 13, 2017 DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
834 8664 September 13, 2017 GREAT HOLIDAY ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC. (NOW MERGED WITH N
835 8849 September 13, 2017 IBEX PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY TRG PHILIPPINES, INC.) V. COMMISSIONER
836 EB CRIM-038 September 08, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOEL C. MENDEZ
837 9065 September 06, 2017 NES GLOBAL TALENT LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
838 EB 1450 September 06, 2017 UNISYS PHILIPPINES LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OR INTERNAL REVENUE
839 O-330 September 06, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELONILA Z. CALUAG
840 8810 September 05, 2017 BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS V. COMMISSIONER OR INTERNAL REVEN
841 8801 September 05, 2017 ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
842 EB 1468 September 05, 2017 QATAR AIRWAYS COMPANY WITH LIMITED LIABILITY v. COMMISSIONER
843 EB 1392 September 05, 2017 NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION PHILIPPINES v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSE
844 8979 September 05, 2017 DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
845 8895 August 31, 2017 PACIFICHUB CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
846 8963 August 31, 2017 UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
847 O-251 August 30, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMULO L. NERI
848 EB 1347 August 30, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC v. CIR and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
849 EB 1516 August 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE AEROSPACE DEVE
850 8874 August 18, 2017 SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB v. COMMISSIONE
851 8900 August 18, 2017 TELSTAR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
852 8955 August 18, 2017 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
853 9010 August 18, 2017 BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS V. COMMISSIONER OR INTERNAL REVEN
855 9085 August 18, 2017 SATURN HOLDINGS INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
856 8935 August 18, 2017 ARTURO E. VILLANUEVA JR. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
857 EB-1504 August 18, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. KEP (PHILIPPINES) REALTY CO
858 EB-1424 August 17, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INETERNAL REVENUE VS. LA SALLE LIPA INC.
859 8862 August 16, 2017 NORKIS TRADING COMPANY, INC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
860 8738 August 16, 2017 SUGAR CRAFT S, INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
861 EB-1524 August 16, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. HOYA GLASS DISK PHILIPPIN
862 EB-1543 August 16, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPOR
863 O-267 August 16, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MERLINDA MARTIN
864 EB-1314 August 05, 2017 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
865 9493 January 17, 2019 CALUMPIT WATER DISTRICT VS. COMMSSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
866 8082 & 8106 August 09, 2017 MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
867 9103 August 07, 2017 TRAVEL WAREHOUSE, INC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
868 8623 August 04, 2017 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTE
869 EB-1481 August 04, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. RCD REALTY MARKETING CO
870 8809 August 04, 2017 YI WINE CLUB, INC VS. COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE
871 8854 August 04, 2017 MY SOLID TECHNOLOGIES & DEVICES CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER
872 EB-1492 August 04, 2017 IP CONTACT CENTER OUTSOURCING, INC. VS. HO. KIM S. JACINTO-HENAR
873 EB-1355 August 04, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INETERNAL REVENUE VS. NICKLE ASIA CORPORATION
874 8877 August 03, 2017 VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINE, INC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
875 8768 August 03, 2017 EMERSON ELECTRIC (ASIA) LIMITED- ROHO VS COMMISSIONER OF INTER
876 8830 August 03, 2017 EDS MANUFACTURING, INC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
877 9031 August 02, 2017 RIOFIL CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
878 8871 August
MAIBARARA
02, 2017 GEOTHERMAL, INC., v. COMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
879 8990 August 01, 2017 HEDCOR SIBULAN, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
880 EB 1462 August 01, 2017 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER of
881 8912 July 25, 2017 PERPETUAL SUCCOUR HOSPITAL OF CEBU, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF RE
882 EB 1503 July 25, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. ESTATE OF MA. ROSARIO S. CA
883 8857 July 25, 2017 NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
884 9145 July 24, 2017 CENTURY PEAK PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and KINGSVILLE INTERNA
885 9261 July 24, 2017 KEPCO lUJAN CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
886 EB 1444 July 24, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. YUKON GENERAL MANPOWER
887 8490 July 20, 2017 PORT BARTON DEVELOPMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
888 8678 July 19, 2017 ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS PHILS., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
889 EB CRIM-036 July 19, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OFELIA B. MIRANDILLA,
890 O-104 July 19, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERT SIA and JOHN KENNETH L. OCAM
891 AC-175 July 18, 2017 CRISTETA M. ESTEBAN in her capacity as MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF NOR
892 8897 July 18, 2017 PREMIUM TOBACCO REDRYING AND FLUECURING CORPORATION v. COM
893 8143 July 17, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
894 9099 July 17, 2017 CONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
895 EB 1410 July 11, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FORT BONIFACIO
896 8875 July 11, 2017 Hedcor, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
897 8861 July 10, 2017 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE., LTO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTE
898 9096 July 07, 2017 ROWENA VICENTE ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
899 EB 1406 July 07, 2017 PHILAM PROPERTIES CORPORATION v. OMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
900 EB 1335 July 07, 2017 ACTORY AUTOMATION AND INSTRUMENTATION CORP. v. COMMISSION
901 EB 1315 July 07, 2017 PERCEPTION GAMING, INC., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
902 EB 1547 July 05, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANULIFE DATA SERVICES IN
903 8646 July 03, 2017 JVC (PHILIPPINES), INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
904 O-394 June 28, 2017 PP V NEIL BAUTISTA
905 EB 1428 June 28, 2017 CITY OF MAKATI VS CITYLAND
906 O-282 June 28, 2017 PP VS MOISES RODRIGUEZ
907 8806 June 27, 2017 HONDA CARS MAKATI VS CIR
908 8836 June 23, 2017 LIFEBANK FOUNDATION VS CIR
909 EB 1435 June 23, 2017 CIR VS Q-CLEAN LIVING
910 8880 June 22, 2017 SALCEDO RESTORANTE VS CIR
911 8965 June 22, 2017 GIC PRIVATE LIMITED VS CIR
912 EB 1365 June 22, 2017 CIR VS LBC EXPRESS
913 EB 1413 June 22, 2017 CIR VS DEREK ARTHUR RAMSAY
914 8710 June 19, 2017 ISLAND QUARRY AND AGGREGATES VS CIR
915 O-273 June 14, 2017 PP VS ANTONIO TALAUE
916 8450 June 09, 2017 TOLEDO POWER CCOMPANY VS CIR
917 8748 June 09, 2017 SAN MIGUEL BREWERY VS CIR
918 8947 June 09, 2017 AGM PACKAGING SYSTEM VS CIR
919 8884 June 08, 2017 SIEMENS FIRST BALFORT JOINT VENTURES VS CIR
920 9081 June 08, 2017 CRISTETE MAY GALANG ,CARIDAD ORTEGA VS CIR
921 AC-157 June 07, 2017 ASC INVESTORS INC VS CITY OF DAVAO
922 EB 1457 June 07, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. PHILEX MINING CORPORATI
923 EB 1437 June 07, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE VS. MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, IN
924 EB 1397 June 07, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE VS CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POW
925 8792 June 06, 2017 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE
926 EB 1415 June 05, 2017 HON. COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, HON. RICARDO B. ESPIR
927 7887 June 04, 2017 CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
928 8905 June 02, 2017 CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV
929 EB 1493 June 01, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE VS. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION
930 9039 May 30, 2017 DIONISIA D. PACQUIAO VS. HON. THELMA S. MILABAO OIC, REGIONAL DI
931 8888 May 26, 2017 VESTAS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
932 EB 1367 May 25, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. TOTAL (PHILIPPINES) CORPO
933 8744 May 25, 2017 ACTIVE MULTI-MARKETING & MERCHANDISING SERVICES INC., VS. COMM
934 EB 1359 May 25, 2017 TOLEDO POWER COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
935 EB 1352 May 25, 2017 SUMISETSU PHILIPPINES, INC.,VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
936 EB 1361 May 24, 2017 ALFREDO V. MISAJON, in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner of the Bu
937 8973 May 23, 2017 MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
938 EB 1421 May 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMU
939 8803 May 23, 2017 BANFF REAL TV & DEVELOPMENT CORP VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
940 9072 May 19, 2017 TRUSTMARK HOLDINGS CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
941 EB 1297 May 18, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SER
942 EB 1432 May 18, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS HONDA CARS MAKATI, INC.
943 EB 1248 May 18, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ONG BENG GUI, (operating u
944 O-304 May 17, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHLIPPINES VS BIENVENIDO S. DIMSON and GILBERT P. D
945 8916 May 17, 2017 ASIA UNITED INSURANCE, INC. VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU
946 O-304 May 17, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHLIPPINES VS BIENVENIDO S. DIMSON and GILBERT P. D
947 EB 1336 May 12, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS AB Capital and Investment Co
948 EB 1453 May 12, 2017 WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERN
949 EB 1300 May 12, 2017 NEC LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
950 EB 1323 May 12, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE an
951 EB 1398 May 09, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS MERIAL PHILIPPINES, INC.,
952 8889 May 08, 2017 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY VS COMMISSIONER OF INT
953 EB 1312 May 08, 2017 MAXICARE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
954 8967 July 05, 2017 HEDCOR, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
955 EB 1491 May 05, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CBK POWER COMPANY LIMIT
956 EB 1375 February 05, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CITADEL HOLDINGS, INC.
957 8838 April 27, 2017 FREELIFE PHILIPPINES DISTRIBUTION, INC. PHILIPPINE BRANCH v. HON. K
958 EB 1373 April 27, 2017 NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MUNICIPALITY OF
959 8843 April 26, 2017 EGIS ROAD OPERATION PHILIPPINES, INC. v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA
960 EB 1422 April 26, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. DOOSAN HEAVY INDUSTRIES
961 EB 1390 April 26, 2017 MATERNO ATO, in his capacity as the Officer-In-Charge at the Provincia A
962 EB 1495 April 25, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INCORPO
963 EB 1389 April 25, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES
964 EB 1351 April 24, 2017 AVON PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IN
965 EB 1425 April 21, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. NEWSPAPER PARAPHERNALI
966 8939 April 20, 2017 BELLE CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
967 9014 April 19, 2017 EHS LENS PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly HOYA LENS MANUFACTURINGPHIL
968 9007 April 19, 2017 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
969 8482 April 19, 2017 MANULIFE DATA SERVICES, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVEN
970 9359 April 17, 2017 LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY vs. HON. KIM J. HE NARES,
971 EB 1371 April 11, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PHILEX MINING CORPORATIO
972 AC-162 April 06, 2017 FERNANDEZ HOLDINGS,INC. v. CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S. RIO
973 8887 April 06, 2017 DOMINIUM RELATY &, CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONE
974 8483 April 06, 2017 SPLASH CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
975 8495 April 05, 2017 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
976 9026 April 05, 2017 SONOMA SERVICES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
977 9057 April 05, 2017 TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
978 EB 1452 April 05, 2017 LANAO DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE [LANECO], v. BUREAU OF INTE
979 8702 April 04, 2017 DOHLE SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILS. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OFINTERNAL
980 EB 1377 April 04, 2017 AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE
981 EB 1244 March 30, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, v. DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGESERV
982 8919 March 30, 2017 SPOUSES EDUARDO X. GENATO AND LYDIA M. GENATO AND CONDOMINI
983 9171 March 29, 2017 BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, represented by COMMISSIONER KIM S.
984 EB 1427 03/29/17 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON P
985 EB 1447 03/29/17 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS ARTDEPOT, INC.
986 9070 03/28/17 PACIFIC BAYVIEW PROPERTIES, INC. VS COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REV
987 8737 03/28/17 VENTIS MARITIME CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVE
988 EB 1337 03/27/17 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TRANSNATIONAL PLANS INC V
989 AC-145 03/27/17 THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS v. NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION
990 EB 1394 March 24, 2017 FILMINERA RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
991 EB 1372 March 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PEA TOLLWAY CORPORATION
992 EB 1395 March 23, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FILMINERA RESOURCES CORP
993 8987 March 21, 2017 MODERN IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE
994 EB 1386 March 21, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LINGKOD BAYAD PAWNSHOP
995 EB 1344 March 21, 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON I
996 EB 1360 03/21/2017 SMCC PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
997 EB 1379 03/21/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. STARSMASH BADMINTON CE
998 EB 1143 03/15/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHEVRON ]HOLDINGS, INC.[FO
999 EB 1393 03/15/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRE
1000 EB 1388 03/15/2017 SAN PAOLO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTER
1001 EB 1527 03/15/2017 COMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE VS LEO MARIO CELDRAN
1002 AC-152 March 14, 2017 TODA HOLDINGS INC. v. CITY OF DAVAO and HON. RODRIGO S. RIOLA, in
1003 8940 March 14, 2017 PREMIUM LEISURE CORP. (FORMERLY SINOPHIL CORPORATION) v. COMM
ISSUE/S OTHERS JURISPRUDENCE
Refund /Issuance of
Nevertheless,while petitioner was able to present the
Tax Credit Jurisdiction,
Assessment schedule
Taking theofforegoing
inward remittances and the certifications
into consideration, the Court finds ofthat
Prescription, Due
Assessment no
Thecompetent
Court findsevidence
petitioner was
in presented by respondent
a similar position. In relyingto on
Assessment Due Process the possibility
From that respondent
the foregoing, CIR an
it is clear that might
FLD,reconsider her the
which contains
Others Refund statement that
Consistent withthethe"interest and total amount
above jurisprudential due will
teachings, have
where
Refund/Issuance of local
It maytaxbewas illegally
pointed outor byerroneously
petitioners collected from the of
that the presentation
Tax Creditof Tax
Violation
Assessment the originals
This Court finds of the administrative
accused argumentclaims for refundAccused
unmeritorious. is
Code
Refund/Issuance of was charged
Given of violation
that Frankfort of Section
has so much as255 of the that
admitted NIRCthe
for his
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of required
In the case reports
at bar,were not generated,
Petitioner was givenitthe should have to
opportunity
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of submit
It bearsnecessary evidence
stressing that to support
a claimant has theitsburden
allegations in itsto
of proof
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of Foreign establish
The burden theisfactual
on thebasis of histoorprove
taxpayer her claim for tax credit
its entitlement or
to the
Tax Credit Corporation
Assessment refund.
Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, one of the
Compromise due process requirements in the issuance of tax assessments
Assessment Given that the subject assessments are void, petitioner
Penalties
Period of
Assessment cannot
As a rule,likewise
internal berevenue
held liable to the
taxes mustcompromise
be assessedpenalties
by the BIR in
Assessment
Assessment within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law for
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment The Court finds that a mere schedule of payments are
Refund/Issuance of insufficientwith
to prove actual payments of the alleged
Consistent the foregoing ruling, the Court En Bane holds
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of that petitioner's failure to identify with reasonable specificity
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of Substantiation
Basic is the rule that credence cannot be given on mere
Tax Code of Tax
Violation Requirements
Jurisdiction allegation without sufficient
Since the obligation proof
to pay the in an
tax is support thereof.
obligation thatItisis
Code
Assessment created by lawdiscussion
The foregoing and does not arise
lends from
to no theconclusion
other offense of other
tax
Assessment than that the SEF
An assessment was intended
"refers to be part and
to the determination ofparcel
amountsof the
due
Refund/Issuance of from a person obligated to make payments." In the context in
In all cases, whatever documents a taxpayer intends to file to
Tax Code
Refund/Issuance of support his of
In a myriad claim must
cases, thebeSupreme
completedCourtwithin the two-year
declared that good
Tax Code
Assessment faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the
Refund/Issuance of
Based on the foregoing provision, certain essential elements
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of must
In thisbe present
case, therefor a sale
is no or supply
showing thatof services
there to be subject
is a statutory
Tax Credit
Assessment provision
In which
this case, directs or
the subject PANauthorizes
was never theintroduced
payment of in interest
Assessment evidence.
In view of Thus, this Court
the foregoing cannot conclude
discussions, whether
this Court is wellthe same
within
Refund/Issuance of its authority
Based on theto considerprovisions,
foregoing in its decision the issue
a Special on the Zone
Economic
Tax Credit
Assessment or "ECOZONE"
Applying is treatedpronouncement
the foregoing as a separate customs territory,
to the instant and
case,
Burden of Proof the Court En Banc is one with respondent CBAA
Others Being a holding company, respondent cannot beinmade
dismissing
liable
for Refund
Assessment for
Welocal
agreebusiness
with thetax imposed
court a quoon "banks
that and other financial
this assessment item is
Assessment void for violating respondent's right to due process.
There being no valid third waiver, petitioner's authority The to
Assessment assess
Clearlyrespondent
in this case,ended
the CIRonfailed
Juneto 30,comply
2014, which
with thewas the
issuance
of a new LOA, instead a new MOA was issued for the
Assessment Evidently, whether a revenue examiner's authority to conduct
Refund/Issuance of auditCourt
was never raised as an issue in the
The finds that while petitioner wasadministrative
able to presentlevel
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of
Forum Shopping In adequate
the instantdocuments
case, it was supporting
proven the thattransfer
petitioner of the
DFFC rawis a
Tax Credit
Assessment non-resident
Based on the foreign
records,corporation,
this Court finds and that
the shares
there istransferred
no valid
Refund/Issuance of assessment
To reiterate,considering
claims for tax that the CIRasfailed
refund, in thetoinstantcomply withare
case,
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of in the natureitofisaaclaim
Accordingly, for exemption,
well settled principlehence, must beis the
that "taxation
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of rule,CTA
The while tax exemption
being a court of record,is the exception."
the cases filed Tax before
exemptions it are
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of litigated
Basic de rule
is the novothat andtaxparty litigants
refunds are should
in the natureprove everyof tax
Tax Credit Right to due
Assessment exemptions,
There must be and are toofbeauthority
a grant construed strictissimi
before juris against
any revenue officer
process
Others can conduct an examination or issue an
In this regard, the taxpayer must first pay the tax then file assessment. In thisa
Refund/Issuance of protest with ofthethe Local Treasurer within thirty (30) juris daysrulefrom
To the mind Court En Bane, the strictissimi
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of applied
As correctlyagainst a taxpayer
pointed by theon its tax
Court refund claim
in Division, does notis
respondent
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of required
However,tothe prove
Court theinpresence
Division stated of the in following
its assailed elements
resolutionto
Tax Credit
ASSESSMENT that nowhere failure
Respondent's in its decision
to provide did ita hint
COEthat for CY the2012
basiswas wasborne
such
ASSESSMENT Jurisdiction not out
Since theofsubject
its ownVAT neglect but rather, was
tax assessment it was an inescapable
issued without a
REFUND/ISSUANCE Prescription/ Zero- prior LOA, the same is void. As such, the said assessment
It is noteworthy that petitioner deducted the claimed input
OF TAX /Issuance
Refund CREDIT of Rated or
Prescription/ Zero- VAT amount of P12,274,510.00 as "VAT Refund/TCC'in its
It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to
Tax Credit Rated or
Jurisdiction/Proce
Seizure/Forfeiture establish
It is clear the
fromfactual
the abovebasisdisquisitions
of his or her and claim for taxofcredit
records this or
dural
Refund/Issues
LBT-Local case, that the assailed Resolutions dated November 24, 2017
Others In the instant case, petitioner is claiming for the refund ofLBT
Violation of Tax Body Tax income
Deficiency erroneously
The prosecution collected
failedby to and paid tothe
establish respondents,
existence ofasthe shown
Code and value-added
Deficiency income second and third elements constitutive of the offense
ASSESSMENT The fatal infirmity that attended the issuance of the FLO prior
and value-added
ASSESSMENT Tax Exempt to
To the lapse of petitioner
emphasize, the periodopted to respond to the
to appeal thePANCIR'sis not curedto
inaction
Seizure and
Notice of appeal the The CTA, yet it filed
mandatory its Petition
provisions of law formentioned
Review only on June
above 2,
are clear
Forfeiture
ASSESSMENT Due process that failure tofailed
Respondent affixto ondischarge
any paperhis documentary
burden to show customs
that
Deficiency income petitioner actually received the PAN. Consequently, a tax
ASSESSMENT Since the subject VAT assessment is void, petitioner cannot
Seizure and and value-added
Tariff and likewise
Jurisprudencebe held liable
also to thethat
provides compromise
in the absence penalty of in the
Forfeiture Customs Code of
ASSESSMENT Jurisdiction moreconvincing
An assessment that evidence,
becomes thefinal,
presumption
executoryofand regularity in
ASSESSMENT Due process demandable,
Petitioner wassuch ableastothe fileinstant
its Request case for could no longer be
Reinvestigation
Refund /Issuance of dated Aprilfinds
8, 2014,
The Court that with respect
petitioner to the PAN,
is entitled to aon Aprilof
refund 10,the
Tax Credit Rendition of
ASSESSMENT DST
A paid on
careful advances
reading of theonly for the would
foregoing periodreveal prior to thethe
that
Judgment
ASSESSMENT Jurisdiction subject tax assessment
Compliance with Sectionlacks 228the of thedefinite
National amount of tax
Internal
Refund/ Issuance of Revenue Code
A refund is not isa matter
a substantive
of rightrequirement.
by the mere Itfact is not
thata amere
Tax Credit
ASSESSMENT Evidence taxpayer has
Petitioner undisputed
failed to adduce excess
any new input orVAT or that
contrary such taxthat
evidence wa
Revocation of will show that the Court
ASSESSMENT More importantly, none in of Division
the exceptionshad acted withunder
stated abuse of
Rulings
ASSESSMENT Section
To be liable246 forof the NIRC ofassessment,
deficiency 1997 that would thereprevent
must bethe a valid
Statute of assessment. In this case there were invalid assessments
ASSESSMENT Records show that Ms. Luzviminda G. Sabile, the Revenue
Refund /Issuance of limitations,
Evidence Officer (RO) who
Jurisprudence recommended
tells us that if an exhibit the issuance
soughtof tothe
be subject
Tax Credit Jurisdiction,
Assessment presented
In this case,initevidence
is undisputed is rejected,
that LOA theNo.party producing it
LOA-V08-
Refund /Issuance of Prescription, LOA
Prescription/ 201300000371/SN:
On the basis thereof,eLA201100053172
it is clear that no person dated August may engaged29, 2013
Tax Credit Newly VAT
Assessment/Refun
Others in the the
From generation
foregoing ofdiscourse,
electricity itasmay a new be generation
gleaned that company
the
d /Issuance
Local of Tax
Business
Others Makati Petitioners'
Accordingly, interpretation
the provision of the first of Paragraph
sentence of (d)Section
Section 78
Refund /Issuance of Taxes
Jurisdiction/ 150(a)non-compliance
Such of R.A. No. 7160 shall
with theapply
saidin this case. period
mandatory In fine,of all120
the
Tax Credit Prescription
Prescription/
Assessment + 30
It mustdaysbeisstressed
fatal to thatCarmen Copper's claim
a compromise penalty of refund
is imposedon the to
Compromise
Assessment Due Process avoid prosecution
Based on the foregoing for violation
doctrinal ofpronouncements,
the provisions of the NIRC
respondent or the BIR is mandated to perform its tax
Refund /Issuance
Assessment Nevertheless, petitioner similarly failed to present the
Refund /Issuance of of Tax Credit/ Zero-
Jurisdiction/ documents
Even on therequired
assumption under thatthetheaforequoted
30-day period Section
should 18(A),
be
Tax Credit Prescription
Assessment LOA/ Due Process As reckoned from the date
to the resolution of the of issue
receipt of of the FDDA
a lack of an LOA, by ASTI,thiswhich
is
Compromise inextricably intertwined with the or failure of the BIR to conduct
Assessment In sum, for failure of respondent the BIR to strictly observe
Refund /Issuance of Penalty
Jurisdiction the requirements
Suffice it to say, the of "appeal
RMO No. 19-2007,
with the court the of amount
competent of
Tax Credit
Others Due Process jurisdiction"
For failure ofunder CIR toSection 195 of of
prove receipt thetheLGC,FAN in bylight of the
YLCI, due
Assessment Audit, LOA process
As such,was not complied
following the doctrine with.laid "Taxdownassessments issued in
in the above-cited
Violation of tax cases, the assessment
Assessment Considering the above that resulted from
circumstances, thetheCourt examination
finds that of
Code/ Tax Evasion
Compromise
Assessment accused's
In cases such failure to file
as that of the VAT returns
petitioner, was from
it is clear willful. Intent204
Section is
Refund /Issuance of Penalty
Documentary of
Thethe NIRC
fact of 1997, of
of payment as the
amended,
DST bythat a valid compromise
respondent for the subject
Tax Credit Stamp Tax
Others Jurisdiction transaction in the amount of P2,500,000.00
As to the 60-period required within which to file the petition, is established
Assessment Prescription / LOA petitioner
Furthermore, received the Order
the Court cannotdated March 2,
give weight to 2018 (denying
respondent's
Assessment LOA allegation
After thorough in hisevaluation
Answer that, of theassuming withoutthis
case records, admitting
Court finds
Assessment LOA that
Thus, a grant of authority, through an LOA issued by be
the present Complaint for tax collection should the
Refund /Issuance of Revenue
Zero-rated Sales This rulingRegional
is consistentDirector, withmustpreviousbe made assigning
decisions of this a Court
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of that thesethe
Zero-rated Sales Applying two documents
foregoing, theremust is nobedispute
presented. thatThe Citco SECwas
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of Jurisdiction/ Zero- able to submit both the SEC Certificate of NonRegistration of
In this case, it is clear that insofar as the refund claim for the
Tax Credit
Assessment rated Sales
Due Process period
In from the
this case, October 1, 2013has
prosecution to December
not proffered 31, 2013 is
any evidence
Refund/Issuance Tax to prove that the failure of accused to payfallstheunder
subject
Jurisdiction The tax which petitioner seeks to refund the
Credit
Refund/Issuance Tax Tax Treaty/ Zero- National Internal Revenue Code, hence, it governs the period
Moreover, petitioner's invocation of the RP-Spain Tax Treaty,
Credit
Assessment rated sales
Prescription various
In BIR-ITAD
this case, Rulings
the issue and the principle
of prescription is theof pacta
heart of sunt
the
Others Procedural Issues controversy.
Oddly, petitioner Other than an
pleads forallegation
sympathy that fromthe theassessment
Court by
Violation of Tax comparing its conduct to the Court's supposed "negligence or
Due Process However, as to the RTC's decision confirming MeTC's
Code Jurisdiction/
Others imposition
A careful perusal of Fiftyand Thousand
comparison Pesosof(Php50,000.00)
the Amended Petition additional
Refund/Issuance Tax Prescription/
Jurisdiction/ for Revival
Finding thatofthis Judgement
Court haswith the originalto
no jurisdiction Petition
entertain for the
Revival
Credit Prescription
Assessment Audit/LOA present
This Court judicial
cannot claim,
agree it becomes
with respondent unnecessary to resolve
that petitioner
Assessment PEZA Law should
By be deemed
deleting the phrase estopped
"consists for only"
the latter's receipt ofitthe
and rephasing with
Violation of Tax thefiling
phrase
QVAT Returns By her"the QVAT following
Returnsdirect for the costs are included
pertinent periods, in accused
the
Code
Refund/Issuance Tax Assessment/ complied
In the presentwith case,what petitioner
the law required claims of thata taxpayer
it still hasonly excessthat
Credit Prescription
LOA/ Procedural and unutilized CWT for TY 2014. Counting two (2) years from
Assessment Evidently, no LOA was issued naming and authorizing RO
Issues
Assessment/
Others Marilyn D.the
Applying Guerzon
foregoing to conduct
pronouncementthe tax audit by the against
Supreme
Refund/Issuance Tax Prescription
Tax Clearance Court,examining
Upon the subjectthe FLD/FANs
records in of the
the present case arefailed
case, petitioner likewiseto
Credit
Refund/Issuance Tax Certificate
Prescription/ Zero- present the tax clearance certificate issued by the BIR, to
Finally, as to whether the said input VAT was applied against
Credit
Refund/Issuance Tax Rated or treaty
TTRA-tax any
Based output
on the VAT and/or carried
foregoing over to the
jurisprudential succeeding taxable
pronouncements, the
Credit application
Assessment/
Others prior
Without any allegation, much less any proof, that a valid 72-
application requirement under RMO No. 1-2000 and
Violation of Tax Jurisdiction of
LAO-Letter assessment
Indubitably, was in theissued
present in this
case,case,thereprior
was tono thenew SIR'sLOAexercise
issued
Code Authority Due
Jurisdiction/
Assessment to RO Palma and GS Lacson in relation
In view of the respondent's failure to prove that PAN, FLDs to the audit of
Refund/Issuance Tax Process
and Assessment
It is worth re-echoingNotice the were actually
principle thatreceived
a judgment by petitioner,
has to be
Credit
Refund/Issuance Tax basedsince
Thus, on facts.it was Conjectures
never established and surmises that the cannotplacesubstitute
of
Credit Assessment/ LOA/ performance of the subject services is in the Philippines,
Others In the instant case, it is undisputed that RO Jamael B. Hamid's
Audit
Local Tax
Others authority
It is worthy was to only derived
mention thatfrom a TVN, filed
petitioners and not thean LOA. for
Petition
Assessment
Assessment Review
Due before
to the nullitytheofCTA theDivision
assessments on June made23,2016, without it
by respondent,
becomes unnecessary for this Court to address the other
Refund/Issuance of
In the instant case, Deutsche failed to present any attendant
Tax Credit
circumstance to warrant the reopening of the instant case. It
Prescriptive
Assessment Clearly, RO Etorma was not authorized, through an LOA, to
Refund/Issuance of period,
Franchise Tax examine
In the instantpetitioner's records, and
case, petitioner Davao to City
recommend
Water District the insists
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of
No due date that it is a GOCC,
Unfortunately, citing thefails
petitioner case toof Davaowhich
specify City Water
tenet District,
of due
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of process
All told, did
based theon First
theDivision
foregoing violate in rendering
discussions, its decision.
petitioner
Tax Credit
Assessment Refund of EWT sufficiently
Having filedproved that it is entitled
an administrative claim on to aMarch
refund17, of 2017
excess with
Refund/Issuance of Zero-rated VAT, the BIR, requesting for a refund should the CTAlike decide
We agree that "tax refunds or tax credits -just tax in its
Tax Creditof Tax
Violation effectively zero-
exemptionsare
In this case, thisstrictlyCourt En construed
Bane upholds againstthe taxpayers,
finding ofthe thelatter
Code
Refund/Issuance of Court in229
Section Division
of thethatNIRC theallows
prosecution
the recovery failed to of show
taxes any
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of erroneously
Although a portion or illegally
of the collected.
claimedAn input"erroneous
VAT was or illegalover
carried tax"
Tax Creditof Tax
Violation
Lack of objection by petitioner
Silence is not to its quarterly
a source VATadmissions.
of judicial return for the succeeding
A party's silence
Code
Refund/Issuance of during the testimony of an opposing party's
All told, the Court En Banc is one with the Court in Division in witness cannot
Tax Credit
Assessment ruling that itthat
Considering has no competence
petitioner is notto entertain
liable and determine
for deficiency excise
Assessment taxes
However, other than these bare statements, petitionerbasis
for taxable year 2014, there is no factual or legal failed
Assessment to present documents to prove its allegations.
In assessing VAT, it must be shown that the taxpayer received It is a basic rule
Assessment Jurisdiction an amount
Applying theofdoctrine
money or itsdown
laid equivalent
in the from PAGCOR its sale,
case,barter
whenoran
Assessment office (as thelike
Regrettably, DOJ) in assumes
Commissioner jurisdiction
of Internalover aRevenue
case at the v.
Assessment Donor's Tax Fitness by Design,
Respondent failed Inc., there was
to establish theno time or date
elements indicated
of estoppel. He
Assessment didreiterate,
To not present theany evidencepertained
documents to show that to werepetitioner had
not admitted
Refund/Issuance of by the Court. Therefore, any conclusion that may arise
Pursuant to Section 110(A)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as from
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of amended,
The findings asof
implemented
fact by the CTA by Section
in Division 4.110-3are not of RR to No.
be 16-
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of disturbed
Based on the without any showing
foregoing premises ofand
grave abuse of discretion
descriptions of some of
Tax Credit
Assessment the
The evidence
Court En offered
Banc agrees by respondent,
with the Corporationthe exceptions that cited by
Assessment compromise
After a carefulpenaltiesevaluation could not records,
of the be imposed more against it for it
particularly
Assessment those
Similarly,relating the issue
the Court cancelson the
thevalidity
remaining of the waivers and,
compromise
Refund/Issuance of Issuance of Tax penalties
The Courtinfinds the that
amountsalthoughof P8,500
the claimedand P20,000.00
input VATbecause was
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of Credit Certificate,
carried-over by petitioner to its
In summation, petitioner is entitled to its claim foramended quarterly VAT
Tax Credit
Assessment refund/TCC
The essentialinnature
the reducedof taxes amount
for theofexistence
P27,967,813.47.of the State
Assessment Jurisdiction grants the
Under government
doctrine with of starevastdecisis,
remedies thisto ensure
Court its
is required to
Refund/Issuance of adherethe to settled
the ruling ofisthe Supreme Court,
While rule that tax refunds arewhich
in thebynaturetradition
of
Tax Credit
Assessment taxline
In exemptions and regarded
with the foregoing as derogation
jurisprudence, the of the sovereign
issuance of a
Refund/Issuance of mere LNofand
In view thethe absencefactual
foregoing of an LOA in the conduct
circumstance, it canofbesaid
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of deduced that
Applying petitioner doctrine
the aforecited only hadlaid untildown August by 14,
the 2015,
Supreme
Tax Credit
Others Assessment Courtaincareful
After the Medicard
review of case,
theand the foregoing
evidence presented BIRinissuances
the
Refund/Issuance of proceedings a quo,
Considering that thethere
merits is no showing
of the present thatcontroversy
petitioner falls have
Tax Credit
Assessment been fully addressed without the need
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to of touching on the
Refund/Issuance of avoid
Basic isprosecution
the rule that fortax
violation
refundsofare theinprovisions
the natureofofthe taxTax
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of exemptions
It is the conclusionand areoftothe be Court
construed strictissimiwas
that petitioner jurisonlyagainst
able
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of to prove
Statutes that its client, FTL, is a foreign entity;
grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi without
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of jurisreiterate,
To against the taxpayer
neither the lawandnor liberally in favor of the taxing
the implementing
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of regulations
The perfection provide
of anthat appealin claims
in thefor mannerrefund of within
and input VAT the that
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of period prescribed
Petitioner is entitled by to
lawa is not only mandatory
refund/tax credit of itsbut alsoand
excess
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of unutilized
Neither theinput
law norVATits attributable
implementing to zero-rated
regulations sales for the
contain a
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of statement
In this case,requiring
however,payments respondents of the CGTto
failed and DST on the
establish prior
Tax Credit
Assessment factual
It must basis of theirthat
be stressed claim for a refund.penalty
a compromise Specifically, there isto
is imposed
avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the NIRC
Refund/Issuance of
In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of Exemption from refund/TCCfailed
Petitioners in theto reduced
establish amount
that theyof P4,065,163.03,
are not Philippine
Tax Credit Taxation/
Assessment Waivers citizens ortonationals,
Contrary the settled so principle
as to entitlethatthem to the tax should
an assessment
Jurisdiction/ indicateupon the specific
Assessment Clearly, receiptperiodof the to payformal
CIR's the assessed
letter oftax, a perusal
demand, the
Prescription/
Jurisdiction/ Due
Assessment taxpayer
Taking shouldinftle
bearing theaabove-quoted
protest withincase, thirtyrespondent
(30) days tofailed
Prescription/
Penalties, Due
Assessment to authenticate
While it is axiomatic and present the corresponding
that all presumptions ate inregistry
favor ofreturn
the
Refund /Issuance of Surcharges
correcmess
However, of taxfailed
Zuellig assessments,
to give amplethe assessment
justificationitself should
for the
Tax Credit Jurisdiction/Tax
Assessment Court
All in not
told, Division
beingtoa consider
cabaret, secondary
night or dayevidence, such as its
club, respondent
Violation of Tax Amusement Tax
Tariff cannot
To seal be theassessed
conclusion andofheldguilt,liable for deficiency percentage
the misdeclaradon and
Code
Assessment LOA undetvaluation in weight, measurement
It is explicit from the foregoing that all audit investigations or quantity was
Refund /Issuance of must be conducted by a duly designated RO authorized to
Jurisdiction Considering that petitioner failed to present proof of prior
Tax Credit Assessment/
Others payment,
Based on the the foregoing,
same divests thisbe
it can Court
easily ofsurmised
jurisdiction thattothere is
Deficiency Local
Assessment LOA no factual dispute
As categorically that thebysubject
declared the Supremeearmarked Court,amount
lack ofhad
Assessment Due Process authority
Moreover,torespondent's
examine, i.e.,witness absence alsoof categorically
an LOA, renders the
admitted
Assessment that the PANa was
Jurisdiction/LOA Thereafter, NIC, only
PAN served
and FAN ten (10)issued
were days after the FLO
pursuant was
to the
Due Process/LOA/ said LN. Evidently, the authority of the revenue officer to
Assessment The conclusion can be made that no valid assessment was
Prescription
Assessment DUE PROCESS issued
In by respondent
this case, for failureas ofpetitioner
the CIR todid provenotthereceive
receipttheofsame.
PAN
Assessment LOA by MSH,
The very due process
provision of was not Code
the Tax compliedthat with.
the CIR The CTAon
relies Division
is
Assessment unequivocal
In view of thewith above regard to its power to
pronouncement bygrant
the Highauthority
Court,to
Assessment Quarterly Return As Respondent's
to the claimonly thatground
any VAT forassessment
assessmentnot becomes
computed devoida onof
Refund /Issuance of quarterlythe basis must be declared nullfiled
and void. We find no
Prescription Applying said periods, petitioner its administrative
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of claim,
As to the together
filing of with
thethe supporting
judicial claim, thedocuments,
taxpayer on mustMarchawait 17,
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of the
The decision
Court finds on the
its administrative
ICPA report inclaim order.rendered
The above within
inputthe VAT
Tax Credit
Assessment Jurisdiction of P44,159,257.12 must be disallowed
In view of respondent's failure to prove that he actually from petitioner's claim
Violation of Tax issued and sent athe PAN and FAN to petitioner,
NIRC To recapitulate, final determination of theand that the
Commissioner
Code Suspension of
Assessment as to theoftax
In view theliability
foregoing, is necessary
applyinginthe order for this
Supreme Court ruling
Court's to
collection of tax
Refund in theCourt
This Sonymaintains
case, the that revenue officer who
substantial conducted
justice, equity and thefair
Refund/Issuance of play take
Jurisdiction In view ofprecedence
the foregoing, overthetechnicalities
interest charged and legalisms.
by the To
Tax Credit
Assessment respondent against
Unfortunately, the deficiency
this Court does notDST agree.of petitioner
Further readingis of
Violation of Tax Section 222(b) explicitly
The nullity of the allegedstates that while
tax deficiency the three-year
assessments and
Code
Refund/Issuance of other
An notices issued
examination by the BIR claim
of petitioner's has rendered
for refund50the alleged
shows acts that
Tax Credit
Assessment at the
The time theforadvances
rationale requiringwere a validmadeLOAfrom as a 2008 to 2011,to a
prerequisite
Assessment valid
At thisassessment
juncture, itismust not that difficultout
be pointed to perceive - it isto
that in order tostand
Issuance of Tax Refund/Credit
VAT the
In histest of judicial
Petition, the scrutiny,
CIR primarily the assessment
argues that must sales ofbe goods
based and on services by VAT-re
Violation of Tax Code PAN The accused were charged with the crime of an attempt to evade or defeat the p
Assessment N/A The Court partially agrees with petitioner. The assessed undeclared sales which
Assessment N/A The amendment to Section 27 introduced by R.A. No. 9294 was adopted in the N
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequen
Assessment Jurisdiction The Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, finding that while the BIR established th
Assessment VAT Withheld there is no evidence to substantiate respondent's claim that there was payment
Refund/Issuance of Taxillegal
Credit
collection of tax,
The entitlement
Court En Banc under
alsothedoes Philippines-Netherlands
not find any merit in petitioner'sTax Treaty contention that re
Assessment N/A Respondent did not fail to submit supporting documents within the sixty (60)-da
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit Although the arguments raised by both parties were merely a rehash of earlier d
Assessment Corporation The sale of MAPL shares is not contemplated by Section 135 of the LGC, which is
Refund/Issuance of Tax
illegal
Credit
collection of tax
The claim for refund was filed within two years from date of payment of tax.the
Assessment N/A The instant Petition for Review has no leg to stand on, hence, should be denied.
N/ACredit We deny the Petition for lack of compelling ground to merit the reversal of the a
N/ACredit The petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory period of 120+30 days is fa
Assessment right to a speedy disposition
In this case,
of its
petitioner
case wasreceived
violated,a liable
copy offorthe
deficiency
FLD withIncome
the FANTax,
on June
Value6,Added
2014,T
Assessment Prescription TOP 2 has become conclusive and unappealable.Pursuant to Section 195 of the L
Assessment Jurisdiction The rule on disputed assessments is unlike the rule on refund of excess input VAT
Others Local Government Tax The City of Makati may not Impose Local Business Taxes on MPTDC's Dividend In
Assessment N/A Clearly in this case, the CIR failed to comply with the issuance of a new LOA, des
Jurisdiction
Credit the Supreme Court already established that the CTA has exclusive jurisdiction to
N/ACredit Petitioner failed to prove that it is a VAT-registered entity.To prove that it is a VAT
N/ACredit Relative to the resolution of the said issue are Sections 204(C) and 229 of the Na
Refund /Issuance of Tax
Violation
Credit of Due Process
It is worthy to mention that Section 11 O(B)12 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, is
Assessment Permanent Establishment/
AccordingJurisdiction
to the Destination Principle, goods and services are taxed only in the c
Assessment Prescriptiive periodsThe law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the income tax is
Right
Credit
to appeal Article 1148. The limitations of action mentioned in Articles 1140 to 1142, and 1
Others Denial of motion forItrecomputation
must be emphasized
and reconsideration
that the issue raised in the petmon is a mere reiteration o
Assessment N/A "Ultra Mar would nevertheless point an accusing finger at its counsel for the latt
Assessment petition for review After a careful review of the CIR's arguments and the records of the case, the Co
N/ACredit The Court En Banc agrees with the Court in Division. To reiterate, Section 7B.14(d
Assessment effects of merge vis-à-vis closure to understand the provisions of the Corporation Code on merger
It is important
N/ACredit Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code 17 states that the Commissione
N/ACredit Similarly, pursuant to Sections 21, 28 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Co
Assessment authority of the taxing officer the scales between the power of the State to tax and its inherent ri
In balancing
Jurisdiction Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amende
Credit of the court
Jurisdiction
Credit of the court
Basedononjudicial
the aforesaid
claim/ filing
provisions,
of appeal
the offeror of the secondary evidence is burd
Assessment Jurisdiction of CTA Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a c
Assessment N/A Evidently, it is a well-entrenched rule that fraud is not presumed - it must be pro
Assessment N/A To reiterate, an assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but
Assessment Jurisdiction of the court
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is the capacity of a court to "entertain, hear,
Violation
Credit of Procedural
When Duethe
Process
denial of the motion rests upon the discretion of the of a lower court,
Assessment PRESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT/
Section 228 ofDUEthe PROCESS
NIRC of 1997 provides for the procedure and manner on whic
N/A
Refund /Issuance of Tax Credit while the petitioner implores the liberal application of the rules of evidence to s
Assessment court Jurisdiction/MCIT
It is clear from the foregoing provision that electric cooperatives registered unde
Assessment N/A It is clear from the earlier quoted provision of RAMO No. 1-00 that failure to ser
Assessment Issuance of WarrantForof Distraint
petitioner's
andfailure
Levy to timely take a plain and appropriate remedy within the
N/ACredit In fine, petitioner was able to meet all the requisites for its claim for refund/TCC
Assessment N/A The said contention is contrary to the definition given in the Medicard case in th
N/ACredit In fine, the pieces of evidence show that the total zero- rated sales reported by p
Assessment N/A Accordingly, petitioner's income tax deficiency had already become final, execut
Assessment Due Process From the foregoing, the conclusion can be made that no valid assessment was is
Excise
Credit
tax on the importation
Here, onlyof Alkylatewhen used as a raw material, is subject to PO.OO excise tax
naphtha,
Assessment N/A To prove the fact of mailing of the FLD/FAN, respondent presented its letter to t
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A All told, the Court is convinced that petitioner is entitled to its pleaded reliefs.
N/ACredit It is clear from the records of this case as well as the aforequoted narration of C
Assessment Due Process To reiterate, respondent failed to observe the due process requirements when i
N/ACredit Considering that petitioner is exempted from paying income tax realized from it
Violation of Tax Code N/A As regards the contention of petitioner that the Court in Division should have fo
Assessment valid formal assessment/collection
Without a valid assessment, the subsequently issued PCL, FNBS, and WDL are lik
Jurisdiction
Credit Moreover, although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its s
Assessment N/A Reinstated policies are those policies where the applicant signed the insurance a
Assessment N/A It is explicit from the foregoing that all audit investigations must be conducted b
Real
Credit
property interest
As computed, the real property interest of GECRF PH does not exceed 5O%, thus
Jurisdiction
Credit This Court merely applies the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the sa
Assessment Estoppel of laches On the strength of the above observations, the validation/examination piloted b
Others Sale, barter or exchange
Verily,ofthe
goods
transfer
subject
of the
to VAT
two parcels of land pursuant to Sections 61 and 62 of
Assessment Jurisdiction, Precription
The rule is that for the Court of Tax Appeals to acquire jurisdiction, an assessme
Assessment Due process It was similarly held that in order for a formal assessment to be valid, it must co
N/ACredit Neither does the established practice of not taxing Filipino ADB Employees, tax-
Assessment Prescription The Court finds no need to discuss the issue of non-revalidation of the LOA raise
N/ACredit It bears stressing that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are con
Assessment N/A Pursuant to RMO No. 01-90, compromise penalties are only amounts suggested
Refund /Issuance of Tax CreditN/A Although the allegations in the present consolidated cases may show that petitio
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/A
Credit There are two options available to the corporation whenever it overpays its inco
Violation of Tax Code N/A In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Reve
Assessment Jurisdiction Hence, the issue on the authority of revenue officers to conduct an examination
N/ACreditN/A In this case, the Court finds that there is no basis for imposing the additional fou
Assessment N/A It is rudimentary in law that the name of the consignee appearing in the coupon
Assessment N/A It is evident that the assessments made against petitioner for CY 2010 were issu
Refund/Issuance of TaxJurisdiction
Credit The dispute involves the denial of petitioner of respondent's claim for refund of
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A Thus, on the basis of the provisions of the WTO Agreement, there was no need t
Credit In the present case, petitioner was able to establish its right to the refund claime
Credit Considering that there is no actual denial of the claim, it should be treated as ina
Assessment N/A Absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decide
Credit Statutes that grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the tax
Assessment N/A The Court finds petitioner in a similar position. In relying on the possibility that r
Credit Credit facilities by themselves are not considered debt instruments that are sub
Credit This Court adheres to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the la
N/ACredit Thus, the parties herein are both public entities under the Executive Branch of th
Others Jurisdiction Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasona
Assessment N/A Tax assessments issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are n
Assessment N/A It has been a long standing principle of this Court that parties must come to cou
Assessment N/A Correspondingly, the subject tax assessments, which came about as a result of t
Assessment
N/ACredit To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on
Assessment Jurisdiction However, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, we find that the DOJ is
N/ACredit Thus, just as in the instant case, so long as the input VAT being claimed are evide
Assessment N/A Tax assessments by the examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith
Jurisdiction
Credit A claim for tax refund necessitates only the preponderance of evidence thresho
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A The Court submits that fraud must be proven to justify forfeiture.l It must be act
Others N/A Moreover, it is well-settled that the acquittal of a taxpayer in the criminal case c
Assessment N/A Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires that the taxpayer must fi
Assessment N/A A careful reading of RMO Nos. 69-2010 and 62-2010, cited by the petitioner, sho
N/ACredit Contrary to the assertion of petitioner and as correctly held by the Court in Divis
Assessment N/A In the present case, there is no question that the sale of other real property was
N/ACredit With respect to the compromise penalty, the Court En Banc agrees and adopts t
N/ACredit In other words, to be exempt from all taxes, including compensating taxes, dutie
N/ACredit Pursuant thereto and as outlined by the Supreme Court in a long line of decision
Others N/A The records of this case do not show that petitioner is engaged in activities that
N/ACredit The Court has always decreed that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptio
Refund /Issuance of TaxJurisdiction
Credit The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. 19 It is me
Assements - IT, VAT, PCL
DueandProcess
FAN The authority of BIR examiners to conduct audit investigation goes into the valid
Assements - IT, VAT, EWT
Jurisdiction
and DST Settled is the rule that tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct a
Assements - IT, VAT andJurisdiction,
DST Prescription
Respondent's
and Due transfer
Process of bulk of its net assets in favor of FTC in exchange for the
FAN Jurisdiction, Prescription
The fifteen-day
and Due Process
period granted to the taxpayer to reply to the PAN before a FAN
Refund of VAT Jurisdiction The Philippine VAT system adheres to the Cross Border Doctrine, according to w
Payment of basic deficiency
Due Process
IT, VAT and EWT
The absence of the disallowed CWT in the FAN and its subsequent inclusion in th
Assessments - IT and FBT
Jurisdiction, Prescription
"[T]rialandcourts
Due have
Process
authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground o
Refund /Issuance of TaxDue Credit
Process It is not incumbent upon respondent to still issue a FAN when the tax due had al
Refund /Issuance of TaxDue Credit
Process A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her cla
Credit Petitioner's Schedule of Net Retail Price of SML Products did not qualify as the S
Assessment -FDDA Jurisdiction and Prescription
The computation of delinquency and deficiency interests in case where the tax l
Refund /Issuance of TaxJurisdiction,
Credit Prescription
In orderandtoDue
be entitled
Process to a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT attributab
Refund /Issuance of TaxJurisdiction,
Credit Prescription
The filing
and of
Duethe
Process
return ahead of the payment of the tax due thereon is still in ac
Cancellation of allegedJurisdiction,
deficiency IT,
Prescription
VAT,ItWTC,
is well-settled
and
EWT,FBT
Due Process
and
thatDS)
the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay th
Credit A taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his complian
Credit and DueArticle
Process 2154 of the Civil Code provides that if something is received when there
Assessment - IT, VAT, Jurisdiction,
WTC Prescription
A tax and
amnesty,
Due Process
much like a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law
Assessment - VAT, FWT Jurisdiction,
and VWATPrescription
compromise
and Duepenalties
Process are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liab
Violation of Section 3601
Jrisdiction
in relation to 1302
the ofallegations
the Tariffin
and
theCustoms
Information
Codeshows
of thethat
Philippines
the accused was charged for violat
Assessment - DST Prescription It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay th
Violation of Section 255
Jurisdiction,
of the NIRCPrescription
of 1997
In theandcaseDue
at bar,
Process
the two elements of the crime charged were proven by the pr
Refund /Issuance of TaxN/A Credit Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and
refund /Issuance of Tax Credit A tax refund claimant has the burden of proving the factual basis of his or her re
Assessment Tax Refund Basic is the rule that when the tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive period
N/ACredit For the just disposition of the subject controversy, the rule is that from the date
Assessment Jurisdiction, Prescription,
In caseDue
theProcess
protest and
to the
Audit
assessment is denied, whether wholly or in part, or the
Assessment N/A constructive service of assessment may be validly effected if the following concu
Assessment N/A The following grounds can suspend the collection of taxes; (1) during which the
Assessment Tax Refund The CIR is given 120 days within which to grant or deny a claim for refund. Upon
N/ACredit Without any zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales being shown by petitioner
Assessment N/A An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a
Prescriptive
Credit period It is worth emphasizing at this point that the burden of proving entitlement to
N/ACredit We should also take into consideration the nature of VAT as anindirect tax. Altho
N/ACredit Finally, let it be stressed that a claimant has the burdenof proof to establish the
Assessment N/A There being no mutual agreement between the parties, theCourt cancels the ab
Assessment N/A The issuance of a valid formal assessment is asubstantive prerequisite to tax coll
Others N/A Considering that the first element of the offense charged, i.e., theperson is requi
N/ACredit The Court finds it unnecessary and futile to discuss the existenceof the second a
N/ACredit Considering that Respondent failed to act on the subject claim within March 27,
Assessment N/A Under the present provisions of the Tax Code andpursuant to elementary due pr
N/ACredit It should be emphasized that the Court is consistent in applyingthe well-settled r
N/ACredit In thepresent case, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of complyingwith the
N/ACredit Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Consequently, it must be remembered that
Violation of Tax Code N/A In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prose
Assessment N/A Clearly, a revenue officer must be clothed with authority before he can proceed
N/ACredit Evidently, the above-quoted provisions impose tax on the income of resident ind
Assessment N/A Earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the rea
Assessment N/A All the foregoing, coupled with the observations that no registry return or certifi
Others Violation of SectionFrom
255 ofthe
theforegoing,
NIRC-(Failure
it is apparent
to pay thethat
correct
theretaxes)
is no competent or sufficient eviden
Prescription
Credit on Claim
In for
theRefund
the case of Deutsche Knowledge Services, Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Inte
N/ACredit In the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East Bank
N/ACredit The Certificates of Registration/Foreign Incorporation/ Association as well as the
Assessment N/A Based on the foregoing provisions, a taxpayer may only be assessed for deficien
N/ACredit In fine, respondent is given 120 days only to decide an administrative claim for r
Assessment N/A The Court agrees.
As between In the
the WTO imposition
Agreement or assessment
entered of income tax, it must be clea
into by the
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A Philippines and became part of domestic law as early as 1994,
N/ACredit Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As s
Others Jurisdiction Moreover, the local government of Quezon City which imposed the alleged real
Jurisdiction
Credit Furthermore, in the Nestle Case15 I the Supreme Court ruled that "once a writte
N/ACredit In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund in the reduc
N/ACredit While the Court is mindful of the well-entrenched principle that the government
N/ACredit It must be emphasized that without the Certificate of Non-registration issued by
Assessment Jurisdiction In the present case, as proof that Petitioner was served with and actually receive
Assessment N/A No less than the Supreme Court declared that good faith and honest belief that
Assessment N/A In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dakudao & Sons Incorporated, this Cour
N/ACredit A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her cla
Assessment Refund /Issuance ofTheTaximposition
Credit of deficiency interest under Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, a
Assessment Prescription Strict compliance with due process requirement is necessary for a valid tax a
Others N/A The crucial element to determine whether an entity is engaged in NBFI activities
Others N/A In case there is a notice of assessment issued by the local treasurer against a tax
Assessment Others The particular notation in the AOI "that it shall not act as investment company o
Others
Credit Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictiss
Assessment Jurisdiction, Prescription,
Internal
The Due
revenue
audit Processtaxes
and must
investigation Audit be assessed
of petitioner's by the
books government
of accounts was within three (3) yea
Assessment N/A made without proper authority, hence the resulting
N/ACredit To be considered as a non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside t
refund /Issuance of Tax
Others
Credit A taxpayer claiming for a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax mu
Others
Credit As the sale or transfer of shares of stock is not subject to CGT, We arrive at the s
Assessment Others Interest is imposed to compensate the State for the delay in paying the tax and f
Others
Credit The taxing power of a local government unit does not extend to income tax. The
Assessment N/A The taxpayer shall be inform in writing of the law and the facts on which the ass
Assessment Filing of Return Absent sufficient evidence to support the assessment, the presumption of co
Assessment Due Process To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assess
Prescription
Credit A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed stric
Assessment N/A It would be unfair to require the taxpayer to prove the existence of the input tax
Assessment Issuance of Tax Credit
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution f
N/A Credit Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed s
Others N/A In computing the time limit for enforcing a final judgment, the general rule is tha
VIOLATION OF TAX CODEPENALTY AND INTEREST
Without presenting credible and sufficient evidence to show the amount of expe
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFN/A TAX CREDIT The certificates with the related invoices and official receipts as well as the Swor
Assessment Jurisdiction, Due Process
For theand
same
Gravereasons
Abusethat
of Discretion
made us conclude in the 10 December 2014 Decision
Refund Jurisdiction & Tax Exemptions
Thus, considering that in the instant case, the administrative and judicial claims
Refund N/A We do not agree with the CIR that COMELEC is not included in the enumeration
Assessment Jurisdiction & Protests
To merit the application of the ten-year period to assess, respondent, as the tax
Refund/Issuances of TaxN/ACredit CertificateNotably, in Commission of Internal Revenue vs. Hantex Trading Co., Inc. the Sup
Assessment Estoppel, In Pari De Further,
Licto tax laws are civil in nature.[1] [I]n the course of trial, once plaintiff make
Refund N/A Further, petitioner was able to prove that the claimed input VAT of P7,486,676.3
Refund N/A Meanwhile, upon examination of the documents supporting petitioner's input V
Refund/Issuance of Tax N/A
Credit Certificate Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this ca
Assessment Prescription, Right toToSpeedy
reiterate,
Disposition
only the of
CIRCases
or his duly authorized representatives who can author
Assessment Protest/Audit Clearly, from the foregoing, the DOTr undertook the responsibility of settling pe
Refund Tax Exemption In this case, however, petitioners failed to establish the factual basis of their clai
Violation of National Internal
N/A Revenue Code As the Supreme Court reminds us in Lim Caw, what is deemed instituted with th
Assessment Tax Exemption In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Reve
Refund/Issuance of Tax Compromies
Credit Certificate
Penalties/Illegal
Further, theCollection
Court agrees
of Taxes
with petitioner that there is no legal or factual basis fo
Assessment Jurisdiction/ProtestFinding that the subject tax assessments are void, for being issued for lack of au
Refund/Issuances of TaxTaxCredit
Exemption
CertificateThis Court, in the case of Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. The City Treasurer of Makati
Assessment Jurisdiction/Non Exhaustion
In this case,
of Administrative
respondent TRANSCO
Remediesreceived the Letter of Assessment on Decemb
Assessment Due Process/ProtestOn the basis of the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, the Court in Divis
Assessment Prescription/Re-Investigation/Protest
It must be remembered that part of the essence of the due process clause enshr
Refund/Issuance of Tax Authority
Credit Certificate
to ImposePlethora
Taxes/Delagation
of jurisprudence
to Tax consistently decrees that bare allegations, unsubstant
Refund/Issuance of Tax Jurisdiction/ProtestIn
Credit Certificate view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc declares that respondent is a holding
Assessment Estoppel Since the waivers executed by petitioner are void, the deficiency income tax ass
Refund/Issuance of Tax Prescription
Credit Certificate In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of (2) ye
Refund/Issuance of Tax Jurisdiction/Prescription
Credit Certificate Petitioner failed to consider the "inaction" of respondent as "deemed denial" of
Assessment Due Process/ProtestIn this case, there is no indication that an LOA was issued against petitioner but
Refund Remedies In the landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power
Assessment Resjudicata/Tax Exemption
Considering that the petitioner failed to prove that the PAN or FAN was indeed s
Assessment Resjudicata/Tax Exemption
It must be emphasized that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.
Assessment Jurisdiction/Protest/ToPrescription
reiterate, the taxpayer may protest the assessment within a period of thirty (
Assessment Prescription/Audit/Due
It must
Process
be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution f
Refund/ Issuance of Tax
Exhaustion
Credit of Administrayive
In this case,Remedies.
petitioner simultaneously submitted its complete supporting docum
Assessment N/A Under the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA),the Court in Divisio
Jurisdiction
Credit Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Consequently, it must be remembered that
Others TAX EVASION These cases pertain to the charges of non-filing of VAT returnand non-payment o
Jurisdiction
Credit Anent
In this petitioner's
case, the FLD argument
/FAN withthat the 30-day
Details period should becounted from the
of Discrepancies
Assessment N/A/Amnesty issued on December 5, 2014 was served to petitioner on
Donor's
CreditTax To reiterate, donor's tax is an excise tax imposed on the privilegeof transferring p
N/ACredit It is clear from the aforequoted provisions that thetaxpayer does not have to pro
Jurisdiction
Credit Applying the foregoing provision to the instant case, sincepetitioner made its ini
Others N/A Considering the foregoing discussions, the Court a quo, therefore,correctly held
Others N/A It must be emphasized that the determination ofwhether a person or an entity is
Assessment N/A A party should present all its evidence at the first instance and not by piecemeal
Assessment N/A Based on the afore-quoted provision, it is clear that unless authorized by the CIR
Assessment N/A In the case at bar, it is undisputed that examination ofpetitioner PTI's records em
Assessment N/A Based on the foregoing provisions, the Sangguniang Panglungsod is mandated, in
N/ACredit Based on the foregoing, a taxpayer may only be assessed for deficiency taxes wit
Assessment N/A Based on all the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, an authority from responden
Assessment N/A Based on all the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, an authority from responden
Assessment N/A Anent the deficiency VAT assessment in the amount of P39,836,303.87, the Cour
Assessment N/A Nevertheless, while it is true that with the enactment of the EPIRA Law, petition
Assessment N/A Per the foregoing provision, a request for reconsideration must be made by the t
N/ACredit In our view, the law is clear. A claimant must first file a written claim for refund, c
Assessment N/A In the present case, while the Memorandum of Assignment cannot be treated as
Collection Letter of Authority In this case, as can be gleaned from the records and as admitted by both parties
Assessment Due Process Thus, on the strength of such observation, we have previously ruled that the app
Assessment N/A Finally, the Court cannot tolerate this highly suspicious situation. In this case, the
N/ACredit Lastly, considering that petitioner's reported sales for FY 2014 are 99.84°/o zero-
Assessment Letter of Authority In this case, petitioner FPUC voluntarily executed and submitted the Waivers, on
Assessment Due Process Let it be stressed that the governing rules on pre-trial should be strictly complied
Assessment Jurisdiction Based on the foregoing provision, petitioner had thirty (30) days from April 17, 2
N/ACredit Established is the rule that the burden of proof to establish entitlement to refun
Assessment N/A An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and w
Assessment N/A The administrative and judicial claims for refund and the appeal to this Court we
FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
COMMON CARRIER/PERSONAL
In essence,
Applying theSection
KNOWLEDGE1113the
foregoing, (a)
ORCourt
and
PARTCIPATION
(k)
is of the CMTA
convinced clearly
that states a rule that a vehic
petitioner
Assessment/Refund Prescriptive period acted in good faith when it believed that intercompany
Refund N/A Although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding
Refund Jurisdiction, Prescription
One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System
Refund Jurisdiction Since petitioner filed the administrative claim for refund on September 30, 2015
Refund N/A Since in the instant case, the Commissioner or the Bureau of Customs was not im
Deficiency Prescriptive period/Due
In thisProcess
regard, respondent must be circumspect on the procedure and evidences
Deficiency/Surcharge,Jurisdiction
interest, compromise
/Due process
The basic deficiency EWT relates to the disallowed income payments in the amo
Refund Interpretation of theRespondent
law has sufficiently established its entitlement to a refund or issuance o
Assessment Income definition/LGUIn the
may absence
imposeoflocal
evidence
business
showing
tax that petitioner engaged in activities which b
Refund Jurisdiction/Doctrine Atofthis
SCjuncture,
is overuled it bears stressing that tax refunds are a derogation of State's tax
Assessment Importance of LetterofThe authority
subject tax assessments are not valid because the revenue officer who cond
Refund Jurisdiction /VariantThemeaning
variantunder
contemplated
tax code under the tax Code has a technical meaning. A variant
Assessment Prescription Evidently, the interest income derived by petitioner From GADC's unpaid rentals
Refund Jurisdiction The Petition for Refund filed by respondent before the RTC reveals that the amo
Refund N/A Needless to state, in answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it i
Assessment Letter of Authority (LOA)
It is apparent, therefore, that the authority relied upon by the revenue officers w
Jurisdicition Exhaustion of administratice
In other words,
Considering remedies
the within the discussion
foregoing judicial system, thedeclarations
and the law intends the Court of Tax Appe
Refund/Assessment Due process made by petitioner in the Supplemental Declaration on
Assessment Compromise penalty/Good
In Commissioner
faith of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc, 26 althoug
Assessment VAT zero rated Consequently, for failure to substantiate the alleged zero-rated sales, petitioner c
Assessment Due process/Jurisdiction
Thus, respondent's issuance of the PCL and the FNBS was null and void as no col
Refund Prescription The 2-year period, therefore, cannot be stretched to allow for other special circu
Assessment /DeficiencyIssues not stipulatedTobyreiterate,
the partiesonly the CIR or his duly authorized representatives can authorize th
Refund Three essential conditions
There isfor nothemerit
grant
to Mckinsey's
of a claim forargument
refund ofthat
creditable
the Courtwithholding
in Divisionincome
should have
tax,
Refund Interpretation of taxAsrefunds
correctly pointed out by the Court in Division, this case involves a claim for re
Refund Burden of proof to claim
A bulkfor of tax
therefund
disallowances was due to the fact that the Court is unable to trace
Assessment/Jurisdiction
Presumption of tax With
assessment
the afore-cited prov1s1ons of laws and the recent pronouncement by the S
Deficiency income Jurisdiction/Offer ofItevidence
must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution f
Assessment (1) Prescription; (2) (a)
DueFromProcess;
the foregoing,
(3) Failureittoisfile
indubitable
a valid and
that
binding
the word
protest
''final" in the phrase "the a
Assessment N/A (a) Dividends comprise any distribution whether in cash or other property in the
Assessment N/A In a case, the Supreme Court declared the waivers executed by a taxpayer ineffe
Prescription
Credit (a) It appears that Majella R. Canzon completed her installment payments on Jul
Violation of Tax Code N/A (a) Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99,
Violation of Tax Code N/A Now, in order to attribute to accused a "willful failure to pay" the tax, it must be
Jurisdiction
Credit However despite these clear wordings on its effectivity, respondent still proceed
Assessment Verification and Certification
(a) From the Against
foregoing,
ForumitShopping
follows that while the requirement regarding verificati
Violation of Tax Code N/A Considering the above consistent ruling of the Supreme Court, filing an appeal b
N/ACredit The instant claim for refund covers input tax incurred for the 3rd quarter of 200
Jurisdiction
Credit Finally, the validity and/or constitutionality of RMC No. 90-2012 is also the lis m
Assessment Jurisdiction Based on the foregoing, the royalty payments petitioner made to Toyota Motor
Assessment N/A (a) It is unfortunate that petitioner, in its Petition for Review with the Court En B
Assessment Prescription Finally, Iconic questions the Court in Division's imposition of both deficiency and
Others N/A (a) Applying the foregoing definitions, there is nothing in the record showing tha
Violation of Tax Code INTEREST The presence of the first two elements, however, does not support a verdict of c
N/ACredit In sum, compensation income of resident cttlzens is subject to the graduated inc
Assessment N/A Thus, based on the foregoing, there is no dispute that when there are mixed tran
Assessment N/A Thus, based on the foregoing, there is no dispute that when there are mixed tran
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A (a) Significantly, in both the August 22, 2016 Decision of the District Collector an
Others BURDEN OF PROOF(a) This rule places upon the prosecution the burden of establishing the guilt of a
Assessment (1) Prescription; (2) And
Waivers
in instances where an interlocutory order is appealed before the Court En B
Assessment (1) Failure to implead(a)the
In this
propercase,property.
upon a cursory examination of the instant Petition for Review, W
Assessment N/A (a) Given the foregoing, the Court upholds the finding of the Court in Division th
Assessment N/A (a) In view the foregoing, petitioner has a clear and unmistakable right to protec
Assessment N/A The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any i
Seizure/Forfeiture N/A For petitioner's failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period of th
(1)Credit
Entitlement to damages
(a) Considering that Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that t
Assessment (1) Jurisdiction (a) Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court En Bane has reconciled and inter
N/ACredit (a) Thus, in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petit
Assessment (1) Jurisdiction (a) It is clear from the aforequoted law and relevant regulations, that the failure
Refund/Issuance of TaxTaxCredit
exemption under (a)Section
Therefore,
15 ofa RA
consolidated
7353 rural bank will possess such tax exemption as was
Others N/A (a) Based on the foregoing, it is clear that while respondent City of Davao is emp
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this ca
Assessment N/A (a) final assessment notice provides for the amount of tax due with a demand fo
Assessment N/A Accordingly, to allow this item of assessment to prosper would be to sanction th
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit The doctrine laid down in San Roque was reiterated in subsequent cases. In CJR
Assessment N/A Since the taxing power of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays is to be
Refund/Issuance of TaxAdministrative
Credit and judicial
It is well-settled
claims forthat
refund.
the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period for the fi
Assessment N/A On that basis, FTC could not possibly distribute all its earnings as it will need all f
Assessment N/A (a) Based on these jurisprudential pronouncements, the determination of which
Others N/A Applying the foregoing in the instant case, VPLI, being a "CIIF company", is deem
Assessment N/A (a) It is clear from the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements that a prior app
Assessment N/A Without receipt of the PAN, FAN and FLD, FNF was deprived of due process requ
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) The rule is that from the date an administrative claim for excess unutilized VA
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) Since it is not disputed that petitioner is entitled to tax exemption, it should n
Assessment OFFER OF EVIDENCEThe Rule on this matter is patent that even documents which are identified and m
Assessment N/A (a) In the case at hand, it was established that although petitioner provides som
Others N/A From the foregoing, it can be discerned that the two (2) provisions grant separat
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) In the present case, Petitioner received the compensation income being subj
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) In the present case, petitioner advanced or deposited the excise taxes from J
Assessment N/A Guided by the foregoing disquisition, this Court holds that the Memorandum of
Assessment N/A (a) We therefore find that the three-year period to assess the income tax liabilit
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal R
Assessment N/A (a) It is clearly established that the undeclared gross receipts were for the year 2
Assessment N/A To reiterate, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal of the denial of the
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) To emphasize, petitioner, as a coal mine operator under its COC, is exempt fr
Refund/Issuance of Tax(1)Credit
Deficiency Documentary
(a) The requirement
Stamp Tax assessment;
to indicate a(2)
fixed
Retroactivity
and definite
of period
Tax Laws
or and
a date
Rulings
certain with
Refund/Issuance of TaxN/ACredit (a) Very clearly, petitioner as the statutory taxpayer, who paid the excise taxes o
Refund/Issuance of Tax(1)Credit
VAT; (2) Compliance
(a) Counting
with substantiation
from the filing
requirements
of the administrative claim on June 23, 2016, the 120
Assessment N/A (a) Thus, for petitioner to be deemed a cabaret, or night and day club, it must be
Assessment N/A The amusement tax imposed on the gross receipts of the proprietor, lessee, or o
(1)Credit
Due process (a) Considering such admission, petitioner should have requested respondent's r
Assessment N/A (a) Thus, even when there is under-declaration of purchases, the same is not pro
Violation of Tax Code N/A Appellant cannot feign ignorance of the assessment, let alone knowledge of the
Assessment N/A Thus, for failure to file a protest within the reglementary period, the assessment
Seizure and forfeiture(1) Jurisdiction; (2) Forum
(a) Absent
Shopping
decision from the petitioners, this Court did not acquire jurisdiction o
N/ACredit (a) As applied to the present case, petitioner complied with the prescribed perio
Others N/A The records of this case do not show that petitioner is an investment company,
N/ACredit (a) From the foregoing disquisitions of the Supreme Court on the matter, it is cle
Assessment N/A However, petitioner did not present the pertinent tax returns. While responden
Assessment N/A (a) However, the prima facie correctness of a tax assessment does not apply upo
Others N/A (a) Lastly, there is no evidence on record, showing that petitioner held itself out
(1)Credit
Compliance withFromInvoicing
the foregoing,
and Accounting
it appears
Requirements
that petitioner must first prove that its clients are
Assessment N/A In the present case, a review of the evidence presented by the parties reveals th
Assessment (1) Jurisdiction Significantly, this Court, on May 3, 2018, was furnished with a copy of the Resolu
Assessment (1) Prescription The above-quoted case may be applied to the instant case. Since both petitione
Assessment N/A Based on the foregoing, it is required that petitioner not only issue the PAN, and
N/ACredit Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this ca
Assessment (1) Prescription (a) Considering the foregoing, the Court En Bane rules that the findings of the Co
Assessment (1) Prescription To reiterate, the LOA is the proof that the person/ s named therein is I arc autho
Assessment N/A Similar to the above-quoted case, the instant case arose from tax assessments f
Others N/A (a) In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner is a holding company for purpose
N/ACredit In the case at bar, since the record is bereft of any evidence that petitioner filed
N/ACredit (a) There is therefore no merit in the contention of petitioner that because of re
Others N/A (a) Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioner cannot be considered as an inves
N/ACredit Insofar as respondent's service agreements with DIOM, PDSK, and NSSPL are con
Assessment (1) Prescription (a) Applying the Oceanic case in the instant case, the Court En Bane rules that th
Others N/A (a) However, the simple truth is that while it is true that the mandate of its oper
(1)Credit
Jurisdiction Petitioner failed on this aspect. As the records would show, the first decision de
(1)Credit
Jurisdiction; (2) Violation
It is clear of
from
rights
thetoforegoing
due process
that after a return has been filed by the taxpayer, i
N/ACredit Accordingly, petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim or failure to observe th
Assessment (1) Jurisdiction; (2) Prescription
(a) Considering that the December 19, 2013 Letter reiterating collection was rec
Violation of Tax Code N/A In fine, there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of all the accused. Where there
Assessment Prescription It is not the Department of Justice which is the government agency tasked to de
Assessment Due Process A request for reconsideration of an adverse decision of one do not automatically
N/ACredit With the foregoing functions mandated by law before the abolition of the ATO, t
N/ACredit While the Court takes note of the fact that certain applications forrefund flled be
Jurisdiction
Credit In the determination of whether there is locally available Jet A-1 fuel in reasonab
N/ACredit In sum, petitioner has sufficiently established its entitlement to refund or issuan
Assessment Due Process Considering that the FAN was received by petitioner only on January 22,2014, th
Assessment N/A It hascity
The been
mayruled thatbusiness
impose perfection of an
taxes onappeal in the
banks and manner and within the perio
other
Assessment N/A financial institutions, but such taxing power is subject to
N/ACredit The taxpayer needs to establish not onlythat the refund is justified under the law
Assessment Jurisdiction Considering that petitioner failed to prove its entitlementto ITH incentive for tax
Assessment Jurisdiction/ Prescription/Due
The recordsProcess
are, likewise, bereft of any indication that a LOA was issued to petit
Others Jurisdition/ Due Process
Thus, considering the foregoing appellate jurisdiction of thisCourt En Bane, it mu
Refund /Issuance of
Solutio Indebiti It bears stressing that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are con
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
Solutio Indebiti In view of petitioner's failure to timely file its administrative and judicial claims f
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
Prescription In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance
Tax Credit
Others Non-Forum Shopping Costs are certain allowances authorized by statute or court rule to reimburse th
Refund /Issuance of
Jurisdiction all controversies involving government offices, bureaus, agencies and instrumen
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription Contrary to Respondent's allegation, the assessment for taxable years 1997 to 2
Assessment N/A Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any revenue officer can condu
Refund /Issuance of
Jurisdiction It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factua
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
Prescription was made earlier than the "deemed denial" or inaction just because the Letter o
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription In this case, considering that petitioner is a registered Clark Freeport Enterprise
Refund /Issuance of
Jurisdiction To recapitulate the findings of the Court in Division, the respondent is a special p
Tax Credit
Assessment Jurisdiction Following the well-settled rule that a void assessment bears no valid fruit, the FL
Refund /Issuance of
N/A Taking into consideration the foregoing, the conclusion in the present case is ine
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
N/A The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid; t
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription The Court ought to reiterate the Supreme Court's teachings that "in balancing th
Refund /Issuance of
Jurisdiction After careful evaluation of the parties' arguments as well as the evidence duly p
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription Based on the foregoing, the receipt of a copy of the first waiver, which was acce
Others N/A All said, petitioner is not a non-bank financial intermediary but a holding compa
Assessment Prescription when there is a showing that a taxpayer has substantially underdeclared its sale
Assessment Jurisdiction, DueProcess
It is established that, in cases where Respondent does not render a decision to t
Refund /Issuance of
Prescription,Jurisdiction
Indubitably, the gains realized by petitioner from the sale of its shares in DPI to D
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar
Others N/A The Supreme Court held there that all San Miguel held by the holding companie
N/ACredit The law imposes an alternative, not cumulative, qualification for the determinat
Assessment VAT Deficiency Instructional letters, as well as journals and cash vouchers evidencing advances
Assessment Jurisdiction/Procedural,
When Issue/s
an office assumes jurisdiction over a case at the time when the rules vest
Refund / Issuance of Tax
Motion
Credit
for New TrialDomestic
for presentation
Corporation
of additional
or Joint Stock
evidence
Company, orInsurance or Mutual Fund Com
Others Due Process Due process requires that the receipt of the Assessment Notices be proven by th
N/ACredit Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditableincome tax which was deducted a
N/ACredit The application for tax credit or refund of unutilized excess input VAT must be fi
Jurisdiction/Procedural,
Credit Jurisprudence
Issue/s dictates that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions whic
Assessment Prescription/ Deficiency
BeingIncome
a courtTax,
of record,
Value Added
the Court
Tax,ofand
TaxExpanded
Appeals isWithholding
bound to conduct
Tax Liability
a formal tr
Assessment Prescription/ Deficiency
Assessment
Incomecontains
Tax, Value notAdded
only aTax,
computation
and Expanded
of taxWithholding
liabilities, but
Taxalso
Liability
a demand
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
Section or113(C)
Effectively
of theZero-Rated
NIRC of 1997,
Salesas amended, andSection 4.113.3 of RR No. 1
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
A salesorinvoice
Effectively
is a commercial
Zero-Rated Sales
document. Commercial documents or papers are
Substantiate
Credit its Claim
Taxfor
refund,
Refund which
before
is inanthe
Administrative
nature of a taxBody
exemption,should be construed strictis
Assessment Warrants of Garnishment
A partyoradversely
Levy andaffected
Garnishment
by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commission
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
Since or Effectivelyreported
petitioner's Zero-RatedsalesSales
for FY 2013 were all zero-rated, the substantiat
Prescriptive
Credit period provided
However,under well entrenched
Tax Code is the rule that rulings and circulars, rules and regulat
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
The Court
or Effectively
finds the Zero-Rated
above findings Sales
of the ICPA in order. The aforesaid input taxe
TaxCredit
Exemption The Court reiterates its ruling that actions for tax refund, as in the instant case, a
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
In orderor Effectively
for the CTAZero-Rated
En Banc to Sales
take cognizance of anappeal via a petition for rev
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
An entity
or Effectively
should beZero-Rated
authorized Sales
by the ERC to operate the generation facility, to
Assessment LOA-Letter of Authority
An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to per
Assessment Due Process In sum, the Court En Bane begs to differ from the Court in Division's finding that
Assessment Prescription, Deficiency
The presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of five (5) members of
Jurisdiction
Credit / Procedural
For claims
Issuefor tax credit or refund filed prior to June 11, 2014, such as the claim
Others Prescription/ Deficiency
As oft-repeated,
Income Tax,the Valuedeficiency
Added Tax,
taxesand
were
Expanded
computedWithholding
using the Tax
net Liability
worth metho
Assessment Jurisdiction/Procedural
The statute
Issue on limitations imposed by the NIRC of 1997 precisely intends to prot
Others Due Process Where the acts of the public official are the object of the litigation, meaning, pe
Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any RO can conduct an examin
Applying
IncometheTax,
foregoing
Value toAdded
the instant
Tax, andcase,
Expanded
it is petitioner's
Withholding
dutyTax
to Liability
discharge suc
Assessment Jurisdiction, Procedural
Under Issue
RMO No. 01-90, as amended by RMO No. 19-2007, compromise penalties
Prescription,
Credit Zero-Rated
In thisorcase,
Effectively
record Zero-Rated
is bereft of Sales
anything that would show that CIR sent a written
Clearly, petitioner is not only SOl-registered, but was also PEZA-registered. Acco
While taxes are the lifeblood of the government, it has its limits, in spite of all its
Prescription,
Credit Zero-Rated
The Courtor Effectively
notes thatZero-Rated
petitionerSales
failed to present the VAT invoices/official receip
TaxCredit
Exemption, Notariized
Erroneous Document
or illegal tax is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or u
The issuance of Re-Assignment Notice for purposes of audit examination and tax
Violation of Tax Code Due Process The prosecution did not adduce any evidence that will show a final assessment w
Assessment Jurisdiction, Procedural
Considering
Issue the invalidity of the assessments due to the lack of a valid LOA, and
This Income
requirement
Tax, Value
in theAdded
issuance Tax,
ofand
assessment
Expanded conforms
Withholding
with Tax
the Liability
constitutiona
Taxes are lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnec
Jurisdiction,
Credit ProceduralTo conclude,
Issue the Court stresses the hornbook doctrine that taxes are the lifebloo
This Income
Court finds
Tax,that
Valuethere
Added
is noTax,
identity
and Expanded
of rights asserted
Withholding
in both
Taxcases.
Liability
The cau
TaxCredit
Exemption The BIR ruling required thereon serves to monitor the tax-free properties in ord
N/ACredit Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi
Violation of Customs Code
N/A It is clear that only food manufacturers are not required to secure/submit a CPR
Assessment N/A The records of the case failed to show whether petitioner complied with the for
Assessment N/A From the provisions above, what is critical to be shown in the imposition or asse
Others Whether or not Randy Since the Ventures,
Allied subject San Miguel
Inc. shares of respondent,
is a "non-bank and respondent
financial intermediary", fallingitself,
under are ow
the
N/ACredit In light of the factual circumstances, KPPI having complied with the requirement
N/ACredit Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, for purposes of claiming tax credit or refun
Assessment N/A Having settled that the prescriptive period to assess was not suspended due to a
N/ACredit However, in refund cases, Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, plainly a
Assessment N/A Accordingly, the additions to the tax or deficiency tax such as, among others, Civ
Assessment N/A Guided by the above pronouncement, this Court finds respondent's imposition o
Assessment N/A Here, petitioner failed to justify that the evidence it shall present is newly discov
Assessment N/A Evidence show that the assessment and examination of petitioner's internal rev
Assessment N/A Evidence indicates that the Province of Batangas owned the subject properties d
Assessment N/A While it is true that tax assessments have the presumption of correctness and re
Others The main issue is whether
Pursuant thetoCourt
Section
in Division
7(a)(3) of
hasRepublic
jurisdiction
Act (RA)
over1125,
the case.
as amended by RA 9282, a
N/ACredit Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, prescribes two options to a taxable
Assessment N/A It must be emphasized that a tax assessment that has become final, executory a
Assessment N/A A state that has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in it
Assessment N/A In fine, the necessity of a valid LOA in audit investigations is not merely an admin
Others Whether, in the eventA more
that respondent
careful reading
willof
bethe
granted
foregoing
its refund,
provision
it may
would
onlyreveal
be granted
that a intaxpayer
a form iso
Assessment N/A In the assailed Decision and Resolution, the Court in Division ruled that LOA No.
Refund /Issuance of
N/A As presented in the preceding computation, petitioner's excess input taxes were
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
PRESCRIPTION In this case, the records disclose that the Amadeus Commercial Organization Ag
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
N/A Although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Q
Tax Credit
Assessment PRESCRIPTION It must be noted that RR No. 12-99, as amended, is silent as to the mode of filing
Assessment N/A Therefore, following the previous pronouncements of this Court, and applying S
Assessment JURISDICTION In view of the effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 10963 or otherwise known as
Refund /Issuance of
N/A It is settled that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
N/A To be entitled to the refund sought, petitioner must comply with the following re
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDICTION "Contrary to respondent's asseveration that the Assailed Decision did not show
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
DUE PROCESS it must be emphasized that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax e
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDCITION To avail of the VAT zero-rating, the foregoing provision requires the VAT-registere
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
DUE PROCESS Thus, when the respondent did not submit other supporting papers in support o
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
DUE PROCESS To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on
Tax Credit
Assessment DUE PROCESS A comparison of Section 249(B) and 249(C)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDICTION The imposition of a deadline in the actions on claims for refund of this nature pr
Tax Credit LOA, DUE
Assessment In this case, there is no indication that a LOA was issued against petitioner but o
PROCESS
Assessment DUE PROCESS Evidently, respondent's receipt of the FAN, seven (7) days after the receipt of th
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDICTION Upon examination of the foregoing pieces of evidence, the Court noted that O.R
Tax Credit DUE
Assessment A waiver of the statute of limitations under the NIRC, to a certain extent, is a de
Violation of Tax PROCESS/Waiver
TAX EVASION,
However, the evidence presented by the prosecution and admitted by the Court
Code DUE PROCESS
PRESCRIPTION;
Assessment As already explained, petitioner failed to file its protest within the 30-day period
Refund /Issuance of JURISDICTION
DUE PROCESS Lastly, a perusal of respondent's Quarterly VAT Returns reveals that it had no ou
Tax Credit
Assessment DUE PROCESS Compliance with Section 228 of the NIRC is a substantive requirement. It is not a
Assessment DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX; DUE PROCESS
Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith
NACredit In an action for tax credit or refund, the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove th
Assessment JURISDICTION; TAX EXEMPTION;
To reiterate, Section 29 of the NIRC of 1997 provides that an IAET equivalent to
Assessment JURISDICTION; DUE Likewise,
PROCESS the law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be
VALUE
Credit
ADDED TAX Although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding
Assessment JURISDICTION Based on the above provisions of the law and regulations, a taxpayer has the rig
PRESCRIPTION;
Credit ZERO
Clearly,
RATEDsales
SALEmade by a VAT-registered entity to PEZA registered enterprise ope
Assessment N/A As a general rule, tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and m
Assessment JURISDICTION All told, respondent failed to prove that the assessment notices were indeed ser
Assessment DOUBLE TAXATION Based on the foregoing, the dutiable value of an imported article shall be the tra
Assessment AUDIT In view of the above-stated findings, the Court En Bane views that failure to retu
Assessment JURISDICTION; PRESCRIPTION
Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC clearly provides that an assessment may be protes
JURISDICTION
Credit Jurisprudence dictates that in a claim for tax refund or tax credit, the applicant m
Assessment PRESCRIPTION To uphold the validity of the Waivers would be consistent with the puplic policy
Assessment N/A VAT is a form of sales tax. It is a tax on consumption levied on the sale, barter, e
Assessment ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS
It must be emphasized that to be entitled to a tax deduction, the taxpayer must
Others ASSESSMENT Section 252 of the Local Government Code (LGC) mandates that "no protest sha
Assessment PRESCRIPTION Time and again, it has been ruled that the prima facie correctness of a tax assess
Assessment JURISDICTION The instant Petition for Review should be denied on jurisdictional ground.The CT
Assessment PAYMENT OF LOCALThe TAXES;
imposition
BANK AND
of LBT
OTHER
on nonbank
FINANCIALfinancial
INSTITUTIONS
intermediaries springs from Section
Assessment JURISDICTION; PAYMENT
AppealOF shLOCAL
II be made
TAXES;byREFUND
filing a petition for rev ew under a procedure analogous
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements,
Assessment DUE PROCESS
before an examination of the taxpayer may be validly done, it
Assessment N/A While additions to tax that are "qualified" must be limited to the type of "deficie
Refund /Issuance of Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, it is clear
DUE PROCESS
Tax Credit that unlike the
The issuance ofBIR, thisformal
a valid Court is not endowed
assessment is a with
substantive
Assessment PRESCRIPTION
Refund /Issuance of prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains
In the case of tax-free articles brought or imported not only a
PRESCRIPTION All said, respondent has complied with all the requisites to
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of into the Philippines by persons, entities, or agencies
N/A justify the grant of its claim for refund in the aggregate
Tax Credit
To summarize, in the Assaijed Decision, the Court in Division
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDICTION partially granted Jardine Lloyd's claim for I refund or issuance
Tax Creditof Customs
Violation The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal
N/A
Code case ison
Based a basic constitutional
the provision of theprinciple,
abovementionedfleshed out by 150
Section
Others SITUS OF TAX
Refund /Issuance of (a), the sales
It bears should
stressing thatbea recorded
claim for in taxthe branch
refund or saleslike
or credit, office
a
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of claim for tax exemption, is construed
In sum, the CGT and DST payments that petitioner made strictly against the
AUTHORIZATION
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of under
In this protest
case, theonterm December
'zero-rated"20, 2012 are erroneous,
appears on the faceand of
N/A
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of EXHAUSTION OF petitioner's sales invoice, albeit, they
In sum, considering the the redemption of the 2,597,133 are rubber stamped.
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of ADMINISTRATIVE preferred
It must however shares be issued to GTRC
stressed thatresulted in capitalabout
the declaration gain
N/A The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a claim forthe
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of petitioner's exemption is subject to the condition that all
N/A refund or credit with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to
Tax Credit Tax exemptions must be clear and unequivocal. A taxpayer
Others TAX EXEMPTION
claiming
As a tax exemption
to evidence proving that must thepoint
unlawful to a importation
specific provision was of
Others N/A
willfully
"An invalid or knowingly
assessmentdone, bearsthe notermvalid"willful"
fruit". The is defined
law imposesas
a substantive,
Respondent notofmerely
City Davao,athrough
formal, requirement.
Respondent City To proceed
Assessment N/A
Refund /Issuance of Treasurer,
As issued a Business
to the completeness of the Tax Order of Payment
documents presented assessing
as
N/A
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of evidence before
Consequently, the filing
upon Court,oflet hisitapplication
be stressedfor thattax"in the or
credit
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of refund
Based on fortheexcess creditable
foregoing, input taxes,
a claimant the taxpayer-
for refund must first file
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit PRESCRIPTION; an administrative claim for refund
The absence of Letter of Authority (LOA) and the failure before the CIR, prior toof
Assessment
DUE PROCESS
PROCESS; the respondent to prove petitioner's
At this juncture, it must be emphasized that an invalid actual receipt of
Assessment
JURISDICTION assessment
Moreover, for bears no valid
purposes of fruit. The law
computing anyimposes
internala revenue
Assessment JURISDICTION
Tax Refund / tax, the value
Pursuant theretoof theandproperty
as laid down shall by be the
whichever
Supreme is higher
Court in a
PRESCRIPTION
Issuance of Tax long
As stated in the Details of Discrepancies, the excess be
line of decisions, the following requisites must input tax
Assessment N/A
Tax Refund / amounting
In to P259,034.46
fine, petitioner was able was not applied
to establish that against
its localthe
N/A
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax purchases
Records of goods
reveal that and services
as early as Marchfrom 20,SMCC 2013, were theconsumed
Court in
N/A
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax JURISDICTION; Division
The deniedgranted
tax credit petitioner's Exhibitshall
a taxpayer "WW-3-384",
not be refundable among in
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax DUE PROCESS cash but 204(C)
Sections shall only andbe229 applied
of thetoNational
future tax obligations
Internal Revenue of the
JURISDICTION
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax Code (NIRC) that
Considering of 1997, as amended,
petitioner failed toprovide:
discharge "SEC.the204.
burden to
PRESCRIPTION
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax provethe
From thatabove
it hadfindings
zero-rated of thesalesICPA,for the
firstinput
quarter VATofunder
the
N/A
Issuance of Tax "Failed
The to Comply
testimonial and with the Substantiation
documentary evidenceRequirements"
have established in
Levy, Sales of that
It must thebe PAN andthat
noted the FANwhilewere not received
it is true that EO No. by petitioner
173 was
Others
Deliquent Real issued
For obvious reason, petitioner should not be allowedwhich
pursuant to Section 277129 of the 1991 LGC, to
benefit from its own wrongdoing and
Finally, considering that the subject assessment is a nullity should be deemed
and
Timefollowing
and again, thethe time-honored
Court reminds principle
respondentin taxation
that the thatLOA
"a is
Tax Refund / the
It is proof that the
well-settled thatperson/s
procedural named therein
rules are is/are authorized
Best Evidence Rule
Issuance
Tax Refundof /Tax designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
N/A Significantly, the determination of what constitutes complete supporting docum
Issuance of Tax At most, the issue of falsity is a mere afterthought or a
Assessment N/A
figment
To qualify offor
imagination to justify the
the 10% assessment application
level under Section of the 218(d),
10-
Others DUE PROCESS
DUE PROCESS; the properties
The law requires mustthatfirst
thequalify
legal and as part
factualof thebases"Special
of the
Assessment
PRESCRIPTION assessment
To prove thebe stated
fact in the formal
of mailing, letter of
it is essential todemand
present and the
Others JURISDICTION
Refund /Issuance of JURISDICTION; registry receipt issued
Correspondingly, by the Bureau
the belated filing of of Posts or the
petitioner's Registry
judicial
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of PRESCRIPTION claim on June
Moreover, 13, 2014,
Section 76 ofor theway NIRCbeyond
of 1997,the as 30-day period to
amended,
EXEMPTION
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of explicitly provideshas
In fine, petitioner thatsufficiently
once a taxpayer provenchooses the option
its entitlement to aof
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit refund or issuance of tax
The Commissioner creditRevenue
Internal certificate in the
as well asreduced
his duly
Assessment N/A
authorized representative must indicate
Considering that the FAN was issued within the extended clearly and
Refund /Issuance of period
The settled as stated
rule isinthatthe Waiver,
both theand claim in view of petitioner's
for refund with the BIR
N/A
Tax Credit and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must
In fine, the evidence pOint to the fact that "Mirant SuaL
Assessment N/A
Refund /Issuance of PRESCRIPTION; Corporation"
"To allow petitionerand "Team a refundSuaLor ¢orporation"
issuance of are one and the
tax credit
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of DUE PROCESS; certificate
As the CIR of aptlyinput VAT on
pointed out,itsthe
domestic
phrasepurchases
'other of goods
JURISDICTION
Tax Credit DUE PROCESS; matters
Moreover, arising
RR No. under this Code',
17-200345 as stated
provides thatin"the
the payment
second of
Assessment
Refund /Issuance of AUDIT
PRESCRIPTIOn/reF DST shall accrue
Notably, both the upon the execution
administrative andofjudicial
Deed of Absolute
claims for Sale,
Tax Credit UND refund should
the liability forbe filed within
donor's tax falls the twothe
upon (2)-year
donorprescriptive
and not the
donee.
Thus, in the absence of proof evidencing receipt of of
Relying on Sections 98,20 99,21 and 10322 thethePAN,
DUE PROCESS; FAN, or FLD by the respondent,
"The following differences between an LOA and LN areno valid assessment was
Assessment
Refund /Issuance of AUDIT crucial.
It is worthyFirst,toannote LOAthataddressed to a revenueclaim
the administrative officer is
referred to
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit DUE PROCESS; under
To Sections
repeat, 204(C) and
due process 229 ofthat
requires thetaxpayers
1997 NIRCbepertainsinformed to in
Assessment
AUDIT writingapplying
Thus, of the facts and law in
the doctrine onthewhich the assessment
Asiatrust case, bothispartiesbased
Refund /Issuance of UNUTILIZED should haveasfiled
Petitioner, their respectivehas
taxpayer-claimant, motions for reconsideration
the burden of proof to
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of INPUT VAT showtax
The that
paidit is
byentitled
the grantee to theunderrefund of the
either of amount
the above claimed
N/A
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of alternatives
Thus, in order [Section
for the13 CT(b) A En(2)Bane
of PDtoNo. take1590] shall beof
cognizance in an
lieu
JURISDICTION
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of appeal via
Further, in aa petition
plethorafor of review, a timelythe
cases involving motion for
Philippine
N/A
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of Airlines,
Well-settled Inc.,isalthough
the rule of that different
a claimtaxable
for tax period,
refund or thecredit,
Court
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit like
Undera claim for tax accounting
the branch exemption, principles
is construed strictly
in the against the
Philippines,
JURISDICTION; the
Thus, nettheincome
protest is letter
a standard
to thecomponent
PAN, FAN, and or entry
FLO in the I lead
Assessment
PRESCRIPTION
Jurisdiction/ should be filed with the enumerated named BIR officers and
Assessment Completely oblivious of the content of the FDDA, petitioner
Refund/Issuance of Prescription
Cause of Action filedrefunds,
Tax its appeal to respondent
being in the nature CIRofon taxDecember
exemptions, 13, 2013,
are and
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of construed
The in strictissimi
Court therefore findsjuris
thatagainst
petitioner the taxpayer and
failed to establish
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of that it is a VAT-registered
Well-settled in this jurisdiction entity. is Absent
the factthisthatrequisite,
actions for tax
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of refund, as in this case, are in the
Since petitioner's purchases of local goods, propertiesnature of a claim for and
Tax Credit
Assessment services needed that
It is well-settled for thethedevelopment, constructiontoand
Court has no jurisdiction compel a
Refund/Issuance of taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very
It must be emphasized that a claim for tax refund or credit,
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of like a claim
Evident from forthetaxforegoing
exemption, thatisonce
construed strictly against
the taxpayer opts to the
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of carry-over
The Court En theBanc
excess findsincome
the need tax against
to stressthe thattaxes
thedueCourtforin
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of Division
It shouldisbe not bound
noted thatbythe theCT findings
A Court ofEntheBane
ICPA. The ICPA
already
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of affirmed
We are welltheaware
foregoing thatfindings
tax refunds and partake
conclusions of the Court
the nature of tax
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of exemptions,
In the presenta case, legislative grace,filed
petitioner which its cannot
amended be Annual
allowedITR
Tax Credit
Others for CY 2012
Verily, the rule on July
is that 9, 2013.
a statute Counting
shouldfrom be sothis date, not
construed
Refund/Issuance of only toon betheconsistent with itself butofalso to harmonize with
Based foregoing, importers cigarettes "shall submit
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of a written to
Pursuant report
Section of inventory
110(A)(2)of ofall
theinternal
NIRC ofrevenue
1997, asstamps
Tax Creditof Tax
Violation amended, as implemented
As earlier discussed, apart from by Section
the bare 4.110-3 of RR No.
allegations of the16-
Code
Assessment customs
The Courtbroker finds that and its corporate
petitioner officers,
failed to pass petitioner Kingson
the "Immediacy
Refund /Issuance of Test".
Based Hence, petitioner the
on the foregoing, is liable
Court toconcludes
pay the deficiency
that it is
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
Jurisprudence erroneous for petitioner to apply
As previously discussed, petitioner's excess input as credit (in the VAT
formisofmore
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of than
Fromenough to applyPetitioner's
the foregoing, it against its outputclaim
judicial VAT forliability
the for the
Tax Credit
Assessment Prescription aforementioned
As regards the assignment quarters was flied with
of shares theto
in FLRI Second
PMFTC, Division
Inc.,
Zero-rated Sales petitioner did not controvert the assessment. In this
Assessment In fine, this Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that
of PEZA-registered
Assessment it is
A a VAT-registered
plain reading of Section entity. Absent ofthe
248(B)22 this requisite,
NIRC of 1997,discussion
as
Refund/Issuance of amended, shows
After a careful andthat in caseevaluation
thorough of a false return, the penalty to
and consideration of
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of the parties' arguments
Indubitably, a payee's claim as well forasrefund
the records of the instant
of unutilized creditable
Tax Credit Tax Exemption
Assessment withholding
As regards totaxes is notcontention
the CIR's conditioned thatupon
the the
FANexistence of
for deficiency
from Social
VAT and DST containing the imposition of 50% surcharge is
Assessment In light of the foregoing jurisprudential guidelines, the Court
Assessment finds
To that no Section
reiterate, competent 3 ofevidence
RR No. 02-01whatsoever
prescribeswasthepresented
Refund/Issuance of Franchise, excise "Immediacy Test" in determining what constitutes the
Well-settled is the rule that actions for tax refund, as in this
Tax Credit
Refund/Issuance of tax
Evidence of due case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is
In fine, We reiterate our consistent ruling that actions for tax
Tax Credit payment
Formal letter of
Assessment refund,
In the caseas inofthe instant case,ofare
Commissioner in the Revenue
Internal nature ofvs. a claim
The for
Refund/Issuance of demand, FAN Court
Jurisdiction In the of Appeal
instant case,et al.,
therethewas
Supreme Court ruled
no evidence showingthatthat
the three
Tax Credit Violation of
Others respondent
Thus, applyinggave thepetitioner further extension
abovementioned to submit
case, a formal
Refund/Issuance of Section 255 ofpaid
Errorneously assessment should
Accordingly, on the be: basis(1)that
addressed to theemployees'
petitioner's taxpayer; (2)
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of FWT
Procedural Issues compensation is subject to
Accordingly, petitioner's WTCdefective
fatally instead ofMotion
FWT, thefor claimed
Tax Creditof Tax
Violation Failure to File Reconsideration
However, accused didrepeatedly
not prevent the Assailed
argued that onlyDecision
a small from
Code Annual Tax return
Constitutionality
Assessment amount of profit
The provision underwasRR earned or sometimes
No. 2-98 she evenof
on the withholding lost
and Validity
Refund /Issuance of CWT of
Carry-Over percentage
In its originalGRT 2011 onAITR
banks shall be considered
electronically filed on as revoked
April or
16, 2012,
Tax Credit Option
Jurisdiction/
Assessment petitioner
The imposition marked thesurcharge
of the option "Toamounting
be refunded". Moreover, in
to P7,385,209.00
Surcharge,
Jurisdiction,
Assessment for late filing
However, of return observed
as correctly and payment of tax may LBAA,
by respondent be harsh but
ProceduralTax/
Refund /Issuance of Franchise Issues
petitioner failed
Considering that to RAfirst
No.pay7109 under protest theand
was approved questioned
took effect
Tax Credit Exemption from
Assessment Due Process on August
Since 14, 1991,
respondent hasLocal Water
the sole Districts,
authority orincluding
discretionherein
to abate
Exemption from petitioner's tax liability, the Court therefore must not
Assessment Further, considering that petitioner failed to prove that its
Taxes/
Violation of Tax
Others service fees and
Significantly, commissions
accused relied onare theintegral
work ofparts of the gross
his subordinates,
Refund /Issuance of Code/
Importation/ particularly on his
Based thereon, it isaccountant,
clear that, in in order
declaring his incometoinbe
for petitioner the
Tax Credit Exemption from
Assessment Due Process exempt 228
Section fromofpaying
the NIRC taxes, including
of 1997 compensating
evidently requires thattaxes,
the
Refund /Issuance of Prescription/ Zero- taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency
Moreover, although the claimed input VAT was carried over
Tax Credit Rated orValidity,
Waiver
Assessment by Petitioner
Based on the in its succeeding
above provision, Quarterly
the original VAT Returns, the
three-year
Refund /Issuance of Prescription prescriptive
Jurisdiction Based on theperiod may be
foregoing, RMC extended by virtue
No. 90-2012, of a valid
through which
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of Redemption legislated, is an administrative rule with
Hence, on the basis of the foregoing provisions of law, the force of law.
there
Tax Credit Period
ASSESSMENT COMPROMISE PENALTY is a clear delineation between banks, on one hand, and
In fine, the Court holds that petitioner's reliance on respondent's previous ruling
ASSESSMENT PRESCRIPTION Records show that petitioner filed his Final/ Amended ITR for the year 2006 on J
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFN/A TAX CREDIT To reiterate, neither the law nor the implementing regulations provide that in cl
ASSESSMENT INTEREST ON DEFICIENCY
By the TAXTax Code's clear terms, a proprietary educational institution is entitled on
ASSESSMENT PRESCRIPTION Records show that petitioner filed its ITR for FY 2006-2007 on October 13, 2007.
ASSESSMENT N/A Absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically designating RO Sunga to
ASSESSMENT PRESCRIPTION Also glaring is the BIR's delay in issuing the PAN. Again, as discussed earlier, the
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFPROCEDURAL
TAX CREDIT LAPSES In the instant cases, both parties failed to file their respective motions for recon
OTHERS ASSESSMENT Records reveal that NPC received the FANs and the FLDs with computations of d
ASSESSMENT N/A In sum, the Court cannot treat the Referral Memorandum into the LOA required
ASSESSMENT COMPROMISE PENALTY The last law, however, limited the period of exemption from taxes of local wate
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFVAT TAX CREDIT A perusal of petitioner'sQuarterly VAT Returns for the four quarters of 2008 show
ASSESSMENT PRESCRIPTION The irregularity in the dates of issuance and receipt of the FAN fails to escape th
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFJURISDICTION,
TAX CREDIT VAT Although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Q
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFPROCEDURAL
TAX CREDIT LAPSES In this case, the CIR's failure to move for a reconsideration of the Amended Deci
ASSESSMENT N/A The petitioner failed to prove that part of the professional fees, rent expense an
ASSESSMENT N/A Any tax benefit derived by petitioner from such carry-over redounds to the succ
ASSESSMENT DUE PROCESS A scrutiny of the details of discrepancies will show that the alleged VAT analysis p
ASSESSMENT N/A The records of the case indubitably show that the CTA-Third Division had already
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFPRESCRIPTION
TAX CREDIT It bears stressing that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exempt
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFJURISDICTION
TAX CREDIT It must be noted, however, that there was a denial of petitioner's claim by respo
ASSESSMENT N/A Applying the Supreme Court'sruling in the Medicard case to the present case, th
REFUND/ISSUANCE OFPRESCRIPTION
TAX CREDIT There being no supporting documents filed on or before June 19, 2013, the coun
TimeCredit
of Filing of Administartive
We should alsoClaim
take into consideration the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. Alth
Refund /Issuance of TaxN/A
Credit The purchases of goods and services by the petitioner that were destined for co
N/A Credit Thus, the Court En Bane is one with the Court in Division in holding that without
Assessment N/A Similarly, in this case, petitioner appears to have honestly believed in good faith
N/A Credit Petitioner cannot now shield itself from the principle that claims for refund are t
Assessment N/A Contrary to petitioner's view, April 15, 2004 was the reckoning date of accrual o
Others Jurisdiction The value-added tax is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or p
Assessment Jurisdiction While this Court is allowed to make its own determination of the taxpayer's liabi
Assessment Warrant of Garnishment Without receipt of the PAN and FLD, respondent was deprived of due process re
Assessment N/A Petitioner failed to provide the proof of Application for Registration together wi
Assessment N/A The Court notes that in its VAT assessment, respondent addedback petitioner's e
Others Civil liability Thus, the petitioner was not able to establish that herein respondent was inform
Others N/A Clearly, therefore, to attribute to accused a "willful failure to pay" the tax, it mu
Remedy Jurisdiction Clearly, the remedy available to assail the decision or ruling of the RTC in local ta
Assessment Jurisdiction In the instant case, petitioner entered into a Plan of De facto Merger whereby it
Jurisdiction
Credit It is evident from the above-quoted provisions that the law exacts from common
Assessment N/A In the present case, there is no question that the sale of other real property was
Assessment N/A Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar
Jurisdiction
Credit In the same vein, petitioner's recourse for its purchases of goods and services w
N/ACredit From the foregoing provisions, in order to be entitled to a tax credit or refund of
Jurisdictioon
Credit ".The contention of the petitioners that the exclusion of Filipino employees from
N/ACredit "Therefore, without the corresponding CWT certificates to support Philam's prio
Assessment N/A Be that as it may, notwithstanding the above-stated findings ofthe Court En Bane
Assessment Jurisdiction "Thus, in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petitio
N/A
Credit Failure to identify with reasonable specificity the flawed invoices and receipts pu
Assessment OTHERS The mere fact that the EWT declared per tax returns is higher than that per audi
Violation of Tax Code Assessment Without any proof of receipt of the tax assessment, the Courtcannot determine
Others Assessment/LBT In view of the foregoing, the assailed tax assessmenthas no basis under the Loca
Violation of Tax Code N/A Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the defensefailed to overcome th
Prescription
Credit It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the reckoning of thetwo-year prescript
Assessment Jurisdiction Clearly, not only did respondent complied with the mandatoryrequirement of iss
Assessment N/A A perusal of the evidence on record shows that Petitioner granted Respondent's
Assessment Prescription Based on the foregoing, it is clear that for expenses to bedeductible, the same m
N/ACredit Based on the records of the case, the Bureau of Treasury paid and remitted to th
Assessment N/A Finally, as a rule, penalties cannot be imposed absentany showing that the taxpa
Assessment N/A In this case, it is evident that petitioner, having failed to demandpayment within
Assessment Prescription There is no showing that respondent exerted anyeffort to collect the other or rem
Violation of Tax Code N/A The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that there isunlawful imp
Jurisdiction
Credit Petitioner is entitled to a partial refund of its excess input VAT attributable to va
N/ACredit Thus, the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with theBIR and the subse
Assessment N/A Considering that the power to assess is lodged in the respondentand is not with
Assessment Prescription The Court finds that respondent failed to prove that petitioner JV received the P
N/ACredit The Court finds the petition partly meritorious. The inaction on the part of the p
LBT Refund /Tax Credit Considering that petitioner complied with the requirements for refund of local b
N/ACredit Based on the foregoing provision, the VAT-registered person, whose sales are zer
N/ACredit Based on the foregoing, in order to be entitled to a refund or to a tax credit of in
JURISDICTION
Credit As can be gleaned from the assailed Amended Decision dated July 27, 2015, the
N/ACredit Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 112(A), the application for tax credit certi
Assessment JURISDICTION In the present case, both the petitioners and respondent are in pari delicto. The
N/ACredit Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 112(A)Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC
N/ACredit It must however be noted that the VAT zero-rating on the sales of goods, proper
N/ACredit While basic is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and a
Assessment DUE PROCESS/PRESCRIPTION
CIR cv Metro Star Suprema Case-It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 C
PRESCRIPTION/JURISDICTION
Credit Applying the same to the instant case, from March 20, 2014, the date when peti
Assessment PRESCRIPTION We uphold the finding of the Court in Division that the assessment was issued b
Assessment DUE PROCESS/PRESCRIPTION/JURISDICTION
-The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisi
DUECredit
PROCESS We deny Toledo's petition. First, the Court is well-aware that under Section 8 of
N/ACredit We fail to be persuaded. As discussed in the assailed Resolution, the Revised Rul
Assessment DUE PROCESS In the present case, while the BIR is fully aware that the liability for the "addition
N/ACredit Verily, the Certificates of Authentication issued by the Philippine Consul in Singap
N/ACredit The CIR's reliance on RMO No. 53-98 regarding the sufficiency of supporting doc
Assessment PRESCRIPTION Thus, considering that fraud is not duly proven in this case, the period of limitati
Assessment DUE PROCESS The settled rule is that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax
JURISDICTION/PRESCRIPTION
Credit In fine, the Court in Division did not err when it assumed jurisdiction over the Pe
N/ACredit A certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is complete in the relevant deta
N/ACredit Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this ca
Violation of Tax Code DUE PROCESS Based on the above-quoted provisions, the following elements must be establish
Assessment PRESCRIPTION To determine prescription, what is essential only is that the facts demonstrating
Others DUE PROCESS/Violation
Nevertheless,
of Tax code
to determine whether or not the prosecution was able to discharg
Assessment PRESCRIPTION/DUEThe PROCESS
3-year period rule to assess internal revenue taxes is explicitly provided in Se
PRESCRIPTION/JURISDICTION
Credit Based on the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Ro
N/ACredit The irrevocability rule provided in Section 76 of the NIRC admits of an exception
N/ACredit Based on the foregoing provisions, to exempt petitioner from paying taxes, inclu
Assessment DUE PROCESS The Court En Banc likewise held in recent cases, that a taxpayer's right to due pr
JURISDICTION
Credit Indeed, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is a court of special jurisdiction and as suc
Assessment PRESCRIPTION However, the CIR correctly identified that Maxicare's VAT returns for the subject
N/ACredit Considering that the present judicial claim was filed only on January 9, 2015, the
N/ACredit Notice, by way of a request from the tax collection authority to produce the com
N/ACredit In fine, proof of actual remittance is not a condition to claim for a refund or tax c
Assessment Due process It is elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 constitution that no person shall be d
Assessment Jurisdiction A claim for tax exemption, whether full or partial, does not question the authori
N/ACredit The outright denial of petitioner's claim for a refund, on the sole ground of failur
N/ACredit The rule is that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim
Assessment Tax Exemption If the question deals with the legality or validity of the assessment (e.g. authorit
Prescription/
Credit Zero-Rated
The admissions
or Effectively
madeZero-Rated
in a motion
Sales
are judicial admissions which are binding on th
Legal
Credit
Capacity The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must takeprecedence over the objecti
Violation
Credit of Tax Code
As clearly held therein, tax refunds (or tax credits), as opposed to tax refunds, "a
Assessment Violation of Tax CodeOur tax laws provide for a period within which the government can exercise its r
Prescription,
Credit Deficiency
The Supreme
Income Tax, Court's
Value ruling
Added thatTax,
theand
distribution
ExpandedofWithholding
liquidating dividends
Tax Liability
as a res
Jurisdiction,
Credit ProceduralThe Supreme
Issue Court found that Contex's VAT exemption under RA No. 7227 is lim
N/ACredit It must be noted that the Court of Tax Appeals being a court of record, the cases
N/ACredit Even though the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeed
Others Procedural Issue/s The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments b
N/ACredit As aptly found by the Court in Division, respondent was able to prove by its rele
Others Whether petitioner Having
is entitled
ruledto that
a refund
petitioner
or credit
is not
of the
a bank
0.55%or other
LBT collected
financialforinstitution,
the first and
it cannot
secon
Assessment N/A The Court finds it improper for respondent to deduct the amount of P392,227. 7
Assessment N/A The CIR claims that petitioner cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal
N/ACredit The basis of the findings in BIR Ruling No. 001-2003 is the 2002 DOE Certification
N/ACredit It is well settled that the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period for the fil
N/ACredit In this case, petitioner simultaneously submitted its complete supporting docum
Assessment JURISDICTION There being a question as to whether the CIR can collect on said assessment, the
Refund /Issuance of
JURISDICTION It has been held that if the CIR decides the claim on the 120th day, or does not d
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
N/A In addition, petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the long established doctrine th
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of
N/A Indeed, under Sections 110(A) and 113(A) of the NIRC, any input tax that is subje
Tax Credit
Refund /Issuance of CAPITAL GAINS
Enshrined in our basic legal principles is the time-honored doctrine that no perso
Tax Credit TAX
GRAVE ABUSE OF
Others Concededly, there is no clear statement under R.A. No. 1125, the amendatory R
DISCRETION;
Assessment PRESCRIPTION; WAIVER The law is clear. Pursuant to Section 203 of the 1997NIRC, respondent should iss
Assessment DUE PROCESS The issuance of a valid formal assessment is asubstantive prerequisite to tax coll
Assessment DUE PROCESS 3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).- If after review and evaluation by th
Assessment JURISDICTION The mandate is clear - the taxpayers must be informed in writing of the facts and
Assessment N/A This Court, citing Aznar vs. Court of Appeals, reiterated that it is quite easy for re
Assessment N/A As a corollary, it is of no consequence that the electricity transmitted to BATELE
Refund /Issuance of Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax
N/A
Tax Credit DEFICIENCY TAX; refund,
Income as taxinisthis case, are
imposed in the
on an natureor
individual ofentity
a claim asfor
a form of
Assessment
Refund /Issuance of DOUBLE excise tax or a tax on the privilege of earning
Respondent was able to prove compliance with the following income. Income
N/A
Tax Credit requisites
While it is mandated
axiomatic that underallSection 112 of the
presumptions are NIRC
in favorof 1997,
of the
correctness of tax assessments, the assessment
Section 228 the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of itself should
Assessment N/A
Refund /Issuance of 1997
To beisentitled
clear that to a"the taxpayers
refund shall be
or tax credit informed inany
representing writing
N/A
Credit /
Tax Refund excess
Let it beorstressed
unutilized thatcreditable
statutes withholding
granting tax tax, a claimant
exemptions are
N/A
Issuance of Tax construed
Clearly, thestrictissimi
person who juris against before
appeared the taxpayer and liberally
the notary public is
Tax Refund / ELECTRONIC the one who 'executed the foregoing waiver for and in behalf
Section 112(A) of the 1997 NIRC states that a taxpayer has two (2) years from th
Issuance of Tax EVIDENCE, BEST Finally, as to the compromise penalty, GQRI voluntarily paid
Assessment DEFICIENCY TAX
DUE PROCESS; Php2,000.00
Finally, out of
the Court Enthe
Bane Php15,000.00
finds no reasonimposed thereto.
to reverse the
Assessment
Tax Refund / JURISDICTION applicationthe
However, of fundamental
the ten (10)-year rule prescriptive
is that reliefsperiod
grantedfor athe
N/A
Issuance of Tax litigant
The aretaxing
city's limited to those
power doesspecifically
not extendprayed
to the forlevyinoftheincome
Others REFUND
Refund /Issuance of tax,
The except when
rule is that thelevied on banks
BIR rulings haveandnoother financial
retroactive effect
PRESCRIPTION
Tax Credit where a grossly unfair deal would result to the prejudice of
DECIDED OTHER JURISPRUDENCE
DISPOSITION GROUP
BY CITED
2nd 1. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, DENIED G1 Nevertheless,while petit

3rd Inc. v.s. Commissioner
1. Commissioner of Internal
of Internal GRANTED G1 Taking the foregoing int
2nd Revenue
1. Glynnavs Avon ProductsV. Aniana
Foronda-Crystal DISMISSED G1 The Court finds petition
3rd Lawas
1. Son, G.R. No.
Commissioner 221815, 29
of Internal GRANTED G1 From the foregoing, it is
EN BANC Revenue
1. Guzman vs.vs.
Fitness by Design,
Commission on lnc., DENIED G1 Consistent with the abo
3rd Elections,
1. G.R. No.of182380,
Commissioner InternalAugust DENIED G1 It may be pointed out by
EN BANC Revenue
1. Lucas G.v. Adamson
Far East Banket al&V.Trust
Court DENIED G1 This Court finds accused
EN BANC of Appeals,
1. Land Bank GR.ofNo.
the120935, Mayv.
Philippines DENIED G1 Given that Frankfort has
EN BANC Spouses
1. Rosa andofPedro
Commissioner Costa, G.R.
Internal DENIED G1 In the case at bar, Petitio
EN BANC Revenue
1. Citibankv. N.A.
A. Soriano
vs. Court Corporation,
of Appeals DENIED G1 It bears stressing that a
EN BANC and Commissioner
1. Accenture, Inc. v.ofCommissioner
Internal DISMISSED G1 The burden is on the tax
3rd of Internal Revenue,
1. Commissioner GR No.
of Internal GRANTED G1 Based on the foregoing
2nd Revenue
1. Refer tov.Vda.
Algue,
DeInc.,
San 241 Phil.vs.
Agustin 829 GRANTED G1 Given that the subject a
3rd Commissioner
1. Commissioner of of
Intemal Revenue,
Internal GRANTED G1 As a rule, internal reven
Revenue vs. Next Mobile, Inc., G.R. N/A G1 , CTA Case No. 9538
N/A G1 , CTA Case No. 9657
PARTIALLY
EN BANC 1. CIR vs. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., G1 The Court finds that a m
GRANTED
EN BANC G.R.
1. DeNo. 136975,
Liano et al V.March 31, 2005.
Hon. Court of DENIED G1 Consistent with the fore
Appeals, GR No. 142316, November N/A G1 , CTA Case No. 9556
EN BANC 1. Acabal v. Acabal, et al., G.R. No. DENIED G1 Basic is the rule that cre
1st 148376,
1. Gaw vs.31Commissioner
March 2005. of Internal DISMISSED G1 Since the obligation to p
EN BANC Revenue,
1. Twin AceG.R. No. 222837,
Holdings July 23,v.
Corporation DENIED G1 The foregoing discussion
2nd Rufina andPhil.
1. SMI-ED Company, G.R. No.
Technology, Inc. vs. GRANTED G1 An assessment "refers to
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal
1. Pilipinas Total Gas v. Revenue, DENIED G1 In all cases, whatever do
1. Michel J. Lhuillier Revenue,
Pawnshop, Inc. DENIED G1 In a myriad of cases, the
vs. Commissioner of Internal N/A G1 , CTA Case No. EB 1854
PARTIALLY
3rd 1. Site/ Philippines Corporation G1 Based on the foregoing p
GRANTED
3rd (Formerly
1. MalayanClientlogic
InsurancePhils., Inc.) Inc.
Company, vs. GRANTED G1 In this case, there is no s
3rd vs.Commissioner
1. St. Francis Square Realty
of Internal GRANTED G1 In this case, the subject
3rd Revenue
1. v. Metroof5 Internal
Commissioner tar Superama, GRANTED G1 In view of the foregoing
Revenue V. Lancaster Philippines, PARTIALLY
2nd G1 Based on the foregoing p
GRANTED
EN BANC 1. National Power Corporation v. DISMISSED G1 Applying the foregoing p
EN BANC Province
1. of Quezon
Michigan and
Holdings, Inc. v. The DENIED G1 Being a holding compan
EN BANC City Treasurer of Makati
1. Commissioner City, Nelia
of Internal DENIED G1 We agree with the court
EN BANC Revenue v. Armando
1. Commissioner L Abad, GR No.
of Internal DENIED G1 There being no valid thir
2nd Revenue
1. Nikkenvs. Next Mobile,
Philippines, Inc. Inc., G.R.
vs. CIR, GRANTED G1 Clearly in this case, the C
CTA EB No. 1569, June 7, 2018.
2nd 1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. GRANTED G1 Evidently, whether a rev
2nd Commissioner
Internal Revenue,
Internal DENIED G1 The Court finds that whi
2nd Revenue
1.. Goodyearvs. S.C. Johnson Inc.
Philippines, & Son,
vs. GRANTED G1 In the instant case, it wa
EN BANC Commissioner
Internal Revenue,
Internal DENIED G1 Based on the records, th
Revenue PARTIALLY
EN BANC 1. Easternv.Telecommunications
Hantex Trading Co., Inc., G1 To reiterate, claims for t
GRANTED
EN BANC Philippines,
1. Inc. vs. Commissioner
Atlas Consolidated Mining & of GRANTED G1 Accordingly, it is a well s
EN BANC Development
1. Commissioner Corporation
of Internalvs. DENIED G1 The CTA being a court o
1st Revenue
1. vs. Manila
Philippine MiningInc., vs.
Geothermal, DENIED G1 Basic is the rule that tax
1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Revenue, DENIED G1 There must be a grant o
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
1. City of Lapu-Lapu vs. Philippine DENIED G1 In this regard, the taxpay
EN BANC Economic Zone Authority
1. Commissioner of Internal and DENIED G1 To the mind of the Cour
EN BANC Revenue v. Asian Transmission
1. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. DISMISSED G1 As correctly pointed by t
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
1. Heirs of Teresita Villanueva et al. DENIED G1 However, the Court in D
EN BANC v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia
1.BOI v. SRMI, 2.G.R. Nos. 153063- DISMISSED G1 Respondent's failure to
2nd division 70, 19 Nos.
1.G.R. August 2005.and 112800,
109976 GRANTED G1 Since the subject VAT ta
April 26, 2005. of Internal PARTIALLY
2nd division 1. Commissioner G1 It is noteworthy that pet
GRANTED
3rd division Revenue
1. v. Burmeister
Fort Bonifacio and Wain
Development DENIED G1 It bears stressing that a
EN BANC Corporation
1.PNB vs. Commissioner
vs. Teresita Fe A Gregorio, of DENIED G1 It is clear from the abov
EN BANC G.R.
1. No.
City of194944,
Davao and September 18,N
Bella Linda DENIED G1 In the instant case, petit
1st division Tanjili, in her official
1.Commissioner capacity as City
of Internal ACQUITTED G1 The prosecution failed to
1st division Revenue
1. v. Algue,ofInc.,
Commissioner Internal GRANTED G1 The fatal infirmity that a
1st division Revenue vs. Transitions
1. Rizal Commercial Banking Optical DISMISSED G1 To emphasize, petitione
3rd division Corporation vs. Commissioner
1.De Leon vs. Hercules Agro of DISMISSED G1 The mandatory provisio
2nd division Industrial Corporation,
1.Commissioner of Internal et of., G.R. GRANTED G1 Respondent failed to dis
Revenue v. Avon Products CANCELLED AND SET
2nd division 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 Since the subject VAT as
ASIDE
1st division Revenue vs. Reyes,
1. The People of theG.R. Nos. vs.
Philippines DENIED G1 Jurisprudence also provi
EN BANC Basher
1. DayritBongcarawan
vs. Cruz, G.R.YL-39910, DENIED G1 An assessment that beco
3rd division September 26, 1988.
1.Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 Petitioner was able to fi
Revenue vs.Properties,
Avon Products PARTIALLY
1st division 1.Brewery Inc. v.Manu G1 The Court finds that peti
GRANTED
1st division Commissioner ofof
1.Commissioner Internal
InternalRevenue, GRANTED G1 A careful reading of the
1st division Revenue
1. vs. Eastern
Commissioner of Internal PARTLY GRANTED G1 Compliance with Section
EN BANC Revenue vs.
1.Eastern Fitness By Design, Inc.,
Telecommunications DENIED G1 A refund is not a matter
EN BANC Philippines, Inc.
1.BPI-Family v. Commissioner
Savings Bank, Inc. v. of DENIED G1 Petitioner failed to addu
2nd division Court of Appeals et al.G.R.
1. MOFCompany, Inc. vs. Shin Yang No. GRANTED G1 More importantly, none
2nd division Brokerage Corporation,
1. Commissioner of Internal G.R. No. GRANTED G1 To be liable for deficienc
2nd division Revenue v. Menguito
1. Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 Records show that Ms. L
EN BANC Revenue vs. Azucena T. Reyes,
1. AT & T Communications Services et DENIED G1 Jurisprudence tells us th
1st Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner
1. Commissioner of Internal of GRANTED G1 In this case, it is undispu
Revenue v. Kudos Metal PARTIALLY
3rd 1. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. G1 On the basis thereof, it i
GRANTED
EN BANC vs.Pelizloy
1. Commissioner of Internal v. The
Realty Corporation DENIED G1 From the foregoing disc
En Banc Province
1. Spouses ofJose
Benguet, G.R. and
N. Binaro No. DENIED G1 Accordingly, the provisio
En Banc Predosa
1. Rohm Binarao
Apollo Svs. Plus Builders,
emicondudor DISMISSED G1 Such non-compliance wi
Philippines vs. Commissioner PARTIALLY
2nd 1. Commissioner of Internal of G1 It must be stressed that
GRANTED
2nd Revenue
1. vs. Construction
Commissioner of InternalResources GRANTED G1 Based on the foregoing d
Revenue vs. Liquigaz Philippines
2nd 1. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, DENIED G1 Nevertheless, petitioner
2nd Inc.Philippine
1. vs. Commissioner
JournalistsofInc.,
Internal
vs. DISMISSED G1 Even on the assumption
1st Commissioner
1. of InternalInc.
Medicard Philippines, Revenue,
us. GRANTED G1 As to the resolution of th
2nd Commissioner
Internal
Internal Revenue, GRANTED G1 In sum, for failure of res
En Banc Revenue
1. vs. Pilipinas
Team Pacific Shell vs.
Corporation DENIED G1 Suffice it to say, the "ap
En Banc Josephine
1. Daza inofher
Commissioner capacity as
Internal DENIED G1 For failure of CIR to prov
2nd Revenue
1. v. Avon Products
Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 As such, following the do
2nd Revenue
1. v. Sony Philippines,
Commissioner of Internal Inc., GUILTY/ CONVICTED G1 Considering the above c
En Banc Revenue v. Philippine
1. Commissioner of Internal Daily Inquirer, DENIED G1 In cases such as that of p
En Banc Revenue v. Ayala Securities
1. Commissioner of Internal DENIED G1 The fact of payment of t
3rd Revenue vs. Philippine National
1. The City of Manila, et al vs. Hon. DENIED G1 As to the 60-period requ
2nd Grecia-Cuerdo, et aG.R.
1. Commissioner of Internal No. 175723, GRANTED G1 Furthermore, the Court
2nd Revenue v. Kudos Metal
1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. us. DENIED G1 After thorough evaluatio
2nd Commissioner of Internal
1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. us. Revenue, GRANTED G1 Thus, a grant of authorit
En Banc Commissioner
1. CommisJioner of of
Internal
Internal Revenue, DENIED G1 This ruling is consistent w
En Banc Revenue
1. v. BurmeiJter
Commissioner and Wain
of Internal DENIED G1 Applying the foregoing,
2nd Revenue
1. Silicon vs. Burmeister
Philippines_ and
Inc. Wain
(Formerly DENIED G1 In this case, it is clear th
3rd Intel
1. Philippines Manufacturing,
Commissioner of Internal ACQUITTED G1 In this case, the prosecu
EN BANC Revenue
1. vs. GJM of
Commissioner Philippines
Internal DENIED G1 The tax which petitioner
EN BANC Revenue
1. Accenture,vs. Manila
Inc. vs.Electric Co.,
Commissioner DENIED G1 Moreover, petitioner's in
2nd of Philippine
1. Internal Revenue, G.R.
Journalist, Inc.No.
vs. DENIED G1 In this case, the issue of
3rd Commissioner of Internal
1. Magsino v. De Ocampo et aL., Revenue, DISMISSED G1 Oddly, petitioner pleads
EN BANC G.R. No. 166944, 18 August
1. Koji Yasuma v. Heirs of Cecilia S. 2014 DENIED G1 However, as to the RTC's
1st De Villa, et al., G.R. No. 150350,
1. CIR vs. Magsaysay Lines, nc: G.R. GRANTED G1 A careful perusal and co
2nd NO. 146984: July 28, 2006.
1. Silicon Philippines, Inc. vs. DENIED G1 Finding that this Court h
1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Revenue DENIED G1 This Court cannot agree
1. Placido vs. NLRC. of Internal
G.R. No. Revenue, DENIED G1 By deleting the phrase "
1st 180888, September 18, 2009. GUlLTY G1 By filing her QVAT Retur
PARTIALLY
3rd 1. Systra Philippines, Inc. v. G1 In the present case, peti
GRANTED
1st Commissioner
Internal
Internal Revenue, GRANTED G1 Evidently, no LOA was is
2nd Revenue
1. vs. Sonyof
Commissioner Philippines,
Internal Inc., GRANTED G1 Applying the foregoing p
2nd Revenue
1. SMI-EDvs. Atness ByLandholdings
Philippines Design, Inc., DENIED G1 Upon examining the rec
Inc.Commissioner
vs. Commissioner of Internal PARTIALLY
2nd 1. of Internal G1 Finally, as to whether th
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
3rd Revenue
1. CBK Power vs. Sekisui
Co. Ltd.Jushi
v. G1 Based on the foregoing j
GRANTED
3rd Commissioner
Internal
Internal Revenue DENIED G1 Without any allegation,
1st Revenue vs. Reyes,
1. Commissioner of Internaletseq., G.R. Nos. GRANTED G1 Indubitably, in the prese
1st Revenue vs. Composite
1. Commissioner of Internal Materials, GRANTED G1 In view of the responden
1ST Revenue vs. GJM Philippines
1. Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance GRANTED G1 It is worth re-echoing th
3rd Brokers,
1. Inc. vs. Commissioner
Intel Technology Philippines,of Inc. DENIED G1 Thus, since it was never
2nd vs.Medicard
Philippines_ Inc. vs. GRANTED G1 In the instant case, it is u
3rd Commissioner
1. Reyes v. Insular of Internal
Life Assurance DENIED G1 It is worthy to mention t
2nd Co.,
1. Ltd., G.R. No.of180098.
Commissioner InternalApril 2, GRANTED G1 Due to the nullity of the
Revenue V. Sony Philippines, Inc. N/A G1 , CTA Case No. 9700
EN BANC 1. Testacy of Sixto Lopez V. Agustin DISMISSED G1 In the instant case, Deut
LIboro, GR No. L-1787, August 27,
PARTIALLY
EN BANC 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 Clearly, RO Etorma was n
GRANTED
EN BANC Revenue
1. Davao V. Azucena
City T. Reyes,
Water District etGR
al V. DENIED G1 In the instant case, petit
EN BANC CSC,
1. GR. No.
Blanco 92237-38,
Español September
V. Palanca, GR. DISMISSED G1 Unfortunately, petitione
No. L-11390, March 26, 1918 PARTIALLY
2nd G1 All told, based on the fo
GRANTED
1st GRANTED G1 Having filed an administ
EN BANC 1. Commissioner of Internal DENIED G1 We agree that "tax refun
EN BANC Revenue V. Mirant Pagbilao DENIED G1 In this case, this Court E
3rd 1. Commissioner of Internal DENIED G1 Section 229 of the NIRC
Revenue V. Philippine National PARTIALLY
3rd G1 Although a portion of th
GRANTED
EN BANC DENIED G1 Silence is not a source o
EN BANC 1. Commissioner of Internal DENIED G1 All told, the Court En Ba
2nd Revenue V. Aichi Forging
1. Commissioner of Internal Company PARTLY GRANTED G1 Considering that petition
Revenue V. Lianga Bay Logging Co., PARTIALLY
2nd 1. Cagatin V. Magsaysay Maritime G1 However, other than the
GRANTED
EN BANC Corporation,
1. Commissioner et al,ofGR No. 175795,
Internal DENIED G1 In assessing VAT, it must
EN BANC Revenue
1. V. Mt Blanc
Commissioner Motors Inc.,
of Internal DENIED G1 Applying the doctrine la
2nd Revenue
1. V. PAGCOR,
Commissioner GR No.
of Internal GRANTED G1 Regrettably, like in Comm
3rd Revenue
1. V. Fitness
Philippine Bank ofby Design, GR GRANTED G1 Respondent failed to est
2nd Communications
1. Spouses William V.Guidangen
Court of and DENIED G1 To reiterate, the docum
Mary Guidangen V. Devota B. PARTIALLY
2nd G1 Pursuant to Section 110
GRANTED
EN BANC 1. Republic of the Philippines, DENIED G1 The findings of fact by th
EN BANC represented by the Commissioner DENIED G1 Based on the foregoing
PARTIALLY
EN BANC 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 The Court En Banc agree
GRANTED
EN BANC Revenue V. Lianga Bay Logging Co., DENIED G1 After a careful evaluatio
PARTIALLY
1ST 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 Similarly, the Court canc
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
1ST Revenue V. Lianga Bay Logging Co., G1 The Court finds that alth
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
1ST G1 In summation, petitione
GRANTED
2ND 1. Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 The essential nature of t
EN BANC Revenue vs. Fitness By Design, Inc., DENIED G1 Under the doctrine of st
EN BANC DENIED G1 While the settled rule is
2ND GRANTED G1 In line with the foregoin
2ND GRANTED G1 In view of the foregoing
3RD 1. Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 Applying the aforecited
3RD Revenue V. Azucena T. Reyes, GRANTED G1 After a careful review of
EN BANC 1. Eastern Telecommunications GRANTED G1 Considering that the me
Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of PARTIALLY
3RD 1. Phil International Fair, Inc. vs. The G1 It must be stressed that
GRANTED
1ST Collector of Internal
1. Philippine Geothermal,Revenue, G.R.
Inc. vs. DENIED G1 Basic is the rule that tax
2ND Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
1. Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner DENIED G1 It is the conclusion of th
3RD of internal Revenue, G.R.
1. Eastern Telecommunications No. DENIED G1 Statutes that grant tax e
EN BANC Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of DENIED G1 To reiterate, neither the
EN BANC 1. Team Pacific Corporation vs. DISMISSED G1 The perfection of an app
Daza, G.R. No. 167732, July 11, PARTIALLY
2ND G1 Petitioner is entitled to a
GRANTED
1ST 1. SMI-ED Technology, Inc. vs. CIR, GRANTED G1 Neither the law nor its im
EN BANC GR No. 175410, November 12, 2004 GRANTED G1 In this case, however, re
PARTIALLY
1ST G1 It must be stressed that
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
2ND G1 In sum, petitioner has su
GRANTED
3rd 1. Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. DENIED G1 Petitioners failed to esta
3rd Commissioner
1. Rizal Commercialof Internal
Banking Revenue, GRANTED G1 Contrary to the settled p
3rd Corporation
1. vs. Commissioner
Allied Banking Corporation vs. of DISMISSED G1 Clearly, upon receipt of
3rd Commissioner
1. of InternalInc.
Philippine Journalists, Revenue,
v. GRANTED G1 Taking bearing in the ab
of InternalRevenue, DENIED G1 While it is axiomatic tha
En Banc Revenue
1. vs. Hantex
CommiJJioner TradingRevenue
q/Internal Co., DENIED G1 However, Zuellig failed t
En Banc vs.Banco
1. NissanDe Motor
Oro, Phils.,
et at. vs.CTARepublic
EB Case DENIED G1 All told, not being a caba
En Banc of the Philippines, et al.
1. People vs. Jardelezal, G.R. ,G.R. No. DENIED G1 To seal the conclusion o
En Banc 165265, February 6,
1. Commissioner ofInternal 2006. GRANTED G1 It is explicit from the for
2nd Revenue vs. Lancaster Philippines,
1. Consolidated cases of CBK Power DISMISSED G1 Considering that petition
3rd Company Limited v. Commissioner
1. Philippine National Bank vs. GRANTED G1 Based on the foregoing,
1. Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Revenue, GRANTED G1 As categorically declared
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GRANTED G1 Moreover, respondent's
3rd Revenue
1. Estate ofv. GJM Philippines
the Late Juliana Diez GRANTED G1 Thereafter, a NIC, PAN a
2nd Vda.
1. De Gabriel vs.
Commissioner ofCommissioner
Internal of GRANTED G1 The conclusion can be m
En Banc Revenue
1. vs. !thiefofCorporation,
Commissioner Internal CTA DENIED G1 In this case, for failure o
En Banc Revenue
1. v. GJM Philippines
Commissioner of Internal DENIED G1 The very provision of the
En Banc Revenue
1. Board of vs.Investments
Sony Philippines, v. SR Inc., GRANTED G1 In view of the above pro
En Banc Metals,
1. Inc., G.R. of
Commissioner No.Internal
219927. DENIED G1 As to the claim that any
Revenue vs. Lancaster Philippines, PARTIALLY
2nd 1. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. G1 Applying the said period
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
1st v.
1. Commissioner of Internal G1 As to the filing of the jud
GRANTED
PARTIALLY
2nd Revenue v. Burmeister
1. Commissioner of Internal and Wain G1 The Court finds the ICPA
GRANTED
1st Revenue vs. Burmeister
1. Commissioner of Internal and Wain GRANTED G1 In view of respondent's
2nd Revenue vs. Hambrecht &
1. Mirasol Castillo vs. Republic of Quist ACQUITTED G1 To recapitulate, the fina
2ND the Philippines, et al.,
1. Commissioner of Internal G.R. No. GRANTED G1 In view of the foregoing
EN BANC Revenue
1. vs. Sonyand Inigo Insurance
Winebrenner GRANTED G1 This Court maintains tha
Brokers Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 206526, PARTIALLY
2ND 1. E.E. Black Ltd. - Philippines vs. G1 In view of the foregoing
GRANTED
2ND Commissioner
Internal
InternalRevenue, GRANTED G1 Unfortunately, this Cour
1ST Revenue
1. vs. FMF
Capistrano Development
Daayata et al. v. ACQUITTED G1 The nullity of the alleged
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. PARTIALLY
2ND 1. Filinvest Development G1 An examination of petiti
GRANTED
SPECIAL 3rd Corporation,
1. Central Luzon et a!. vs. Corporation
Drug GRANTED G1 The rationale for requiri
vs.Collector
Commissioner of Internal PARTIALLY
SPECIAL 2nd 1. of Internal Revenue vs. G1 At this juncture, it must
GRANTED
En Banc Alberto D. Benipayo, G.R. No. L-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toshiba GRANTED
Information Equipment
G2 (Phils.). Inc. G.R.
In hisNo.
Petition,
150154, theAugust
CIR p
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue GUILTYv.BEYOND
The Estate
REASONABLE
of Benigno DOUBT
P. Toda/
G2 Jr./ et al., G.R.The NO.accused
147188,were
Septembe
charg
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PARTIALLY Central Luzon
GRANTED
Drug Corporation,
G2 The Court partially agree
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 The amendment to Sect
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear GRANTEDPhilippines/ Inc.
G2G.R. 216130, August the settled
3, 2016rule is that b
2nd Mannasoft Technology Corp. vs. Commissioner GRANTED
of Internal Revenue,
G2 CTA Case No. The 8745.Court
Commissioner
ruled in favorof
2nd Heirs of Pedro Pasag, et al. vs. Spouses Lorenzo GRANTED
and Florentina Paracha,
G2 et al., G.R.there
No. 155483,
is no evidence
April 27,to2s
En Banc Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner DENIEDof Internal Revenue,
G2 G.R. No. 188550,
The Court August
En Banc
19, 2013
also d
En Banc Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner DENIED of Internal Revenue, G2G.R. No. 222743,Respondent
April 5, 2017; didCommiss
not fail
En Banc Multi-Realty Development Corporation v. The DENIED
Makati Tuscany Condominium
G2 Corporation,
AlthoughCrisanto
the arguments
M. Aal
En Banc North Davao Mining Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. DENIED
No. 112546, March G2 13, 1996 The sale of MAPL shares
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Seagate GRANTED
Technology, GR G2 No. 153866, February The11, claim
2005;
for CIR
refund
vs. Tos
wa
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bank of DENIED
the Philippine Islands,
G2 G.R. No. 224327, The instant
June 11,Petition
2018; Phili
for R
En Banc De Liano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142316, DENIED
November 22, 2001 G2 We deny the Petition for
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque DISMISSEDPower Corporation,Commissioner
G2 The
of Internal
petitioner's
Revenue
non-comv.
3rd Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. CommissionerGRANTED
of Internal Revenue,G2 G.R. No. 222743, April
In this5,case,
2017petitioner re
2nd China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer DISMISSED
of Manila, G.R. No.G2204117, Julyn01, TOP 20152 has become concl
En Banc RCBC v. CIR,G.R. No. 170257, September 7, 2011; DENIED Lascona LandG2 Co. Inc. v. Commissionioner
The rule on ofdisputed
Internal Rev
ass
En Banc Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. The City Treasurer DENIED
of Makati City, Nelia
G2 A. Barlis, CTA EBThe No.City
1093,
of Makati
June 17, may
201n
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Composite DENIED Materials, Inc.,G.R.
G2 No. 241673, Clearly
June 10,in2019;
this case,
Medicard
the C
En Banc Banco De Oro, et. al. v. Republic DENIED G2 the Supreme Court alrea
En Banc Systra Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
DENIEDRevenue, G.R. G2No. 176290, September
Petitioner 21,failed
2007;toJesus
proveG
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, DISMISSED31 SCRA 95; Western
G2 Minolco Corp.Relative
vs. Commissioner
to the resolutio of I
En Banc No. 188016, January 14, 2015 citing Sea-Land DENIED
Service Inc. v. Court
G2 of Appeals, G.R. ItNo.
is worthy
122605,toAprilmention
30, 20 t
2nd 12s G.R. No. 197117, April 10, 2013. 129BJR
PARTIALLYRuling
GRANTED
Nos. 28-80, G2
undated, 156-84 datedAccording
September
to the12,Destina
198
2nd Philippine International Air Terminals, co; Inc.
GRANTED
vs. CommissionerG2 of Internal Revenue The law prescribing a lim
En Banc 13 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. The Commissioner
DENIED of Internal
G2 Revenue, G.R. Article
No. 182582,
1148. The April
limitat
17, 2
En Banc Florentino Atillo, III v, Court of Appeals, G.R.DENIED
No. 11905, JanuaryG2 23, 1997 Spouses ItNilo
must Ramos
be emphasized
and Eliadora t
En Banc G.R. No. 166104, June 26, 2008 DENIED G2 "Ultra Mar would nevert
En Banc Republic of the Phi/ippineJ', represented fryDENIED
the Commissioner G2 of Internal l{cvem1e After
us. aTeam
careful
(Phi/J.)
reviewEnew
of
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 The Court En Banc agree
En Banc Babst vs. CA and Elizalde Steel, Inc. vs. CA, G.R.
DENIED
Nos. 99398and104625,
G2 January 26,It2001.~
is important to unders
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. ManilaDENIED Electric Company, G.R.G2 No. 181459, June Section
9, 2014;
4 of Commission
the Nationa
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue,GRANTED
Inc., G.R. No. L-28896,G2 February 17, 1988,Similarly,
158 SCRA
pursuant9 to Se
1st Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. Commissionerof GRANTED
Internal Revenue,G2 G.R. No. 222743, April 5,
In balancing the scales b
En Banc Team Sual Corporation (formerly Mirant SualDENIED Corporation) vs. Commissioner
G2 of Internal
Section Revenue,
112(C) of Commiss
the Na
En Banc Rogelio Dontis vs. Julio Moghinong, Jr., G.R. No.
DENIED
191696, April 10, G22013. 61 Commissioner
Based on ofthe
Internal
aforesaid
Reven p
2nd G.R. No. 81446, August 18, 1988, 164 SCRADISMISSED
524 citing CollectorG2 of Internal RevenueJurisdiction
v. Reyes, Nos.overL-the11534
sub
2nd Spouses Ntlo Ramos and Eliadora Ramos v. GRANTED
Raul Obispo and FarG2 East Bank and TrustEvidently,
Company, G.R.
it is No. 193
a well-ent
En Banc John Doe and Jane Doe, who are persons acting DENIEDfor, in behalf orG2
under the authority Toof Respondent,
reiterate, G.R. N
an assessm
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v, UnitedDENIED
Salvage and Towage G2(Phils.), Inc., G.R. Jurisdiction
No. 197515,isJuly
conferred
02, 201
En Banc CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner DENIED
G2 G.R. No. 198729-30, When the January
denial15,2014.
of the m
3rd BPI Leasing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,DENIED
et al., G.R. No. 127624,
G2 November 18,Section 228 of thevs.
2003. 92 Dizon Cou
NIRC
En Banc G.R. No. 222428, February 19, 2018. DENIED G2 while the petitioner imp
1st CTA EB No. 460 (CTA Case No. 6697); Samar-1
GRANTED
Electric Cooperative
G2 v, Commissioner ofclear
It is Internal
fromRevenue,
the foregC
1st Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Azucena GRANTED
T Reyes, etseq., G2 G.R. Nos. 159694 and
It is163581, January
clear from 27,
the earlie
3rd Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court DISMISSED
of Appeals, eta/., G.R. G2No. 126620, AprilFor17,petitioner's
2002 failure to
PARTIALLY
3rd N/A G2 In fine, petitioner was ab
GRANTED
En Banc Amelia D. De Mesa, et. at. v. Pepsi Cola Products,
DENIED Phils., Inc., et.G2
al. G.R. Nos. 153063-70,
The said August 19, 2005
contention is co
2nd N/A DENIED G2 In fine, the pieces of evi
2nd Lascona Land Co. vs. CIR G.R. No. 171251, DISMISSED
March 5, 2012 G2 Accordingly, petitioner's
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BASF Coating
GRANTED + Inks Phils.,G2Inc., G.R. No. 198677,
From November 26, 2014,
the foregoing, the
En Banc Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.DENIED
vs. City Government G2 of Batangas, G.R. No. 156040, December
Here, only naphtha, whe
2nd Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Azucena GRANTED
T. Reyes, G.R. Nos. G2 159694 & 163581,
ToJanuary 27,fact
prove the 2006,
of 480
mai
1st N/A GRANTED G2 All told, the Court is con
En Banc Sitel Philippines Corp. vs. CIR, G.R. No. 201326,
AFFIRMED
February 8, 2017 G2 It is clear from the recor
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. AvonGRANTED
Products Manufacturing,
G2 lnc. G.R. Nos.To201398-99, October 3,
reiterate, responden
1st N/A GRANTED G2 Considering that petition
En Banc Lucio Francisco vs. Crispulo Onrubia, G.R. No.DENIED
22063, September G230, 1924 As regards the contentio
2nd Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. CIR,GRANTED
G.R. No. 172598, December
G2 21, 2007 Without a valid assessm
PARTIALLY
3rd N/A G2 Moreover, although the
GRANTED
En Banc Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Batangas Transportation
DENIED Company
G2 & Laguna- Tayabas Bus Company,
Reinstated G.Rt
policies are
En Banc Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Azucena GRANTED
T Reyes, etseq., G2
G.R. Nos. 159694 andIt is163581, January
explicit from the27,
for
En Banc N/A AFFIRMED G2 As computed, the real p
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 This Court merely applie
En Banc Lascona Land Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal
DENIED Revenue, G.R. G2 No. 171251, MarchOn the5, 2012
strength of the a
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. MagsaysayDENIEDLines, et al. G.R.
G2 No. 146984 dated July the
Verily, 28, transfer
2006 of th
3rd N/A DISMISSED G2 The rule is that for the C
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Menguito,
DENIEDG.R. No. 167560,G2 September 17, It 2008.
was similarly held that
En Banc G.R. No. 166786, May 3, 2006. DENIED G2 Neither does the establi
2nd G, R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017. GRANTED G2 The Court finds no need
2nd N/A DENIED G2 It bears stressing that ta
2nd G.R. Nos. L12928 and L-12932, MarchPARTIALLY
31, 1962 and
GRANTED
G.R. No. 1--35266,
G2 January 21,Pursuant
1991 to RMO No. 01
2nd Luzon Hydro Corporation vs. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal Revenue, G2G. R. No. 188260,Although
November the13,
allegations
2013; Co
2nd University Physicians Services, Inc. Management,
PARTIALLY GRANTED
Inc. vs. Commissioner
G2 of InternalThere
Revenue,are two
G.R. options
No, 2059 a
En Banc G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 citing Sea-Land
DENIED Service Inc. v.
G2 Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122605, April
In Republic of the Philipp 3
1st G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010 and 61 GRANTED
G.R. No. 222743, April
G2 5, 2017 Hence, the issue on the
2nd N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 In this case, the Court fin
En Banc Lim v. Commission on Audit, 399 SCRA 50 (2003)
DENIED G2 It is rudimentary in law t
En Banc N/A DENIED. G2 It is evident that the ass
En Banc N/A GRANTED G2 The dispute involves the
1st N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 Thus, on the basis of the
1st N/A GRANTED G2 In the present case, peti
En Banc Pilipinas Total Gas v. Commissioner ofInternal
DENIED
Revenue, G.R. No. G22071 12, December Considering
8, 2015. that there is
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SecretaryDENIED
of Justice, et al.,G2
GR. No. 177387, November
Absent any9,powerful
2016. cou
En Banc Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation DENIEDof the Philippines
G2 vs. Commissioner Statutes
of Internal
that grant
Revenue,
tax e
2nd G.R. No. 221815, 29 November 2017. DISMISSED G2 The Court finds petition
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. University
DENIEDof Santo Tomas G2Hospital, Inc., CTACredit
EB No.facilities
681 (CTAby them
Case
2nd Bloomberry Resort and Hotels, Inc. vs. Bureau
DENIED
G2 represented by ThisCommissioner
Court adheres Kimto S.
th
1st Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
DISMISSED
Corporation vs. G2Commissioner ofThus,Internal
theRevenue (“PSA
parties herein
2nd Ungab v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-41919, May 30, 1980.
ACQUITTED G2 Thus, the Court finds tha
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Avon DENIED
ProduCts Manufacturing,
G2 inc., G.R. Nos.
Tax201398-99;
assessments andissued
Avon
2nd N/A DISMISSED G2 It has been a long stand
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Correspondingly, the sub
3rd N/A G2 , CTA Case No. AC-185
En Banc Coral Bay Nickel Corp. vs. Commissioner ofAFFIRMED
Internal Revenue CTA G2 EB Case No. 403To (CTAallow
Case
petitioner
No. 7022), a ref
M
3rd DISMISSED
Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. vs. Commissioner of InternalG2 Revenue, G.R. No.However,
185666, February
contrary 4,to20th
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Thus, just as in the insta
En Banc Commissioner of internal Revenue v. Hon. RaulDENIED
M Gonzalez, eta/.,G2 G.R. No. 177279, Tax October
assessments
13,2010by the
En Banc DENIED
Commissioner of Customs vs. Philippines Airlines, Inc., CTA EB No.G2 1731, February A 7,claim
2019 for tax refund ne
En Banc Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals and the Collector
DENIED of Customs, G.R. G2No. L-20569 August The 23,
Court1974.submits that f
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pascor ACQUITTED
Realty and DevelopmentG2 Corporation, Moreover,
et al G.R.itNo. is well-sett
128315,
3rd CommiSsioner cf Internal Revenue vs. United GRANTED
Salvage and Towage G2 (Pbi/s.), Im~, GSection
.R. No. 197515,
228 of the July
NIRC
2, 2
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 A careful reading of RMO
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Contrary to the assertio
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 In the present case, ther
1st De San Agustin vs. Commissioner of Internal
PARTIALLY Revenue
GRANTED G2 With respect to the com
En Banc Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
DENIEDRevenue G.R. G2No. 198759, July In 1, other
2013,words,
citing BLACK's
to be exL
2nd N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 Pursuant thereto and as
2nd Metro Pacific Resources, Inc. us. Makati City GRANTED
and Nelia A. Barlis,G2 in Her Capacity as The Incumbert
recordsCity of this
Treasure
case
En Banc Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. CommissionerDENIED
of Internal Revenue, G2 G.R. No. 184398, TheFebruary
Court has 25,always
2010. de
En Banc Zuellig Pharma Asia Pacific Ltd. Phils. ROHQDISMISSED
vs. Commissioner ofG2 Internal Revenue,The CTAright
EB No. to 1656,
appealJanuais ne
En Banc Enjay Hotels, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal
DISMISSED
Revenue, CTA Case G2 No. 9273, January The24,authority
2019. Commission
of BIR exa
Special First Division
Marcos II vs. Court of Appeals, eta/., G.R.
PARTIALLY
No. 120880,
GRANTEDJune 5, 1997.
G2 Alpha 245, Inc., Settled
(formerly
is theARC ruleWorldw
that ta
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. First Express
DENIEDPawnshop Company, G2 Inc., G.R. Respondent's
Nos. 172045-046, transfer
Juneo
Special Second Division
G.R. No. 172598, December 21, 2007. GRANTED G2 The fifteen-day period g
Special Third Division
G.R. No. 1501S4, August 9, 2005 PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 The Philippine VAT syste
En Banc G.R. Nos. 215534 & 215557, April18, 2016, 790 DENIEDSCRA 79, 93-97.G2 The absence of the disal
En Banc G.R. No. L-63575, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA DENIED
140, 145-146 G2 "[T]rial courts have auth
En Banc Repulic of rhe Philppmes, represented by the DENIED
Department of Public G2 Works and Highways, It is not Commission
incumbent upon on
Second DivisionCitibank, NA. vs. Court of Appeals, et aL, G.R.DENIEDNo. 107434, October G2 10, 1997. Commissioner
A claimantlnterna/
has theRevenburd
Prescribing the Implementing Guidelines PARTIALLY
on the Revised
GRANTED Tax Rates
G2 on Alcohol and Petitioner's
Tobacco Products Schedule Pursu
of
Iloilo vs. Pinzon, G.R. No. L-7552, MayPARTIALLY
31, 1955. TheGRANTED
City of Manila,
G2 eta/. vs. Coca-cola The computation
Bottlers Philippines of deli
"CONSOLIDATED VALUE-ADDED TAX REGULATIONS
PARTIALLY GRANTED OF 2005", dated
G2 September 1,In2005 order to be entitled to
SEC. 246. Non-Retroactivity of Rulings. - AnyDENIED
revocation, modification
G2 or reversal ofThe anyfiling
of theof the
rulesreturn
and rea
The Philippines International Fair, Inc.PARTIALLY
vs. The Collector
GRANTED of Internal
G2 Revenue, eta!., It G.R.
is well-settled
Nos. L-12928 that
andthe
L
En Banc Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.DENIED - Defenses andG2 objections not pleadedA taxpayer
eithermustin a motion
prove n
En Banc Brig. Gen. Custodio v. Sandiganbayan, 493 Phil.DENIED
194, 2005. Section, G2 Rule 27 of the Rules Articleof2154
Courtofstates:
the Civil
SEC
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Covanta DENIED
Energy PhilippineG2 Holdings, Inc., January
A tax24,amnesty,
2018; Commiss
much lik
The Philippines International Fair, Inc.PARTIALLY
vs. The Collector
GRANTED of Internal
G2 Revenue, etaL., compromise
G.R. Nos. L-12928 penalties
and aL
En Banc An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. AnDENIED
Act Expanding theG2 Jurisdiction of the the
Court allegations
of Tax Appealsin the Ele
Inf
En Banc Republic of the Philippines, represented ry theDENIED
Commissioner ofG2 Internal Revenue It vs.isTeam
well-settled
(Phils.)thatEnergy
the
Second DivisionJaime Alferez vs. People of the Philippines,ACQUITTED
G.R. No. 182301, January G2 31, 2011. Bautista In thev.case
Court at bar,
of Appeals
the tw
1st N/A DENIED G2 Tax refunds, like tax exe
3rd N/A DENIED G2 A tax refund claimant ha
3rd Collector of Internal Revenue v. PrietoORDERED
et. al. G.RTOno.REFUND
L-11976 G2 Basic is the rule that wh
3rd N/A DISMISSED G2 For the just disposition o
En Banc N/A DISMISSED G2 In case the protest to th
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 constructive service of a
2nd N/A GRANTED G2 The following grounds c
2nd Sitel Philippines Corporation (Formerly Clientlogic
DISMISSED Phils., Inc.) v.G2Commissioner of Internal
The CIR is Revenue,
given 120 G.R.
dayN
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Without any zero-rated
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pascor AFFIRMED
Realty and DevelopmentG2 CorporationAn assessment contai
En Banc Hedcor, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueDENIED G2 It is worth emphasizing
2nd Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc., eta!.DENIED
vs. Edna Margallo,G2 G.R. No. 181393, JulyWe 28,should
2009.Denied
also take Cor into
3rd Citibank N.A. v. Court of Appeals and Commissioner
DENIED of Internal G2 Revenue, G.R. No.107434,
Finally, let
October
it be stressed
10, 199
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLY
Lianga BayGRANTED
Logging Co., Inc.
G2 and the Court ofThere Tax Appeals,
being noG.R. mutual
No. La
En Banc Benguet Corporation, et. a!. v. Cabildo, G.R. No.
DENIED
151402, AugustG2 22,2008,563 SCRAThe 37 citingAbadv.
issuance of aGoldloovalid fo
1st 193100, December 10,2014,744 SCRA 474G.R. DISMISSED
No. 183408, JulyG2 12,2017,831 SCRAConsidering
18.Commissioner that the offirs
Int
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque DISMISSED
Power Corporation,
G2 Taganito Mining The Corporation
Court findsv.itCommiunnec
1st Kepco Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIEDof Internal Revenue,
G2 G.R. No. 179961,
Considering
January,that 31, Respon
2011G
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fitness GRANTED
By Design, Inc., G.R.
G2 No. 215957, NovemberUnder the 9, 2016
present Commiss
provi
2nd Coca-co/a Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner
PARTIALLY GRANTED of Internal Revenue,
G2 G.R. No. 222428,
It shouldFebruary
be emphasized
19, 201
1st G.R. No. 188260, November 13,2013.Intel Technology
DENIED Philippines, G2 Inc. vs. Commissioner
In thepresent
of Internal case,Revenu
petit
En Banc Nestle Philippines, Inc. (formerly Filipro, Inc.)DENIED
v. Honorable CourtG2of Appeals, eta/., TaxesG.R. No.are134114,
the lifeblood
July 6,o
3rd Yutivo Sons Hardware Company v. Court ofDISMISSED
Tax Appeals, G.R. No. G2L-13203, JanuaryIn28, the1961.
appreciation of ev
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. SonyGRANTEDPhilippines, Inc. G.R.G2No. 178697, November Clearly,17,a revenue
2010.; Medicaoffice
3rd Spouses Michael Gavin Richard L de los Rryes DENIED
and Jennifer C. Co-de
G2 los Reyes vs. Commissioner
Evidently, theof above-qu
Internal
En Banc Cyanamid Philippines, Inc. v. The Court of Appeals,
DENIEDet., al, G.R. No.G2 108067, JanuaryEarnings
20, 2000. or profits of a c
En Banc Protector's Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,DENIED
386 Phil. 611, citedG2in the case of Barcelon,
All the foregoing,
Roxas Securities
couple
2nd People of the Philippines vs. Neil 5. BautistaACQUITTED
and Cecilia V. Aquino/G2 in their capacities From as partners
the foregoing,of Ceniel
it is
3rd CTA EB Nos. 1244 and 1345, March 30, PARTIALLY
2017; 40 GRANTED
G.R. Nos. 187485,G2 196113, and 197156, In the theFebruary
case of12, Deutsc
201
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East DENIED
Bank & Trust Company,
G2 G.R. No. 173854,
In theMarch
Supreme 15, Court
2010, ca 61
2nd Site/ Philippines Corporation (formerly PARTIALLY
C/ientlogic GRANTED
Phils., Inc.) v.G2
Commissioner of Internal
The Certificates
Revenue, ofG.R.
Regis N
1st SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation
AFFIRMED
of Assessment and G2 Collection of Taxes.Based on the foregoing
En Banc Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. vs. CourtDENIED
of Tax Appeals - EnG2 Bane and CommissionerIn fine, /respondent
of Internal is Reve
giv
2nd Commissioner oflnternal Revenue v. Philippine
PARTIALLYDailyGRANTED
Inquirer_ CTA
G2 EB No. 905, NovemberThe Court 4, agrees.
2013.; EastIn theA
1st N/A GRANTED G2 As between the WTO Ag
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. S.C. Johnson
DENIED& Son, Inc., G2 G.R. No 127105, June Well-settled
25, 1999. is the rule t
En Banc Republic of the Philippines v. Lourdes AbieraDENIED
Nil/as, G.R. No. 159595,
G2 January 23, 2007.
Moreover, the local gov
En Banc NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., (FORMERLY FILIPRO, DENIED
INC.) v. HONORABLEG2 COURT OF APPEALS, Furthermore,
COURTinOF theTAXNesA
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PARTIALLY
Toshiba Information
GRANTED EquipmentG2 (Phils.), Inc.,In
G.R.
sum,
No.petitioner
150154, Augus has su
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLY
Court of Appeals,
GRANTED G.R. No.G2107135, FebruaryWhile 23, 1999.
the Court is mindf
3rd Deutsche Knowledge Services, Pte Ltd. vs. Commissioner
DENIED of Internal
G2 Revenue, CTAItEB must
No. be
1290emphasized
(CTA Caset
3rd The Government of the Philippines v. Victoria GRANTED
no Aballe, et al.; Republic
G2 of the Phils.
In v.
theSalvador
presentWee, case, G.R.
as p
En Banc Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Commissioner
DENIEDof Internal Revenue,
G2 G. R. No. 166786,
No less thanSeptember
the Suprem11,
En Banc CTA EB No. 1150, May 12, 2015, CTA Case No. DENIED
8501. G2 In Commissioner of Inte
2nd Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.DENIEDvs. Commissioner G2 of Internal Revenue, A claimant
G.R. No. 183531,
has the burd Mar
2nd Takenaka Corporation Philippine Branch vs.GRANTEDCommissioner of Internal
G2 Revenue, The imposition of deficie
3rd Electric Cooperative v. CommissionerCANCELLED
of Internal
AND Revenue
SET ASIDE G2 Strict compliance with
En Banc N/A VOTE TO GRANT THE INSTANT PETITION G2 The crucial element to d
1st Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corp. DENIED G2 In case there is a notice
En Banc Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. The City Treasurer DENIED
of Makati City, Nelia
G2 A. Barlis The particular notation i
En Banc 48 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ironcon DENIEDBuilders and Development
G2 Corporation,
Tax refunds
G.R. No.
are 180042,
in the na
3rd N/A GRANTED G2 Internal revenue taxes m
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines,
GRANTED Inc. G2 The audit investigation o
3rd Chevron Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner PARTIALLY
of InternalGRANTED
Revenue, CTA G2EB Nos. 1508 andTo1509, be considered
March 21,as 2018
a no
En Banc Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance Brokers, DENIED Inc. vs. CommissionerG2 of Internal Revenue,
A taxpayer G.R.
claiming
No. 206526for a
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 As the sale or transfer o
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Interest is imposed to co
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 The taxing power of a lo
2nd N/A GRANTED G2 The taxpayer shall be inf
2nd N/A GRANTED G2 Absent sufficient evide
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pascor GRANTED
Realty and Development
G2 CorporationTo proceed heedlessly w
En Banc N/A DISMISSED G2 A claim for tax refund or
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 It would be unfair to req
2nd Phil. International Fair, Inc. vs. The Collector
PARTIALLYof Internal
GRANTED Revenue,G2G.R. Nos. L-12928Itand must L-12932,
be stressedMarch that
31
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Juliane DENIED
Baier-Nickel, as represented
G2 by MarinaTaxQ. refunds
Guzman are(Attorney
in the na
En Banc N/A AFFIRMED G2 In computing the time li
3RD N/A GUILTY G2 Without presenting cred
2ND N/A GRANTED G2 The certificates with the
1st Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. vs. Bureau GRANTED
G3 G.R. No. 212530, For theAugust
same 10,reasons
2016. th
1st Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. The GRANTED
G3 Revenue, G.R.Thus, No.considering
182582, April that17in
En Banc CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc.DISMISSED v. Commissioner ofG3 Internal Revenue, G.R.
We do Nos.
not200841-42,
agree withAu th
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fitness GRANTED
by Design, Inc., G.R.
G3 No. 215957, November
To merit9,the 2016 application
En Banc Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. DENIED
v. Republic of theG3 Philippines, G.R. Nos.
Notably,
177857-58
in Commission
and 1781
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine DENIED Daily Inquirer,G3
Inc., G.R. No. 213943,
Further,
March22,
tax laws 2017.are civ
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLY
Toshiba Information
GRANTED Equipment
G3 {Phils.}, Inc.,Further,
G.R. No.petitioner
150154, Augu was a
2nd N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G3 Meanwhile, upon exami
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine DENIED National Bank,G3 G.R. No. 180290, September
Well-settled29, in 2014.
this jurisd
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. MetroGRANTED Star Superama, Inc., G3G.R. No. 185371, To December
reiterate,8,only
2010, the CI
2nd The Philippines International Fair, Inc.PARTIALLY
vs. The Collector
GRANTED of Internal
G3 Revenue, et al.,Clearly,
G.R. Nos. from
L-12928
the forego
and L
1st Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Court of Tax DENIED
Appeals, et al., G.R.
G3 No. L-30232, July In this
29, case,
1988.however, pe
3rd Premiere Development Bank v. Central Surety DISMISSED
and Insurance Company,
G3 Inc. 579 S.C.R.A.
As the 359 Supreme
(2009)Court re
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue DENIED/PARTIALLY
vs. Gonzalez, et at.,GRANTED
G.R. No.G3
177279, October 13, In Republic
2010. of the Philipp
3rd SMI-ED Philippines Technology, Inc. vs. PARTIALLY
Commissioner
GRANTEDof Internal
G3Revenue, G.R. No. Further,
175410, the
November
Court agree 12
1st Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. CommissionerGRANTEDof Internal Revenue, G3G.R. No. 222743,FindingApril 5,that
2017the subject
En Banc Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. TheCity TreasurerDENIEDof Makati City, Nelia
G3 A. Barlis, CTA EBThis No. Court,
1093 (CTAin theACcaseCase o
En Banc Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management DENIED Corporation vs.G3Commissioner ofIn Internal
this case,
Revenue,
respondentG.R. N
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. EnronDENIED Subic Power Corporation,
G3 G.R. No. 166387,
On theJanuary
basis of19, the2009
foreg
En Banc Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. CIR, G.R. No,DENIED
157064, August G37, 2006; It must be remembered
En Banc UCPB General Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Hughes DENIEDElectronics Corporation,
G3 G.R.No. Plethora
190385,ofNovember
jurisprudenc 16
En Banc Philippine Coconut, Producers Federation, Inc. DENIED
(COCOFED), et al.,G3vs. Republic of the In Philippines,
view of the foregoing
G.R. Nos.
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. BankGRANTED of Philippine IslandsG3 Since the waivers execu
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Procter DENIED
and Gamble Philippines
G3 ManufacturingIn any Corporation,
case, no such 204suit
SC
2nd Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. us. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal Revenue, G.R.
G3 No. 207112, December
Petitioner8,failed
2015.to cons
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lancaster GRANTEDPhilippines, Inc.,
G3G.R. No. 183408,InJuly this12,2017.
case, there is no i
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque GRANTED Power Corporation,
G3 G.R. Nos. 187485,
In the 196113,
landmarkand case1971
of
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. MetroDENIED Star Superama, Inc.,G3 G.R. No. 185371,Considering
December 8, that2010the pet
3rd Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
PARTIALLY GRANTED
(PAGCOR) vs. TheG3 Bureau of Internal It must
Revenue,
be emphasized
G.R. No.17t
1st Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. vs. Commissioner DISMISSEDof Internal Revenue,
G3 G.R. No. 148380,
To reiterate,
December the taxpaye
9, 2005
2nd The Philippines International Fair, Inc. v. The GRANTED
Collector of Internal
G3Revenue, et. a!., ItG.R.
mustNos.beL-2928
stressed andthat
L-1
2nd Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Fonnerly jp.Jel Philippines
Partially Granted
Manufacturing,
G3 Inc.) vs. CIR, G.R.InNo.
this182737,
case, petitioner
March 2,s
2nd N/A Partially Granted G3 Under the Revised Rules
En Banc Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Collector
Denied of Internal G3Revenue Taxes are the lifeblood o
2nd Ungab v. Judge Cusi, Jr 186 Phil. 604 (1980)Dismissed G3 These cases pertain to th
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi DeniedForging CompanyofG3 Asia, Inc. Anent petitioner's argum
2nd N/A Granted G3 In this case, the FLD /FA
2nd Harris v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Denied340 U.S. 106 (1950) G3 To reiterate, donor's tax
En Banc Commissioner of lntemalRevenue us. PNB G.R. Denied
No. 180290, September
G3 29, 2014. It is clear from the afore
2nd N/A Denied G3 Applying the foregoing p
En Banc Deutsche Bank AG ManilaBranch v. Commissioner Affirmedof Internal Revenue
G3 G.R. Nos. 193383-84
Considering andthe193407-08
foregoin
En Banc Internal Revenue vs.Hantex Trading Co., Inc. Denied
G.R. No. 136975, March
G3 31, 2005 It must be emphasized t
En Banc N/A Denied G3 A party should present a
En Banc N/A Dismissed G3 Based on the afore-quot
1st N/A Granted G3 In the case at bar, it is un
3rd Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Sony Philippines,
Dismissed Inc. G3 Based on the foregoing p
3rd N/A Partially Granted G3 Based on the foregoing,
3rd N/A Granted G3 Based on all the foregoin
3rd N/A Granted G3 Based on all the foregoin
En Banc Board of Investments vs. SRMetals, Inc. Affirmed G3 Anent the deficiency VAT
En Banc N/A Denied G3 Nevertheless, while it is
En Banc N/A Denied G3 Per the foregoing provis
1st N/A Granted G3 In our view, the law is cl
1st Medicard Philippines Inc. vs. Commissioner Granted
of Internal RevenueG3G.R. No. 222743, In April
the5,present
201 case, whi
1st In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lancaster DeniedPhilippines, G3
Inc. G.R. No. 183408,In this
July case,
12, 2017as can be gl
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. MetroGranted Star Superama, Inc.G3G.R. No. 185371 dated
Thus, on December
the strength
08,201of
En Banc Calma, et al. vs. Court of Appeals,Affirmed
et al., G.R.
WithNo.Modification
122787, February
G3 9, 1999 Finally, the Court cannot
1st N/A Partially Granted G3 Lastly, considering that p
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Filinvest
Partially
Development
Denied Corporation
G3 Accenture,InInc.
thisv.case,
Commissioner
petitioner ofF
En Banc Victory Liner Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Viron Denied
Transportation G3
Company, G.R. No. Let 125034,
it be stressed
July 30, 1998.
that thR
3rd N/A Affirmed With Modification G3 Based on the foregoing p
En Banc Winebrenner & Ifligo Insurance Brokers, Inc.Affirmed
vs. Commissioner G3of Internal Revenue, Established
G.R. No. 206526,
is the rule
Janu th
3rd Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 351 ACQUITTED
Roxas Securities, G3
Inc. vs. CIR, G.R. No.An157064,
act or omission
August 7,is200"w
1st City of Manila vs. Cosmos Bottling Corporation,70DENIED G3 The administrative and j
1st Bayani vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. GRANTED
155619, August 14, G32007 Commissioner In essence,
of InternalSection
Revenue
1113
2nd San Miguel Corporation vs. Commissioner of GRANTED
Internal Revenue, G3Philippine Health Care
Applying
Providers,
the foregoing,
Inc. vs. Co
2nd Philippines vs. CIR, G.R. No. 168950, January GRANTED
14, 2015 G3 Although the claimed in
EN BANC Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines
DENIED Manufacturing,
G3 Inc.) vs. Commissioner
One of of theInternal
conditions
Revenfo
1st Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines
DENIED ManufacturingG3Inc.) vs. Commissioner
Since petitioner
of Internalfiled
Revenu
the
1st N/A GRANTED G3 Since in the instant case
1st Lascona Land Co. Inc. v. CIR31 citing RCBC vs GRANTED
CIR32 G3 In this regard, responden
2nd 41 Team Pacific Corporation us. Daza, G.R. GRANTED
No. 167732, July 11,G3 2012 The basic deficiency EW
EN BANC Davao Oriental Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. The DENIED
Province of Davao
G3 Oriental, G.R. No.Respondent
170901, January
has sufficien
20, 2
1st Republic of the Philippines, represented byGRANTED
Energy Regulatory Board
G3 vs. Manila Electric
In theCompany,
absence ofetseq.,
evidenG
EN BANC People v. Jabinal, 43 DENIED G3 At this juncture, it bears
EN BANC Medicard Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner GRANTED
of Internal Revenue, G3Commissioner ofThe Internal
subject
Revenue
tax assessm
v. Son
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Miguel DENIED Corporation G3 The variant contemplate
EN BANC Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals GRANTED G3 Evidently, the interest in
1st China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer GRANTED
of Manila G3 The Petition for Refund f
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister
DISMISSED and Wain Scandinavian
G3 Contractor
Needless
Mindanao,to state,
Fernando
in ans
EN BANC G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010 GRANTED G3 It is apparent, therefore
EN BANC Universal Robina Corp. (Com Division) v. Laguna DENIED
Lake Development G3 Authority In other words, within th
3rd in Ang Tibqy, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations
GRANTED G3 Considering the foregoin
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's DENIED
Medical Center,G3 Inc In Commissioner of Inte
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister DENIED and Wain Scandinavian
G3 Contractor
Consequently,
Mindanao, Inc. for failure
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hambrecht GRANTED& Quist Philippines,
G3 Inc In Commissioner
Thus, respondent's
of Internal Reve
issua
2nd In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila DENIED
Electric Co G3 The 2-year period, there
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lancaster GRANTED
Philippines, Inc,G3 of Commissioner of ToInternal
reiterate, Revenue
only the v.CIR
So
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team [Philippines]
DENIED Operations
G3 Corporation [formerly
There is no Mirant
merit(Phils.)
to MckO
EN BANC JAKA Investments Corp. vs. Commissioner ofDENIED Internal Revenue, G3 G.R. No. 147629, JulyAs correctly
28, 2010 pointed
citing Compout
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bank of DENIED
the Philippine Islands,
G3 G.R. No. 178490, A bulk July
of7,the
2009
disallowan
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Villa,DISMISSED
eta/., G.R. No. L-23988,G3 January 2, 1968With / 13 the
Laresma
afore-cited
v. Abel/an
pro
1st Laborte vs. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers Cooperative,
GRANTED et a/ G3 It must be stressed that
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. First Granted.
Express Pawnshop G3Company, Inc.; (2) (a)Commissioner
From the foregoing,of Inte
3rd (1) Nielson & Company Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated
Granted. Mining Company,G3 G.R. No. L-21601,
(a) Dividends
Decembercomprise
28, 19a
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Systems
Granted. Technology Institute,
G3 Inc., G.R. No.
In a 220835,
case, theJulySupreme
26, 201C
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. EasternDenied.Telecommunications
G3 Philippines,(a)
Inc.,
It appears
G. R. No.that163835,
MajelJ
3rd (1) Estate of the Late Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel
Dismissed.
vs. CommissionerG3 of Internal Revenue;
(a) Section
(2) Commissione
228 of the NI
3rd (1) Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc.
Guilty
vs. Commissioner
Beyond Reasonable of Internal
Doubt.G3
Revenue; (2) Leonila Now,
Batulanon
in ordervs.toPeople
attribu
2nd (1) Deutsche Bank AG Manila vs. CIR; (2) Partially
Commissioner
Granted.of InternalG3 Revenue vs. Court However
of Appeals,
despite Court
theseof c
En banc (1) Fernandez vs. Villegas; (2) Macapagal vs. Dismissed.
People, 717 SCRA 425, G3 433-434 (2014); (a)(3)
From
Shipside
the foregoing,
Incorpora
En banc (1) Oscar G. Raro, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan,
Dismissed.(Second Division),
G3 the Honorable
Considering
Ombudsman the above
and Pe c
En banc CE Cebu Geothennal Power Co., Inc. v. Commissioner
Dismissed. of Internal G3Revenue, CTA EB The No. instant
741, September
claim for 22,ref
En banc (1) Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation
Granted. ; G.R. No. 166006,
G3 March 14,2008, Finally,
548 SCRA
the validity
485, 506;
and/(
En banc (1) Deutsche Bank AG Manila vs. Commissioner Denied.
of Internal RevenueG3 Based on the foregoing,
En banc (1) CIR us. Metro Star Superama G.R. No. 185371,Denied. December 8,G3 2010; (2) Oceanic Wireless
(a) It is unfortunate
Network vs.that CIR
En banc N/A Dismissed. G3 Finally, Iconic questions
En banc (1) Equitable Banking Corporation (now known Denied.
as Equitable-PCIG3 Bank) vs. Ricardo Sadac,
(a) Applying
G.R. No.the164772,
foregoin
En banc N/A Denied. G3 The presence of the first
3rd N/A Partially Granted. G3 In sum, compensation in
2nd N/A Granted. G3 Thus, based on the foreg
2nd N/A Granted. G3 Thus, based on the foreg
2nd Transglobe International Inc. v. Court of Appeals
Granted.
and Commissioner G3 of Customs, G.R. (a) No.
Significantly,
126634, January
in both
1st (1) Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana vs. People ofAcquitted.
the Philippines, G.R.G3No. 175842, March (a)18,2015;
This rule (2)places
Commiss
upon
En banc (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CourtDismissed.
of Tax Appeals G3 and CBK Power CompanyAnd in Limited;
instances(2) where
Dens
1st N/A Partially Granted. G3 (a) In this case, upon a c
En banc (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Next Denied.
Mobile, Inc.; (2) G3
(a) Given Revenue
the foregoing,
vs. Stan
1st (1) Ermita vs. Aldecoa-Delorino et. Al.; (2) Manila
Granted.International G3Airport Authority vs.(a)Court
In viewof Appeals,
the foregoing
et. A
2nd (1) Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation Partially
vs. Commissioner
Granted. of Customs;
G3 (2) Commissioner
The taxpayer of Internal
has the Revedu
3rd N/A Dismissed. G3 For petitioner's failure to
3rd (1) Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. Commissioner
Denied. of Internal G3 Revenue; (2) Medicard (a) Considering
Philippines,that Inc.Resvs.
2nd N/A Dismissed. G3 (a) Based on the foregoi
En banc N/A Dismissed. G3 (a) Thus, in order for the
2nd (1) Ting vs. Court of Appeals; (2) Republic of Denied.
the Philippines vs. Resins,
G3 Inc.; (3) CIR (a)
vs. ItGJM
is clear
Phils.from
Manufact
the af
En Banc (1) One Network Bank, Inc. (A Rural Bank) v.Denied.Commissioner of Internal
G3 Revenue; (2)(a)SmartTherefore,
Communication
a consolid
En Banc (1) Philippine Cocount Producers Federation, Partially
Inc.Granted
(COCOFED), et. G3al. vs. Republic of(a) theBased
Philippines
on the foregoi
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toshiba Denied. Information Equipment
G3 (Phils.), Well-settled
Inc. in this jurisd
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. StandardGranted.Chartered Bank; G3 (2) Commissioner (a) final
of Internal
assessmentRevenue not
2nd (1) Gonzalo vs. Tarnate, Jr. Granted. G3 Accordingly, to allow thi
En Banc (1) Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs. CommissionerDenied.
of Internal Revenue; G3 (2) Commissioner Theof doctrine
Internal Revenue
laid downvsi
En Banc (1) Fernandez Holdings, Inc. vs. City of DavaoDenied.
and Rodrigo S. Riola G3 Since the taxing power o
2nd (1) Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs.Granted. The Commissioner G3 of Internal RevenueIt is well-settled that the
1st (1) Cyanamid Philippines, Inc. vs. The Court Granted.
of Appeals, The Court G3of Tax Appeals and On Commissioner
that basis, FTC of could
Inte
1st (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Partially
First Express
Granted Pawnshop G3Company, Inc. (a) Based on these jurisp
En Banc (1) Philippine Cocount Producers Federation,Denied. Inc. vs. Republic ofG3the Philippines; (2) Applying
Commission the foregoing
of Interna i
En Banc (1) CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner Denied.of Internal Revenue
G3 (a) It is clear from the fo
En Banc (1) Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. vs. Wesleyan
Denied. University Philippines,
G3 Inc.; (2)Without
Commissioner receiptof ofIntern
the P
En Banc (1) CIR vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.;Dismissed.
(2) CIR vs. San Roque;
G3 (3) Total Gas,(a) Inc.Thevs.rule
CIR is that from
En Banc (1) BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Court ofGranted.
Appeals G3 (a) Since it is not dispute
2nd (1) Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Commissioner
Denied. of Internal
G3 Revenue, GR The No. Rule
185282, on this
Aprilmatter
17, 20
1st (1) Collector of Internal Revenue vs, Junior Women's
Granted. Club of theG3Philippines (a) In the case at hand, i
1st N/A Granted. G3 From the foregoing, it ca
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Granted.
Roque Corporation; G3 (2) Taganito Mining (a) InCorporation
the presentvs. case,
Com P
1st (1) Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Denied.
Inc. vs. Commissioner G3 of Internal Revenue; (a) In (2)theCity
present
of Manila
case, vp
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lancaster
Granted.Philippines,G3 Inc.; (2) Commissioner Guided of Internal
by the foregoing
Revenue
2nd (1) Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. CIR; (2) Commissioner
Granted. of Internal G3 Revenue vs. Hambrecht(a) We therefore
& Quist Philipp
find th
En Banc (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. FarDenied. East Bank & TrustG3 Company; (2) Republic (a) InofRepublic
the Philippines,
of the Phr
En Banc (1) Armadillo Holdings, Inc. vs. CommissionerDenied. of Internal Revenue G3 (a) It is clearly establishe
1st N/A Denied. G3 To reiterate, the 30-day
1st (1) Secretary of Finance Cesar B. Purisima and Granted.
Commissioner ofG3 Internal Revenue Kim (a) To S. Jacinto-Henares
emphasize, petitio v
1st (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pascor Granted.Realty and Development
G3 Corporation;
(a) The (2)requirement
Commissioner to i
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Partially
PilipinasGranted
Shell Petroleum
G3 Corporation (a) Very clearly, petition
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Partially
Burmeister
Grantedand WainG3 Scandinavian Contractor (a) Counting
Mindanao,from Inc.
the fil
3rd N/A Granted. G3 (a) Thus, for petitioner t
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Granted.
Philippine American G3 Accident Insurance The Company,
amusement Inc.,
taxTheimp
2nd (1) CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner
Partially Granted.
of Internal Revenue;
G3 (2) Land Bank(a) Considering
of the Philippinessuch adm vs
2nd N/A Granted. G3 (a) Thus, even when the
3rd (1) United States vs. Sataoa Bungaoil;
Affirmed
(2) People
with modifications.
vs. Lopez G3 Appellant cannot feign i
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht
Dismissed. & Quist Philippines,
G3 Inc.; (2) Commissioner
Thus, for failureoftoInterna file a
En Banc (1) Danilo Galang et. Al. vs. The Bureau o Customs
Dismissed. and Commissioner
G3 of Customs; (a) (2) Absent
Cabreradecision
vs. Ng; (3) fromA
3rd (1) Luzon Hydro vs. CIR; Mindanao II Geothermal
Partially Granted.
Partnership vs.G3CIR; (2) CIR vs. Burmeister
(a) As applied and Wain
to theScan pre
2nd (1) Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. The City Treasurer
Granted.of Makati, Nelia G3A. Barlis; (2) ASCThe Investors
records Inc.
ofvs.thisCity
case of
1st (1) Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner
Granted. of Internal G3 Revenue; (2) CBK (a)Power
From theCompany
foregoing
Limitd
1st (1) Republic of the Philippines vs. The Court
Partially
of Appeals;
Upheld.(2) IDS G3 Logistics (Phils), Inc.However,
vs. Commissioner
petitionerofdid In
2nd (a) Cancelled
(1) Fax n Parcel,
- assessment
Incorporated
on deficiency
vs. Commissioner
income tax;of (b)Internal
AffirmedRevenue;
- deficiency
G3 (2) Commissioner
VATand WTC (a) However,
assessments
of InternaltheRevenu
prima
En Banc (1) Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Granted.
Inc. (COCOFED) et.G3al. vs. Republic of(a) theLastly,
Philippines
there is no evi
3rd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toshiba Granted. Information Equipment
G3 (Phils), Inc.;
From(2)the Coral
foregoing,
Bay Nickel
it ap
3rd (1) CIR vs. Kudos Metal Corporation; (2)Partially
PhilippineGranted.
Journalists, Inc.
G3 vs. CIR; (3) CIR vs.In the
Nextpresent
Mobile,case,
Inc.;a(4)
re
En Banc N/A Granted. G3 Significantly, this Court,
Next Mobile,
Granted. Inc. (formerly
G3 Nextel Communications
The above-quoted Phils., Inc.);
case
En Banc (1) Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. (now known Denied.
as UBP Securities, G3Inc.) vs. Commissioner
Based of onInternal
the foregoing,
Revenu
En Banc N/A Denied. G3 Well-settled in this jurisd
En Banc N/A Granted G3 (a) Considering the foreg
En Banc (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lancaster
Granted.Philippines,G3 Inc.; (2) CommissionerTo reiterate,
of Internal
theRevenue
LOA is t
2nd (1) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Sony Granted.
Philippines, Inc. G3 Similar to the above-quo
1st (1) Social Justice Society, et. Al. vs. Atienza,
Partially
Jr. Granted. G3 (a) In this case, it is undi
2nd (1) San Miguel Corporation vs. Commissioner PartiallyofGranted.
Internal Revenue; G3 (2) Pilipinas Shell In Petroleum
the case atCorporatio
bar, since
En Banc (1) CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner Denied.of Internal Revenue
G3 (a) There is therefore no
3rd (1) The City of Makati and The City Treasurer Granted.
of Makati vs. CEMCO G3 Holdings, Inc. (a) Accordingly, the Cou
En Banc N/A Denied. G3 Insofar as respondent's
En Banc (1) Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. vs. Commissioner
Dismissed.of InternalG3 Revenue, et. Al. (a) Applying the Oceanic
2nd N/A Denied. G3 (a) However, the simple
En Banc (1) CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company,Dismissed. Inc. vs. Commissioner G3of Internal Revenue; Petitioner
(2) Asiatrust
failed on
Develo
this
1st (1) Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs.Granted. The Commissioner G3 of Internal Revenue; It is
(2)clear
Commissioner
from the foreg of In
2nd (1) Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines
Dismissed.Manufacturing, G3 Inc. vs. Commissioner
Accordingly, of Internal
petitioner's
Rev
FitnessGranted.
By Design, Inc.; G3(2) Commissioner(a) ofConsidering
Internal Revenue
that the vs.
3rd N/A DISMISSED G3 In fine, there is reasonab
3rd Marcos II vs. Court if Appeals, et aL AFFIRMED G3 It is not the Department
En Banc Securities and Exchange Commission vs Universal DENIED Rightfteld Property
G3 Holdings, Inc.,A request for reconsider
En Banc Air Philippines Corporation vs. CommissionerDENIED of Internal Revenue G3 and Commissioner With of the
Custom
foregoing func
3rd EmersonElectric (Asia) Limited - ROHQ vs. DISMISSED
Commissioner of Internal G3 Revenue While the Court takes no
En Banc Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CIR DISMISSED G3 In the determination of
3rd N/A DENIED G3 In sum, petitioner has su
3rd Fax n Parce Incorporated vs. CommissionerGRANTED of InternalRevenuueG3 Considering that the FAN
En Banc Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. vs. CIR DENIED G3 It has been ruled that pe
En Banc Republic v. COCOFED GRANTED G3 The city may impose bus
En Banc Far East Bank and Trust Company As TrusteeDENIED of Various Retirement G3 Present: Funds The vs.Commissioner
taxpayer needs of to
Intee
2nd CTA Case No. 9077 DENIED G3 Considering that petition
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.Sony Philippines,
GRANTED Inc. G3 The records are, likewise
En Banc G.R. No. 193253
Commissioner of Internal Revenue DENIED
PARTIALLY G3 Thus, considering the fo
2nd v.
CBKPhilippine Associated Smelting
PowercompanyLimited vs. GRANTED G5 It bears stressing that ta
1st CommissionerofInternalrevenue
Vestas Services Philippines, Inc. vs. DISMISSED
PARTIALLY G5 In view of petitioner's fa
1st Commissioner
The of Internal
City Government Revenue
of Makati and GRANTED
PARTIALLY G5 In fine, petitioner has su
1st the CitySector
Power Treasurer of and
Assets Makati vs.
Liabilities GRANTED G5 Costs are certain allowa
2nd Management Corporation
Commissioner v.
of Internal Revenue DISMISSED G5 all controversies involvin
3rd v. B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc GRANTED G4 Contrary to Respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
En Banc v. Metro
ACCRA Star Superama,
Investments Inc., vs.
Corporation DENIED G5 Clearly, there must be a
1st Court
Bank ofofthe
Appeals, G.R. Islands
Philippine No. 96322, DENIED G5 It bears stressing that a
1st vs.Commissioner of Internal
Commissioner of Internal Revenue DISMISSED G5 was made earlier than th
2nd v. Bank of (sic) of
Commissioner Philippine
Internal Island,
Revenue GRANTED G4 In this case, considering
En Banc v. Mirant Pagbilao
Philippine Journalists,Corporation
Inc. v. DENIED G5 To recapitulate the findi
3rd Commissioner
Fernando of Internal
v. Spouses Revenue,
Lim,G.R. No. GRANTED G4 Following the well-settle
En Banc 176282, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA DENIED G5 Taking into consideratio
En Banc Citibank N.A.
Medicard vs. CourtInc.
Philippines, of Appeals
v. DENIED G5 The grant of a refund is
3rd Commissioner
Compagnie of Internal
Financiere Sucres Et GRANTED G4 The Court ought to reite
2nd Denrees v. Commissioner
Commissioner of
of Internal Revenue DENIED G5 After careful evaluation
3rd v. The Stanlry
Philippine WorksProducers
Coconut Sales (Phils.), GRANTED G4 Based on the foregoing,
En Banc Federation,
Commissioner Inc.ofv.Internal
RepublicRevenue
of the GRANTED G4 All said, petitioner is not
2nd v. AsalusWireless
Oceanic Corporation, G.R. No.
Network, Inc. v. DISMISSED G5 when there is a showing
2nd Commissioner
CTA En Bane inof Internal Revenue,
Commissioner of DISMISSED G5 It is established that, in
3rd Internal
CE LuzonRevenue
Geothermal vs. Goodyear
Power GRANTED G4 Indubitably, the gains re
En Banc Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of DENIED G5 Due to this procedural la
En Banc Philippine Fisheries Development AuthorityAFFIRMED
(PFDA) v. Central Board
G5 of Assessment Appeals,
The Supreme et. al., G. R.
Court N
held
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine GRANTED
Airlines Inc. G4 The law imposes an alte
Filinvest Development
GRANTED Corporation,
G5 G. R. Nos. 163653 & 167689,
Instructional July
letters, as w
2nd Philippine National Oil Company v. Court ofDISMISSED
Appeals, G. R. No. 177387,
G5 Nov. 9, 2016.
When an office assumes
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CourtDENIED of Appeals, et al., G.R.
G5 No. 123206, March 22, 2000.
Domestic Corporation o
1st Darvin vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. ACQUITTED
125044, July 13, 1998.G5 Due process requires tha
2nd Philam Asset Management. Inc. us. CommissionerofinternalRevenue,
PARTIALLY GRANTED G5 G.R. Nos. 156637
Claimsandfor162004,
tax credit Decem
or r
2nd None PARTIALLY GRANTED G5 The application for tax c
2nd Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. CIR, G.R. No. DENIED
182582, April17,G52017 Jurisprudence dictates t
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Traders DENIED
Royal Bank, G.R. G5No. 167134, MarchBeing
18, 2015
a court of record,
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz DENIED
Philippines Corp.,G5 G.R. Nos. 215534 & 215557,April
Assessment 18,2016.
contains no
En Banc Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation vs. DENIED
Con-Field Construction
G5 and Development
Section Corporation,
113(C) of the G.R.
NI
En Banc Sea-Land Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. DENIED
No. 122605, AprilG5 30, \2001 A sales invoice is a comm
En Banc CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner DENIED
of Internal Revenue,.,
G5 G.R. Nos. 193383-84
Tax refund, andwhich
193407-08
is in th
En Banc Commissioner on Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio
DENIED Development G5 Corporation, G.R. No. 167606,
A party adversely August 1
affecte
2nd San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner
PARTIALLY GRANTED
G5 G.R. No. 180345,
Since November
petitioner's25, 200
report
2nd National Association of Electricity Consumers
PARTIALLY forGRANTED
Reforms v. Energy
G5 Regulatory Commission,
However, well G.R.entrench
No. 1639
BurmeisterGRANTED
and Wain Scandinavian
G5 Contractor
TheMindanao,
Court findsInc.,
the G.R.
abov
3rd Dizon v. Court of Tax Appeals, etal., G.R. No.DENIED
140944, April 30, 2008
G5 The Court reiterates its r
En Banc CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc.DISMISSED v. Commissioner ofG5 Internal Revenue G.R. No. 200841-42,
In order for the CTA Aug En B
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi ForgingDENIEDCompany ofG5 Asia, Inc G.R. No. 184823
An entity October
should 6, be2010
auth
En Banc Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. CommissionerGRANTEDof Internal RevenueG4 G.R. No. 222743, April
An LOA 05,is2017
the authority
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz DENIED
Philippines Corporation
G5 G.R. No. 215534
In sum, the Court En Ban
En Banc Celestino Co & Company vs. Collector of Internal DENIED Revenue G.R. G5 No. L-8506 The presence at the deli
En Banc Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
DENIEDRevenue G.R. G5No. 207112 For claims for tax credit
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Island ACQUITTED
Garment ManufacturingG5 Corporation G.R.
As No. L-46644the def
oft-repeated,
3rd COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V.GRANTED BANK OF THE PHILIPPINEG4 ISLANDS G.R.The No.statute
224327on limitation
3rd Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, DISMISSED
Inc. v. City of Balanga
G5 and Amado P.Where Jimenezthe acts of the pu
1st Medicard Philippine Inc. vs. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal RevenueG5 G.R. No. 222743 Clearly, there must be a
1st COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE DENIED
LA SALLE UNIVERSITY,
G5 INC G.R. No. 196596
Applying the foregoing t
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLY
Kudos MetalGRANTED
CorporatiorG5 G.R. No. 178087 Under RMO No. 01-90, a
En Banc Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal Revenue G.R. G5 No. 207112 In this case, record is be
1st Commissioner vs. Algue, Inc. L-28896 GRANTED G4 Clearly, petitioner is not
1st Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel v. Commissioner GRANTED
of Internal Revenue,G4 G.R. No. 155541While taxes are the lifeb
1st Site/ Philippines Corporation (formerly PARTIALLY
Clientlogic
GRANTED
Phils., Inc.) vs.
G5Commissioner of TheInternal
CourtRevenue G.R.peN
notes that
En Banc Gibbs vs. Collector of Internal Revenue and Court
DENIED of Tax Appeals G5G.R. No. L-17406 Erroneous or illegal tax i
En Banc Medicard Philippines, Inc vs. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal RevenueG5 G.R. No. 222743 The issuance of Re-Assig
2ND Adamson v. Court of AppealsGUILTY
G.R. No.BEYOND
120935REASONABLE DOUBT G5 The prosecution did not
2ND Jacinto-Henares v. Atlas Consolidated Mining GRANTED
and DevelopmentG4 Corp. G.R. No. L-26911
Considering the invalidit
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro GRANTED
Star Superama, Inc., G4 G.R. No. 185371This requirement in the
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Sony Philippines,
DENIED lnc. G.R.G5No. 178697 Taxes are lifeblood of th
2nd ABS-CBN v. Court of Tax Appeal G.R. No. L-52306 DENIED G5 To conclude, the Court s
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. GJM Philippines
DENIED Manufacturing, G5 lnc G.R. No.This
202695
Court finds that the
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dakudao DENIED
& Sons, Incorporated
G5 The BIR ruling required t
SECOND DIVISIONAn examination of petitioner's claim for refund shows
PARTIALLY GRANTEDthat at the
G5time the advances Taxwere madebeing
refunds, in 2010, p
in the
SECOND DIVISIONnone DISMISSED G5 It is clear that only food
EN BANC In the case of John Hay Development Corporation DISMISSED vs CBAA, et.G5al. (Camp John Hay), Thethe Supreme
records of theCourt
caser
EN BANC As we have held in the caseof Commissioner of Internal Revenue
DENIED G5 v.Agrinurture, Inc.the
From , aprovisions
finding of und
abo
EN BANC In Republic v. COCOFED the en bane Court,DENIEDspeaking through Justice
G5 (later Chief Justice)
Since the Artemio
subjectPangani
San M
EN BANC Thepresentpetitionissimilartothe caseof DENIEDCommissionerG5 of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear
In light of the factualPhilipp
cir
FIRST DIVISION In Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines
DISMISSED Manufacturing,
G5 Inc.) v. Commissioner
Applying the of foregoing
Internal Re j
EN BANC In DisciplinaryBoard,Land TransportationOffice,et DENIEDaLvs.MerceditaE.
G5 Gutierre, theHaving Supreme Courtthat
settled pronoun
the p
EN BANC In SMI-ED Philippines Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner
AFFIRMED of Internal
G5 Revenue, the SupremeinCourt
However, refundcatego
case
EN BANC In DisciplinaryBoard,Land TransportationOffice,et DENIED aLvs.MerceditaE.
G5 Gutierrez Accordingly, , the the
Supreme Co
addition
SECOND DIVISIONIn the case of MOOG CONTROLS CORPORATION PHILIPPINE BRANCH
PARTALLY GRANTED G5 vs. COMMISSIONER Guided OF by INTERNAL
the above RE pro
SECOND DIVISIONIn Lopez v. Liboro, we had occasion to makeDENIEDthe following pronouncement:
G5 After the parties
Here, have produced
petitioner failed to
THIRD DIVISIONIn the case of Commissioner of Internal RevenueGRANTED vs. Sony Philippines,
G4 Inc., the Supreme
Evidence Court
showdiscussed
that the
EN BANC In the case of Dr. Pablo R. Olivarez, et al. vs.DENIED
Mayor Joey Marquez,G5 et al, the Supreme Courtindicates
Evidence elucidated
thatont
THIRD DIVISIONThis principle was thoroughly discussed by the High
PARTALLY Court in theG5
GRANTED case of CommissionerWhileofitInternal Revenu
is true that tax a
EN BANC Consistent with the above pronouncement, DENIED this Court has held G5as early as the casePursuant
of J.M. Tuason & Co.,
to Section 7(a)I
FIRST DIVISION Pursuant to the above provisions and PARTALLY
as held in the case of ACCRA
GRANTED G5 Investments Corporation
Section 76 of vs.the
Court
NIRCof oA
EN BANC none DENIED G5 It must be emphasized t
EN BANC Petitioner also argues that Deutsche Bank DISMISSED
AG Manila Branch v.G5 Commissioner of Internal
A state thatRevenue (Deut
has contrac
FIRST DIVISION Simply put, the issuance of an LOA prior to GRANTED
the conduct of an examination
G4 of a taxpayer's books
In fine, the and other
necessity of
EN BANC none DENIED G5 A more careful reading o
EN BANC Thus, in Carantes v. Court of Appeals, this Court DENIEDemphasized thatG5 "The settled ruleInisthethatassailed
defenses not ple
Decision
ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR
3rd DENIED G5 As presented in the prec
PHILIPPINES, v.COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL OF
3rd DENIED G5 In this case, the records
REVENUE v. BRITISH
SITEL PHILIPPINES OVERSEAS
CORPORATION PARTIALLY
2nd G5 Although the claimed in
(FORMERLY CLIENTLOGIC
OCEANIC WIRELESS PHILS.,INC.
NETWORK, GRANTED
2nd DISMISSED G5 It must be noted that RR
v. COMMISSIONER
JUAN CALMA, EDMUNDOOF INTERNAL
2nd GRANTED G4 Therefore, following the
MAGLANGUE,
COMMISSIONER SERGIO CAYANAN
OF INTERNAL
1st PARTIALLY UPHELD G5 In view of the effectivity
REVENUE v. FIRST EXPRESS
DR. FELISA L. VDA. DE SAN PARTIALLY
1st G5 It is settled that good fa
AGUSTIN, inHOME
PHILIPPINE substitution of JOSE Y.
ASSURANCE GRANTED
3rd GRANTED G4 To be entitled to the refu
CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
En Banc DENIED G5 "Contrary to responden
REVENUE
THE PEOPLE v. SONY
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PHILIPPINES v.
En Banc DENIED G5 it must be emphasized
JOSE
INTELJABINAL Y CARMEN,
TECHNOLOGY G.R. No. L-
PHILIPPINES,
En Banc DENIED G5 To avail of the VAT zero-
INC. v. COMMISSIONER
PILIPINAS TOTAL GAS, INC. OF v.
En Banc DENIED G5 Thus, when the respond
COMMISSIONER
CORAL BAY NICKEL OFCORPORATION
INTERNAL PARTIALLY
2nd G5 To allow petitioner a ref
v. COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER OFOF INTERNAL
INTERNAL GRANTED
En Banc DENIED G5 A comparison of Section
REVENUE v. UNIVATION
G.R. No. 207112, DecemberMOTOR 08,
2nd DENIED G5 The imposition of a dead
2015 - PILIPINAS
MEDICARD TOTAL GAS,
PHILIPPINES, INC.v.INC. v.
2nd GRANTED G4 In this case, there is no i
En Banc DENIED G5 Evidently, respondent's
REVENUE
SITEL v. METRO
PHILIPPINES STAR
CORPORATION
1st DENIED G5 Upon examination of th
(FORMERLYJOURNALISTS,
PHILIPPINE CLIENTLOGIC PHILS.,
INC.
1st GRANTED G4 A waiver of the statute o
v.COMMISSIONER
QUIRICO P. UNGABOF INTERNAL
v.HON. VICENTE
2nd ACQUITTED G5 However, the evidence p
N. CUSI, JR., in hisOF
COMMISSIONER capacity
INTERNALas Judge
3rd DENIED G5 As already explained, pe
REVENUE
PILIPINAS v. LEONARDO
TOTAL GAS, INC S. v.
VILLA
En Banc DISMISSED G5 Lastly, a perusal of respo
DENIED Manufacturing, G5 Inc., G.R. No. 202695, February
Compliance 29,
with Section
2nd Philippine Home Assurance Corporation PARTIALLY
vs. CourtGRANTED
of Appeals, etG5a/ (G.R. No. 119446, TaxJanuary 21, 1999);
assessments by taxDu
En Banc COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LANCASTER DENIED PHILIPPINES, G5 INC., G.R. No.In 183408
an action for tax cred
2nd National Telecommunications Commission vs. DENIED
Honorable CourtG5 of Appeals and Philippine Long Distance
To reiterate, Section 29 Te
En Banc Estate of the Late Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel DENIED
vs. CommissionerG5of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
Likewise, the155541,.Jan
law require
2nd Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs Commissioner PARTIALLY
of InternalGRANTED
Revenue; Commissioner
G5 of Internal
AlthoughRevenue vs. Burm
the claimed in
2nd Samar I-Electric Cooperative vs. CIR; MarcosPARTIALLY
II us.GRANTED
Court of Appeals,
G5 et.al. Based on the above pro
3rd Luzon Hydro Corporation v. CJR, G.R. PARTIALLY
No. 188260,GRANTED
November 13, G52013; CIR v. Burmeister
Clearly,and Wain
sales made Scandin
by a
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLYHantex Trading
GRANTED
Co. Inc.,G.R.
G5 No. 136975, March 31, 2005;
As a general Faxtax
rule, n Par
ass
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro GRANTED
Star Superama, lnc,G.R.
G4 No. 185371, All December 8, 2010; Com
told, respondent faile
En Banc N/A DENIED G5 Based on the foregoing,
En Banc CIR v. Sony Philippines, Inc, G.R. No. 178697,DENIED November 17, 2010;Medicard
G5 Philippines,
In view Inc.
of v. CIR,G.R.
the above-staNo
En Banc N/A DENIED G5 Section 228 of the 1997
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister DENIED and Wain Scandinavian
G5 Contractor Mindanao, dictates
Jurisprudence Inc.,G.R.tN
Next -Mobile, GRANTED
Inc (G.R. No.G5178087, May 5, 2010,)Fluor
To uphold the Daniel Phili:R
validity of
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CourtDENIED of Appeals and Commonwealth
G5 Management and Services
VAT is a form of sales Co
ta
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.PARTIALLYEast Asia Utilities
GRANTED Corporation,CTA
G5 EB No. 1207,
It mustFebruary 3, 20l6; Co
be emphasized t
1st National Grid Corporation of the Philippines DISMISSED
vs. Central Board ofG5Assessment Appeal~ et a,252
Section CTAofEBtheNo.Local
139
En Banc Republic of the Philippines v. Ablaza,G.R. No.DENIED L-14519, July 26, 1960;Commissioner
G5 of Internal
Time Revenue
and again, it hasv.be
F
En Banc Hanopol v. Shoemart, Inc.,G.R. Nos. 137774 DENIED & 148185, OctoberG5 4, 2002 The instant Petition for R
En Banc Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. DENIED
v. Republic of theG5Philippines, G.R. Nos.
The 177857-58
imposition & of 17819
LBT on
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue . SiliconDISMISSED
Philippines, Inc. (formerly
G5 Intel Philippines
AppealManufacturing,
sh II be madeInc.)by
En Banc DENIED G5 Based on the foregoing j
vs. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, PARTIALLY
En Banc N/A G5 While additions to tax th
Refer to Commissioner of Internal GRANTED
PARTIALLY
En Banc G5 Based on the foregoing
Revenue vs. Burmeister
Commissioner of Interna~and Wain
Revenue GRANTED
3rd GRANTED G4 The issuance of a valid fo
vs. Fitness By Design, Inc., (G.R. No. PARTIALLY
2nd Eslao vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 108310, September 1, G5 1994. In the case of tax-free ar
Commissioner of Internal Revenue GRANTED
En Banc DENIED G5 All said, respondent has
vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R.
Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance
En Banc DENIED G5 To summarize, in the As
Brokers,vs.Inc.
Darvin Hon.v. Commissioner
Court of Appeals, of et
2nd ACQUITTED G5 The presumption of inno
al., G.R. No. 125044,
Constantino July 13,
eta. vs. Heirs 1998
of Pedro
2nd GRANTED G4 Based on the provision o
Constantino
Rohm ApolloJr. (G.R. No. 181508,
Semiconductor
2nd DISMISSED G5 It bears stressing that a
Philippines
Commissioner vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue of
3rd GRANTED G4 In sum, the CGT and DST
vs. Fortune Tobacco
En Banc DENIED G5 In this case, the term 'ze
vs. Toledo Power Company
Commissioner of Internal (G.R.
Revenue
1st GRANTED G4 In sum, considering the
vs.
FORT Fortune Tobacco
BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT
En Banc DENIED G5 It must however be stre
CORPORATION v.
Commissioner of InternalCOMMISSIONER
Revenue
1st WITHDRAWN G5 The Supreme Court has
vs. Goodyear
Almeda, et al.Philippines, Inc. (G.R.
v. Bathala Marketing
3rd GRANTED G4 Tax exemptions must be
Industries, Inc. G.R. No. 150806,
3rd Jardeleza v. People, 481 SCRA 638 GUILTY G5 As to evidence proving t
SVI Technology.is , Inc. vs.
3rd GRANTED G4 "An invalid assessment b
Commissioner
Philippine of Internal
Coconut Revenue
Producers
En Banc GRANTED G4 Respondent City of Dava
Federation, Inc.ofv.Internal
Commissioner RepublicRevenue
of the
En Banc DENIED G5 As to the completeness
vs. Manila
Silicon Mining Corporation,
Philippines, Inc. (formerlyG.R.
2nd DENIED G5 Consequently, upon filin
Intel Philippines
COLLECTOR Manufacturing,
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PARTIALLY
2nd G5 Based on the foregoing,
Petitioner,
Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. v.ET
v. ANTONIO PRIETO, GRANTED
2nd GRANTED G4 The absence of Letter of
Commissioner of InternalINC.,
MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, Revenue
2nd GRANTED G4 At this juncture, it must
v. COMMISSIONER
Collector of InternalOF INTERNAL
Revenue vs.
2nd DENIED G5 Moreover, for purposes
Bohol
Philippine Geothermal, Inc., vs.G.R.
and Transportation Co,
2nd DENIED G5 Pursuant thereto and as
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,Revenue
2nd DENIED G5 As stated in the Details o
vs. Alberto
Coral D. Benipayo,
Bay Nickel G.R. No.
Corporation vs. L- PARTIALLY
3rd G5 In fine, petitioner was ab
Commissioner
Kepco of Internal
Philippines Revenue,
Corporation vs. GRANTED
ENBANC DENIED G5 Records reveal that as e
Commissioner
Allied of Internal Revenue,
Banking Corporation as
3rd GRANTED G4 The tax credit granted a
TrusteePawnshop
Antam for the Trust Fund of CAP
Corporation vs. v.
3rd GRANTED G4 Sections 204(C) and 229
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Revenue,
2nd DENIED G5 Considering that petition
vs. S.C Johnson
Eastern & Son, Inc., eta!.,
Telecommunications PARTIALLY
3rd G5 From the above findings
Philippines,
Samar-l Inc. Cooperative
Electric vs. The vs. GRANTED
2nd GRANTED G4 The testimonial and doc
Social Justice Society, et al.Revenue,
vs. Han.
En Banc DENIED G5 It must be noted that wh
Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 156052,
En Banc DENIED G5 For obvious reason, peti
vs. Kudos MetalofCorporation
Commissioner Internal Revenue (the
En Banc DENIED G5 Finally, considering that
v. Sony Philippines,Inc.,
Commissioner of Internal G.R. No.
Revenue
3rd GRANTED G4 Time and again, the Cou
v. Sony
Heirs ofPhilippines, Inc., G.R. No.
Serapio Mabborang, et al.
En Banc DENIED G5 It is well-settled that pro
vs Hermogenes
Metropolitan Mabborang
Bank and Trustand Co. vs.
En Banc DENIED G5 Significantly, the determ
Commissioner
LNS Internationalof Internal
Manpower Revenue,
En Banc DENIED G5 At most, the issue of fals
Services
In Vivo vs.v. Philippine
Armando C. Padua, Jr.,
Amusement PARTIALLY
En Banc G5 To qualify for the 10% a
and Gaming
Collector Corporation,
of Internal Revenue G.Rv.No. GRANTED
PARTIALLY
2nd G5 The law requires that th
Benipayo, G.R. of
Commissioner No.Internal
L-13656, January
Revenue GRANTED
1st ACQUITTED G5 To prove the fact of mai
vs. BASFAPOLLO
ROHM Coating+ Inks Phils., lnc,
SEMICONDUCTOR
1st DISMISSED G5 Correspondingly, the be
PHILIPPINES
Phi/am Assetv.Management,
COMMISSIONER Inc.OFvs.
1st DENIED G5 Moreover, Section 76 of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, PARTIALLY
1st N/A G5 In fine, petitioner has su
GRANTED
1st N/A GRANTED G4 The Commissioner of Int
G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997; G.R.
1st DENIED G5 Considering that the FAN
No.
Vda.169225. November
De Aguinaldo vs. 17, 2010 PARTIALLY
1st G5 The settled rule is that b
Commissioner of Internal GRANTED
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v.
1st GRANTED G4 In fine, the evidence pO
COURT OFTOTAL
PILIPINAS APPEALS GAS, and FERMIN
INC. v.
2nd DISMISSED G5 "To allow petitioner a re
COMMISSIONER
Commissioner ofOF INTERNAL
Customs v.
2nd DENIED G5 As the CIR aptly pointed
Hypermix
PHILIPPINEFeeds
HOME Corporation,
ASSURANCEG.R.
2nd GRANTED G4 Moreover, RR No. 17-20
CORPORATION,
Metropolitan Bank PHILIPPINE
& Trust Co. v.
2nd GRANTED G4 Notably, both the admi
ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. HON. Revenue,
En Banc DENIED G5 the liability for donor's t
CATALINO MACARAIG,
FE J. BAUTISTA JR., in his
and MILAGROS J.
En Banc DENIED G5 Thus, in the absence of p
CORPUS, v. HON. MALCOLM
G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017; G.R. G.
En Banc DENIED G5 "The following differenc
No. 178697,BANK
DEUTSCHE November 17, 2010
AG MANILA
3rd GRANTED G4 It is worthy to note that
BRANCH,
MEDICARD PETITIONER
PHILIPPINES, vs. INC.,
En Banc DENIED G5 To repeat, due process r
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 201530, April19, 2017;
En Banc DISMISSED G5 Thus, applying the doctr
G.R. Nos.NA
Citibank 201680-81,
v. Court ofApril19,
Appeals2017and
En Banc DENIED G5 Petitioner, as taxpayer-c
Commissioner
Air of Internal Revenue,
Philippines Corporation vs.
En Banc DENIED G5 The tax paid by the gran
Commissioner
G.R. Nos. 201530 of Internal Revenue
and 201680-81,
En Banc DENIED G5 Thus, in order for the CT
April19,
CTA 2017;Nos.
EB Case CTA1216,
EB Nos.
1217 1410
and PARTIALLY
En Banc G5 Further, in a plethora of
1221 {CTA
G.R. No. Case No.
207112, 8184), May
December 8, 27, GRANTED
3rd DENIED G5 Well-settled is the rule t
2015; See Emerson
Rizal Commercial Electric (Asia)
Banking
3rd GRANTED G4 Under the branch accou
Corporation v. CIR,Banking
Rizal Commercial G.R. No. 168498,
3rd DISMISSED G5 Thus, the protest letter t
Corporation v. Commissioner of
3rd 1. Rizal Commercial Banking DISMISSED G1 Completely oblivious of
Corporation v. Commissioner PARTIALLY
3rd 1. Commissioner of Internal of G1 Tax refunds, being in the
GRANTED
3rd Revenue
1. Easternvs. San Roque Power
Telecommunications DENIED G1 The Court therefore find
EN BANC Philippines,
1. Accenture,Inc. vs.vs.
Inc. Commissioner
Commissioner of DENIED G1 Well-settled in this jurisd
2nd of Internal
1. CBK Revennue,
Power CompanyGRLimited
No. vs. DENIED G1 Since petitioner's purcha
1. CIR v. S.C. Johnson Revenue,
and Son, Inc DENIED G1 It is well-settled that the
1st 1. Commissioner of Internal DISMISSED G1 It must be emphasized t
EN BANC Revenue vs. San
1. Asiaworld Roque Power
Properties v. DENIED G1 Evident from the forego
1. of Internal
Kepco Philippines Revenue,
Corporation v. DENIED G1 The Court En Banc finds
1. of Internal
Axia Power Holdings Revenue,
Philippines DENIED G1 It should be noted that t
EN BANC Corporation
1. Commissionervs. Commissioner
of Internal of DENIED G1 We are well aware that
Revenue vs. Fortune Tobacco PARTIALLY
2nd 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 In the present case, peti
GRANTED
2nd Revenue,
1. Michigan eta!. vs. Primetown
Holdings, Inc. vs. The DENIED G1 Verily, the rule is that a
2nd City
1. Treasurer
Spouses of Makati
Alcazar City,G.R.
v. Arante, Nelia DENIED G1 Based on the foregoing,
No.Commissioner
177042, December 10, 2012, PARTIALLY
Special 2nd 1. of Internal G1 Pursuant to Section 110
GRANTED
OTHERS GUILTY,
1st Revenue vs. Deutsche
1. Kyle Anthony ZabalaKnowledge
vs. People of G1 As earlier discussed, apa
KINGPARTIALLY
AND PERMEJO
2nd the
1. Cyanamid Philippines, 210760,
Philippines, G.R. No. Inc. v. G1 The Court finds that peti
GRANTED
3rd Court of Appeals, et. al.
1. Philex Mining Corporation , citing
v. the DENIED G1 Based on the foregoing,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, PARTIALLY
3rd G1 As previously discussed,
GRANTED
EN BANC 1. Commissioner of Internal AFFIRMED G1 From the foregoing, Peti
Revenue V. Mirant Pagbilao PARTIALLY
1st 1. Tan Guan vs. Court ofTax G1 As regards the assignme
GRANTED
2nd Appeals,
1. etCourt
Sy Po V. al., G.R. No. Appeals
of Tax L-23676,(GR DENIED G1 In fine, this Court finds t
EN BANC No.Commissioner
1. 81446), August of 18, 1988
Internal AFFIRMED G1 A plain reading of Sectio
EN BANC Revenue V. Gonzales (GR No. AFFIRMED G1 After a careful and thoro
EN BANC 1. Banko Filipino Savings and DENIED G1 Indubitably, a payee's cl
EN BANC Mortgage
1. Bank
Collector V. CourtRevenue
of Internal of Appeals,
V. AFFIRMED G1 As regards to the CIR's c
Benipayo (GR No. L-13656), January
1st 1. Commissioner of Internal GRANTED G1 In light of the foregoing
Revenue PARTIALLY
1st 1. ManilaV. Metro
Wine Star Superama
Merchants, Inc. V. G1 To reiterate, Section 3 o
GRANTED
1. of Internal
Atlas Consolidated MiningRevenue
and DENIED G1 Well-settled is the rule t
EN BANC Development
1. Corporation
Atlas Consolidated Mining V. and DENIED G1 In fine, We reiterate our
1st Development
1. Commissioner Corporation
of InternalV. GRANTED G1 In the case of Commissio
1st Revenue
1. V.Total
Pilipinas The Court of Appeals
Gas, Inc. V. Et DENIED G1 In the instant case, there
1. of Internal
Lucas G. Adamson et al Revenue
V. Court DENIED G1 Thus, applying the above
of Appeals (GR No. 120935), May PARTIALLY
3rd G1 Accordingly, on the basi
GRANTED
En Banc 1. Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. DENIED G1 Accordingly, petitioner's
3rd No. 112948, April18, 1997,
1. Leonila Batulanon vs. People of271 GUILTY G1 However, accused repea
2nd the Philippines, G.R. No. 139857,
1. The Office of the Solicitor General GRANTED G1 The provision under RR
vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, eta!., PARTIALLY
2nd 1. ACCRA Investments Corporation G1 In its original 2011 AITR
GRANTED
En Banc vs. Court of Appeals, eta al.,
1. Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. G.R. DENIED G1 The imposition of the su
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue DISMISSED G1 However, as correctly ob
1st 1. Davao City Water District vs. DENIED G1 Considering that RA No.
3rd Commissioner
1. of Internal
Ishida Philippines Revenue,
Tube Co., Inc. GRANTED G1 Since respondent has th
vs.Commissioner
Commissionerof ofInternal
Internal PARTIALLY
2nd 1. G1 Further, considering tha
GRANTED
3rd Revenue
1. ING Bankvs. N.
Isabela Cultural
V. v. Commissioner ACQUITTED G1 Significantly, accused re
of Panasonic
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. PARTIALLY
En Banc 1. Communication G1 Based thereon, it is clea
GRANTED
En Banc Imaging
1. Lolita Corporation
R Alamqyri v.ofRommel
the DISMISSED G1 Section 228 of the NIRC
Pabal, G.R. No. 151243, April 30, PARTIALLY
3rd 1. Commissioner of Internal G1 Moreover, although the
GRANTED
2nd Revenue vs. Burmeister
1. Commissioner of Internal and Wain DENIED G1 Based on the above pro
3rd Revenue v. Next Mobile/
1. Commissioner of Internal Inc. DENIED G1 Based on the foregoing,
1st Revenue v. Court of
1. Goldenway MerchandisingAppeals, Court GRANTED G1 Hence, on the basis of th
1ST Corporation
N/A vs. Equitable PC/ Bank, GRANTED G2 In fine, the Court holds
1ST N/A GRANTED G2 Records show that petit
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 To reiterate, neither the
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 By the Tax Code's clear t
2ND N/A GRANTED G2 Records show that petit
3RD G.R. Nos. 159694 and 163581, GRANTED G2 Absent the necessary iss
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 Also glaring is the BIR's d
EN BANC Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner
DISMISSEDof Internal G2
Revenue In the instant cases, bot
3RD N/A ACQUITTED G2 Records reveal that NPC
EN BANC N/A GRANTED. G2 In sum, the Court canno
2ND N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED. G2 The last law, however, li
2ND N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 A perusal of petitioner's
2ND N/A GRANTED G2 The irregularity in the da
3RD N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 Although the claimed in
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 In this case, the CIR's fai
1ST N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 The petitioner failed to p
1ST Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management GRANTED
Corporation vs.
G2Commissioner ofAny
Internal Revenue,
tax benefit CTA C
derived
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 A scrutiny of the details
EN BANC N/A DENIED G2 The records of the case
2ND COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SAN DISMISSED
ROQUE POWER CORPORATION
G2 It bears stressing that a
2ND N/A DENIED G2 It must be noted, howev
2ND MEDICARD PHILIPPINES, INC. VS COMMISSIONER
GRANTED
OF INTERNALG2
REVENUE Applying the Supreme C
3RD N/A DENIED G2 There being no supporti
3rd Coral Bcry Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIEDrif Internal Revenue
G2 We should also take into
2nd Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIED
of Internal RevenueG2 The purchases of goods
En banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PAS COR DENIED
Realty and Development
G2 Corporation,
Thus,et a/.
the Court En Bane
2nd (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PARTIALLY
St. Luke's Medical
GRANTECenter,G2Inc. Similarly, in this case, pe
En banc Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance Brokers, Inc.DENIEDvs. CommissionerG2 of Internal Revenue Petitioner cannot now s
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fitness GRANTED
By Design, lnc. G2 Contrary to petitioner's
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Magsaysay GRANTED Lines, Inc., etG2
a/ The value-added tax is a
1st SMI-ED Philippines Technology, Inc.CANCELLED
vs. Commissioner
and SETofASIDE
Internal
G2Revenue While this Court is allow
En banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. BASF CoatingDENIED+Inks Phils.,G2 Inc. Without receipt of the P
3rd N/A CANCELLED G2 Petitioner failed to prov
2nd Collector of Internal Revenue vs.CANCELLED
Benipayo AND WITHDRAWNG2 The Court notes that in i
En banc Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc., (now knownDENIEDas UBP Securities, Inc.)
G2 vs. Commissioner Thus, ofInternal Revenu
the petitioner was
3rd Protector's Services, Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals,
DISMISSED G2 Clearly, therefore, to att
1st Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday HoldingsDIMISSED
Corporation G2 Clearly, the remedy avai
1st Delpher Trades Corporationand Delfin Pacheco GRANTED
vs. IntermediateG2Appellate Court and Hydro
In the Pipes
instant Philippin
case, petit
3rd Air Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner GRANTED
ofInternal RevenueG2 and CommissionerIt of is evident
Customsfrom the ab
2nd Commissioner o f Internal Revenue vs. Central GRANTED
Luzon Drug Corporation,
G2 G.R. No. 159647,
In the present
April 15,case,
2005.ther
En banc Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v.Commissioner
DISMISSED o fInternal Revenue
G2 Due to this procedural la
1st Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIED
of Internal RevenueG2 In the same vein, petitio
1st Citibank N.A. vs. Court of Appeals andP Commissioner
ARTIALL Y GRANTED of InternalG2
Revenue, 280 SCRA From
459the foregoing prov
Court of Appeals,
GRANTED Court of
G2Tax Appeals and Alhambra
".The contention
Industries
of the
Inc.p
En banc First Lepanto Taisho Insurance CorporationDISMISSED
v. Commissioner of G2 Internal Revenue "Therefore, without the
DENIED Manufacturing, G2 Inc., G.R. No.
Be202695,
that as February
it may, notwit
29, 2
En Banc Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner
DENIED of Internal G2 Revenue3 "Thus, in order for the C
En Banc N/A DENIED G2 Failure to identify with r
1st N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G2 The mere fact that the E
2nd G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRAACCQUITTED
113 G3 Without any proof of rec
En Banc Filinvest Development Corporation vs CIR DENIED G3 In view of the foregoing
3rd Lozano v. People GUILTY G3 Considering the foregoin
2nd CIR vs. TMX Sales, Inc. PARTIALLY GRANTED G3 It is well-settled in our ju
3rd Collector of Internal Revenue v. Bautista DENIED G3 Clearly, not only did resp
En Banc N/A DISMISSED G3 A perusal of the evidenc
2nd Marcos II vs. Court of Appeals,et al PARTIALLY GRANTED G3 Based on the foregoing,
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goocfyear GRANTED Philippines, Inc.G3 Based on the records of
En Banc G.R. No. L-30644 DENIED G3 Finally, as a rule, penalti
En Banc Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. CIR DENIED G3 In this case, it is evident
3rd Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. CIR GRANTED G3 There is no showing tha
3rd G.R. No. 182232, October 6, 2008 ACQUITTED G3 The burden of proof lies
2nd N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G3 Petitioner is entitled to a
2nd CIR vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc. GRANTED G3 Thus, the settled rule is
Guerrero, GRANTED
et al G3 Considering that the po
2nd CIR vs Metro Star Superama, Inc. GRANTED G3 The Court finds that resp
2nd ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vsPARTIALLY
CIR GRANTED G3 The Court finds the petit
3rd G.R. NO 164772 GRANTED G3 Considering that petition
En Banc N/A DENIED G3 Based on the foregoing p
En Banc Western Mindanao Power Corp. v. Commissioner DENIED of Internal Revenue;
G3 Microsoft Philippines,
Based on the Inc.
foregoing,
v. Comm
En Banc Atlas Consolidated Mining and DevelopmentDENIED Corporation vs.Commissioner
G3 of Internal
As can Revenue
be gleaned from
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenuevs.PARTIALLY
Toshiba Information
GRANTED Equipment G3 (Phi/s.), Inc. Pursuant to the above-q
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Standard GRANTED
Chartered Banc; G3 Commissioner of Internal
In the present
Revenue case,
VS.both
Kud
3rd Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIED
of Internal Revenue;
G3 Bloomberry Resorts Pursuant andtoHotels,
the above-q
Inc. v
Sekisui Jushi
GRANTED
Philippines, G3
Inc.; CommissionerIt of must
Internal
howeverRevenue
be notev.
En Banc Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of DENIED
Internal RevenueG3 While basic is the rule th
2nd Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. (now knownGRANTED
as UBP Securities, Inc.)
G3 vs. Commissioner CIRof cvInternal
Metro Star Revenue;
Supre
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mindanao DISMISSED
II GeothermalG3 Partnership Applying the same to th
En Banc CIR vs. Kudos Metal Corporation; Avon Product DENIED Manufacturing, G3Inc. VS. CIR; Commissioner
We uphold the of Internal
finding Ro
1st Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. CommissionerDENIED
of Internal Revenue; G3 Commissioner of -The
Internal
appellate
Revenue
jurisdictio
vs. N
En Banc Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc.DENIEDv. Commissioner of G3Internal Revenue; WePilipinas
deny Toledo's
Shell Petrole
petiti
En Banc Philex Mining Corporation v. CommissionerDENIED of Internal Revenue; G3 Chevron Holdings, We failInc.to[formerly
be persuaded Calte
En Banc CIR vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc.; DENIED G3 In the present case, whi
2nd Angelita Lopez vs Court of Appeals, et. al. GRANTED G3 Verily, the Certificates of
Petition
of for
Internal
ReviewRevenue
CIR,DENIED;
vs. Visayas
Petition
Geothermal
for ReviewPower
PBC,PARTIALLY
G3 Company Inc.;GRANTEDThe
AyalaCIR's
Corporation
reliance on vs.RM
C
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PhilippineGRANTED Daily Inquirer;G3Aznar v. Court of Thus,
Tax Appeals;
considering Commissio
that fr
2nd CIR vs. Sony Philippines, Inc; APC Group, Inc. GRANTED
vs. CIR, CTA Case G3No. 6155, March 11, The2002;
settledCIR rule
vs.isAPC
thatGrg
En Banc Kepco Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner DENIED of Internal Revenue;
G3 Commissioner In fine,
of Internal
the Court Revenue
in Divis
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque DENIEDPower CorporationG3 A certificate of creditabl
En Banc N/A DENIED G3 Well-settled in this jurisd
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro ACQUITTED
Star Superama, Inc. G3 Based on the above-quo
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Standard GRANTEDChartered Banc.; G3 Commissioner ofToInternal
determine Revenue
prescriptio
vs. Th
1st Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro ACQUITTED
Star Superama, Inc. G3 Nevertheless, to determ
En Banc N/A DENIED G3 The 3-year period rule to
En Banc Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San DISMISSED
Roque Power Corporation,G3 Taganito MiningBased Corporation
on the consolidat
vs. Com
En Banc Systra Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
DENIEDRevenue G3 The irrevocability rule pr
En Banc N/A PARTIALLY GRANTED G3 Based on the foregoing p
En Banc Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner
DENIED of Internal G3 Revenue The Court En Banc likew
3rd Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division),DENIEDet al.; Philippine
G3 Journalists, Inc. Indeed,
vs. Commissioner
the Court of of Tax
Int
Petition
of Internal
for review
Revenue
of Maxicare,
v. Asalus
DENIED;
Corporation;
Petition Samar-!
for review
G3 Electric
of CIR,
Cooperative
GRANTEDHowever,v. Commissioner
the CIR correc o
2nd Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. AichiDISMISSED
Forging Company ofG5 Asia, Inc. Considering that the pre
En Banc Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Team DISMISSED
Sual Corporation G5 Notice, by way of a requ
En Banc Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine DENIED
National Bank G5 In fine, proof of actual re
2nd Yumex Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner GRANTED of Internal Revenue
G4 It is elementary rule ens
En Banc National Power Corporation v. Municipal Government
DENIED of Navotas, G5 Sangguniang Bayan A claimof navotas
for tax exemptio
and Man
3rd CIR v.S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. GRANTED G4 The outright denial of pe
En Banc Citibank NA. vs. Court of Appeals, et aL, G.R.DENIED
No. 107434, October G5 10, 1997 The rule is that actions f
En Banc National Power Corporation v. Municipal PARTIALLY
Government
GRANTED of Navotas,
G5 Sangguniang Bayan
If theof Navotasdeals
question and Ma wit
En Banc Spouses Fernando and Ma. Elena Santos v. Lolita DENIED Alcazar G.R. No.G5183034, March 12, The2014
admissions made in
En Banc Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner DENIEDof Internal Revenue
G5 G.R. No. 188550 August 19,
The obligation 2013
to comply
En Banc British American Tobacco vs. Camacho, et al., DENIED
G.R. No. 163583, G5August 20, 2008 As clearly held therein, t
En Banc Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. Commissioner
DENIEDof Internal Revenue
G5 G.R. NO. 157064 : August
Our tax 7, 2006for
laws provide
3rd Columbia Pictures, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals,
GRANTED et al. G.R. No.
G4110318. August 28,
The1996
Supreme Court's rul
3rd Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mindanao DENIED
II Geothermal Partnership
G5 G.R. No. 193301
The Supreme : March
Court11,foun
20
3rd The City of Iloilo, eta/. vs. Smart Communications,
PARTIALLY GRANTED
Inc. (Smart}, G5
G.R. No. 167260, February
It must be 27,noted
2009.that th
3rd Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner
PARTIALLY GRANTED
G5 G.R. No. 166732, April 27,
Even though the2007
claimed
2ND Macias v. Lim, G.R. No. 139284, June 4, 2004DENIED G5 The purpose of the law i
En Banc Diageo Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofDENIED
Internal Revenue, CTAG5 Case Nos. 7846As and January
aptly found16,
by 2012
the Co
THIRD DIVISION In Republic v. COCO FED, the en bane Court, speaking n/a throughG5Justice (later ChiefHaving
Justice)ruled
ArtemiothatPangan
petitio
SECOND DIVISIONIn the case of Delpher Trades Corporation GRANTED and Delfin Pacheco G4 vs. Intermediate Appellate
The CourtCourtfindsand Hydr
it impro
FIRST DIVISION none PARTALLY GRANTED G5 The CIR claims that petit
THIRD DIVISIONIn Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Phzlippine GRANTED Airlines, Inc.,
G4 the Court En Bane The held
basisthat
of thethefindings
qualifi
SECOND DIVISIONClaims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant, the
GRANTED G4same partake theItnature
is wellof exemption
settled that thefr
SECOND DIVISIONAs held by the CTA En Banc in the casePARTALLY of Coral Bay Nickel Corp.G5vs. CommissionerInofthis
GRANTED Internal Revenue , sw
case, petitioner
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVERSED AND SET
En Banc G5 There being a question a
REVENUE v.
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ASIDE
3rd DISMISSED G5 It has been held that if t
PHILIPPINES,
PASEO REALTY INC.v. COMMISSIONER
& DEVELOPMENT
En Banc DENIED G5 In addition, petitioner ca
CORPORATION
KEPCO PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF
CORPORATION PARTIALLY
En Banc G5 Indeed, under Sections 1
v. COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER OFOF INTERNAL
INTERNAL GRANTED
1st GRANTED G4 Enshrined in our basic le
REVENUE
PEOPLE OFv.THE FIREMAN’S
PHILIPPINESFUNDv.
3rd DENIED G5 Concededly, there is no
DANTE TAN, G.R. No. 167526, July
EN BANC Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, GRANTED Inc., G.R. No.G4
212825, December The7, law
2015is clear. Pursuan
EN BANC Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. CIR, G.R. DENIED
No. 149589, September
G5 15, 2006. The issuance of a valid fo
2ND Nippo Metal Tech Phils., Inc. (formerly Global GRANTED
Metal Tech Corporation)
G4 [Nippo] vs.3.1.2
Commissioner
Preliminary of Assess
Intern
3RD COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUEv. METRO GRANTED STAR SUPERAMA,G4 INC (G.R. No. The 185371, December
mandate is clear8,- 20
th
EN BANC CTA EB No. 745 (CTA Case No. 7701) September PARTIALLY GRANTED
4, 2012. G5 This Court, citing Aznar v
1ST Smart Communications, Inc. vs. City ofDavao, DENIED
et al., G.R. No. 155491,
G5 July 21,2009As a corollary, it is of no
M+W Philippines, Inc. vs.
En Banc DENIED G5 Well-settled in this jurisd
Commissioner
Fisher vs. Trinidadof Internal
(G.R. No.Revenue
17518,
En Banc DENIED G5 Income tax is imposed o
October
Filinvest 30, 1922);
Development Corporation
En Banc DENIED G5 Respondent was able to
vs. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue
2nd GRANTED G4 While it is axiomatic tha
vs. First Express Pawnshop
En Banc DENIED G5 Section 228 of the Natio
REVENUE,
Banco Filipino Savings and
En Banc DENIED G5 To be entitled to a refun
Mortgage
San RoqueBank
Power v. Corporation
Court of Appealsvs.
En Banc DENIED G5 Let it be stressed that st
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Revenue,
En Banc DENIED G5 Clearly, the person who
vs.
MCCEast Asia Power
Industrial SalesResources
Corporation v.
En Banc DENIED G5 Section 112(A) of the 19
Ssangyong
5l Corporation,
The Philippines G.R. No.
International Fair,
En Banc DENIED G5 Finally, as to the compro
Inc. v. v.
Aznar The Collector
Court of TaxofAppeals,
Internal G.R.
En Banc DENIED G5 Finally, the Court En Ban
No. L-20569,
Philippine August
Charter 23, 1974, 58
Insurance
En Banc DENIED G5 However, the fundamen
Corporation
Philippine v. Philippine
Coconut Producers
3rd GRANTED G4 The city's taxing power d
Federation,
COMMISSIONER Inc. v.OFRepublic
INTERNAL of the
3rd GRANTED G4 The rule is that the BIR r
REVENUE,
Nevertheless,while petitioner was able to present the schedule of inward remittances and the certifications of inward remittances fr
Taking the foregoing into consideration, the Court finds that no competent evidence was presented by respondent to prove actual re
The Court finds petitioner in a similar position. In relying on the possibility that respondent CIR might reconsider her previous decisio
From the foregoing, it is clear that an FLD, which contains the statement that the "interest and total amount due will have to be adjus
Consistent with the above jurisprudential teachings, where local tax was illegally or erroneously collected from the taxpayer, Section 1
It may be pointed out by petitioners that the presentation of the originals of the administrative claims for refund is unnecessary since
This Court finds accused argument unmeritorious. Accused was charged of violation of Section 255 of the NIRC for his failure to decla
Given that Frankfort has so much as admitted that the required reports were not generated, it should have requested reconsideratio
In the case at bar, Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit necessary evidence to support its allegations in its original petition b
It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax
The burden is on the taxpayer to prove its entitlement to the refund.Moreover, the fact that the petitioner failed to present any evide
Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, one of the due process requirements in the issuance of tax assessments is that th
Given that the subject assessments are void, petitioner cannot likewise be held liable to the compromise penalties in the aggregate a
As a rule, internal revenue taxes must be assessed by the BIR within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law for the filing o
, CTA Case No. 9538
, CTA Case No. 9657
, CTA Case No. 9456
, CTA Case No. 9698
The Court finds that a mere schedule of payments are insufficient to prove actual payments of the alleged professional fees paid to G
Consistent with the foregoing ruling, the Court En Bane holds that petitioner's failure to identify with reasonable specificity the flawe
, CTA Case No. 9556
Basic is the rule that credence cannot be given on mere allegation without sufficient proof in support thereof. It is elementary that bu
Since the obligation to pay the tax is an obligation that is created by law and does not arise from the offense of tax evasion, the same
The foregoing discussion lends to no other conclusion other than that the SEF was intended to be part and parcel of the phrase "othe
An assessment "refers to the determination of amounts due from a person obligated to make payments." In the context in which it is
In all cases, whatever documents a taxpayer intends to file to support his claim must be completed within the two-year period under
In a myriad of cases, the Supreme Court declared that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previ
, CTA Case No. EB 1854
Based on the foregoing provision, certain essential elements must be present for a sale or supply of services to be subject to the VAT
In this case, there is no showing that there is a statutory provision which directs or authorizes the payment of interest on the amount
In this case, the subject PAN was never introduced in evidence. Thus, this Court cannot conclude whether the same was indeed issue
In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is well within its authority to consider in its decision the issue on the invalidity of the F
Based on the foregoing provisions, a Special Economic Zone or "ECOZONE" is treated as a separate customs territory, and business est
Applying the foregoing pronouncement to the instant case, the Court En Banc is one with respondent CBAA in dismissing petitioner's
Being a holding company, respondent cannot be made liable for local business tax imposed on "banks and other financial institutions
We agree with the court a quo that this assessment item is void for violating respondent's right to due process. The "realized forex ga
There being no valid third waiver, petitioner's authority to assess respondent ended on June 30, 2014, which was the last day for exte
Clearly in this case, the CIR failed to comply with the issuance of a new LOA, instead a new MOA was issued for the continuation of th
Evidently, whether a revenue examiner's authority to conduct audit was never raised as an issue in the administrative level or in the
The Court finds that while petitioner was able to present adequate documents supporting the transfer of the raw alcohol from one pl
In the instant case, it was proven that petitioner DFFC is a non-resident foreign corporation, and the shares transferred are of DPI whi
Based on the records, this Court finds that there is no valid assessment considering that the CIR failed to comply with Paragraph 2 of S
To reiterate, claims for tax refund, as in the instant case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption, hence, must be construed in stric
Accordingly, it is a well settled principle that "taxation is the rule, while tax exemption is the exception." Tax exemptions must be stric
The CTA being a court of record, the cases filed before it are litigated de novo and party litigants should prove every minute aspect o
Basic is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claim
There must be a grant of authority before any revenue officer can conduct an examination or issue an assessment. In this aspect, a va
In this regard, the taxpayer must first pay the tax then file a protest with the Local Treasurer within thirty (30) days from date of paym
To the mind of the Court En Bane, the strictissimi juris rule applied against a taxpayer on its tax refund claim does not apply to claims
As correctly pointed by the Court in Division, respondent is required to prove the presence of the following elements to be entitled to
However, the Court in Division stated in its assailed resolution that nowhere in its decision did it hint that the basis was such certificat
Respondent's failure to provide a COE for CY 2012 was borne not out of its own neglect but rather, it was an inescapable result of BO
Since the subject VAT tax assessment was issued without a prior LOA, the same is void. As such, the said assessment bears no valid fr
It is noteworthy that petitioner deducted the claimed input VAT amount of P12,274,510.00 as "VAT Refund/TCC'in its Amended 3rd
It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax
It is clear from the above disquisitions and records of this case, that the assailed Resolutions dated November 24, 2017 and January
In the instant case, petitioner is claiming for the refund ofLBT erroneously collected by and paid to respondents, as shown in the adm
The prosecution failed to establish the existence of the second and third elements constitutive of the offense charged under Section
The fatal infirmity that attended the issuance of the FLO prior to the lapse of the period to respond to the PAN is not cured by the fac
To emphasize, petitioner opted to appeal the CIR's inaction to the CTA, yet it filed its Petition for Review only on June 2, 2017 or forty
The mandatory provisions of law mentioned above are clear that failure to affix on any paper documentary customs stamps would div
Respondent failed to discharge his burden to show that petitioner actually received the PAN. Consequently, a tax assessment issued
Since the subject VAT assessment is void, petitioner cannot likewise be held liable to the compromise penalty in the amount of P5O,O
Jurisprudence also provides that in the absence of moreconvincing evidence, the presumption of regularity in favor of the BOC Custom
An assessment that becomes final, executory and demandable, such as the instant case could no longer be subject of an appeal to th
Petitioner was able to file its Request for Reinvestigation dated April 8, 2014, with respect to the PAN, on April 10, 2014, the prematu
The Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a refund of the DST paid on advances only for the period prior to the promulgation of the
A careful reading of the foregoing would reveal that the subject tax assessment lacks the definite amount of tax liabilities for which p
Compliance with Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code is a substantive requirement. It is not a mere formality. Providing
A refund is not a matter of right by the mere fact that a taxpayer has undisputed excess input VAT or that such tax wa admittedly ille
Petitioner failed to adduce any new or contrary evidence that will show that the Court in Division had acted with abuse of discretion,
More importantly, none of the exceptions stated under Section 246 of the NIRC of 1997 that would prevent the application of the non
To be liable for deficiency assessment, there must be a valid assessment. In this case there were invalid assessments based on the abs
Records show that Ms. Luzviminda G. Sabile, the Revenue Officer (RO) who recommended the issuance of the subject PAN dated May
Jurisprudence tells us that if an exhibit sought to be presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask the court's pe
In this case, it is undisputed that LOA No. LOA-V08-201300000371/SN: eLA201100053172 dated August 29, 2013 issued by RR No. 8 -
On the basis thereof, it is clear that no person may engaged in the generation of electricity as a new generation company unless such
From the foregoing discourse, it may be gleaned that the Makati Petitioners' interpretation of Paragraph (d) Section 78 of the RMRC
Accordingly, the provision of the first sentence of Section 150(a) of R.A. No. 7160 shall apply in this case. In fine, all the sales made by
Such non-compliance with the said mandatory period of 120 + 30 days is fatal to Carmen Copper's claim of refund on the ground of p
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the NIRC of 1997. Un
Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, respondent or the BIR is mandated to perform its tax assessment functions in acco
Nevertheless, petitioner similarly failed to present the documents required under the aforequoted Section 18(A), (B), and (C). Specific
Even on the assumption that the 30-day period should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the FDDA by ASTI, which was on June
As to the resolution of the issue of a lack of an LOA, this is inextricably intertwined with the failure of the BIR to conduct an independ
In sum, for failure of respondent or the BIR to strictly observe the requirements of RMO No. 19-2007, the amount of compromise pe
Suffice it to say, the "appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction" under Section 195 of the LGC, in light of the passage of Republ
For failure of CIR to prove receipt of the FAN by YLCI, due process was not complied with. "Tax assessments issued in violation of the
As such, following the doctrine laid down in the above-cited cases, the assessment that resulted from the examination of petitioner's
Considering the above circumstances, the Court finds that accused's failure to file the VAT returns was willful. Intent is described as t
In cases such as that of petitioner, it is clear from Section 204 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, that a valid compromise requires that
The fact of payment of the DST by respondent for the subject transaction in the amount of P2,500,000.00 is established through the
As to the 60-period required within which to file the petition, petitioner received the Order dated March 2, 2018 (denying petitioner'
Furthermore, the Court cannot give weight to respondent's allegation in his Answer that, assuming without admitting that the waiver
After thorough evaluation of the case records, this Court finds that the present Complaint for tax collection should be denied on the
Thus, a grant of authority, through an LOA issued by the Revenue Regional Director, must be made assigning a revenue officer, to per
This ruling is consistent with previous decisions of this Court that these two documents must be presented. The SEC Certificate of Non
Applying the foregoing, there is no dispute that Citco was able to submit both the SEC Certificate of NonRegistration of Company and
In this case, it is clear that insofar as the refund claim for the period from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 is concerned, the ex
In this case, the prosecution has not proffered any evidence to prove that the failure of accused to pay the subject deficiency tax asse
The tax which petitioner seeks to refund falls under the National Internal Revenue Code, hence, it governs the period of limitation and
Moreover, petitioner's invocation of the RP-Spain Tax Treaty, various BIR-ITAD Rulings and the principle of pacta sunt servanda is utter
In this case, the issue of prescription is the heart of the controversy. Other than an allegation that the assessment was made within th
Oddly, petitioner pleads for sympathy from the Court by comparing its conduct to the Court's supposed "negligence or mistake" in se
However, as to the RTC's decision confirming MeTC's imposition of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) additional fine on accused-pe
A careful perusal and comparison of the Amended Petition for Revival of Judgement with the original Petition for Revival of Judgmen
Finding that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present judicial claim, it becomes unnecessary to resolve whether petition
This Court cannot agree with respondent that petitioner should be deemed estopped for the latter's receipt of the LOA beyond 30 da
By deleting the phrase "consists only" and rephasing it with the phrase "the following direct costs are included in the allowable deduc
By filing her QVAT Returns for the pertinent periods, accused complied with what the law required of a taxpayer only that she willfully
In the present case, petitioner claims that it still has excess and unutilized CWT for TY 2014. Counting two (2) years from April 15, 201
Evidently, no LOA was issued naming and authorizing RO Marilyn D. Guerzon to conduct the tax audit against petitioner. Her action w
Applying the foregoing pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the subject FLD/FANs in the present case are likewise invalid for failur
Upon examining the records of the case, petitioner failed to present the tax clearance certificate issued by the BIR, to show that it has
Finally, as to whether the said input VAT was applied against any output VAT and/or carried over to the succeeding taxable quarters,
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, the prior application requirement under RMO No. 1-2000 and 72-2010 is no
Without any allegation, much less any proof, that a valid assessment was issued in this case, prior to the SIR's exercise of summary ad
Indubitably, in the present case, there was no new LOA issued to RO Palma and GS Lacson in relation to the audit of petitioner's tax lia
In view of the respondent's failure to prove that PAN, FLDs and Assessment Notice were actually received by petitioner, there is no va
It is worth re-echoing the principle that a judgment has to be based on facts. Conjectures and surmises cannot substitute for the fact
Thus, since it was never established that the place of performance of the subject services is in the Philippines, petitioner's sales of ser
In the instant case, it is undisputed that RO Jamael B. Hamid's authority was only derived from a TVN, and not an LOA. Moreover, the
It is worthy to mention that petitioners filed the Petition for Review before the CTA Division on June 23,2016, without furnishing the R
Due to the nullity of the assessments made by respondent, it becomes unnecessary for this Court to address the other arguments rai
, CTA Case No. 9700
In the instant case, Deutsche failed to present any attendant circumstance to warrant the reopening of the instant case. It must be rem
Clearly, RO Etorma was not authorized, through an LOA, to examine petitioner's records, and to recommend the assessment of any de
In the instant case, petitioner Davao City Water District insists that it is a GOCC, citing the case of Davao City Water District, et al. v. C
Unfortunately, petitioner fails to specify which tenet of due process did the First Division violate in rendering its decision. In reviewin
All told, based on the foregoing discussions, petitioner sufficiently proved that it is entitled to a refund of excess CWT for CY 2013 bu
Having filed an administrative claim on March 17, 2017 with the BIR, requesting for a refund should the CTA decide in its favor, and th
We agree that "tax refunds or tax credits -just like tax exemptionsare strictly construed against taxpayers, the latter having the burde
In this case, this Court En Bane upholds the finding of the Court in Division that the prosecution failed to show any proof that there w
Section 229 of the NIRC allows the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. An "erroneous or illegal tax" is defined as one l
Although a portion of the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner to its quarterly VAT return for the succeeding first quarter
Silence is not a source of judicial admissions. A party's silence during the testimony of an opposing party's witness cannot be taken as
All told, the Court En Banc is one with the Court in Division in ruling that it has no competence to entertain and determine the belated
Considering that petitioner is not liable for deficiency excise taxes for taxable year 2014, there is no factual or legal basis for its impos
However, other than these bare statements, petitioner failed to present documents to prove its allegations. It is a basic rule of eviden
In assessing VAT, it must be shown that the taxpayer received an amount of money or its equivalent from its sale, barter or exchange
Applying the doctrine laid down in the PAGCOR case, when an office (as the DOJ) assumes jurisdiction over a case at the time when t
Regrettably, like in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness by Design, Inc., there was no time or date indicated on the FLD. Corre
Respondent failed to establish the elements of estoppel. He did not present any evidence to show that petitioner had knowledge, not
To reiterate, the documents pertained to were not admitted by the Court. Therefore, any conclusion that may arise from evidence no
Pursuant to Section 110(A)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Section 4.110-3 of RR No. 16-05, input VAT on ca
The findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that th
Based on the foregoing premises and descriptions of some of the evidence offered by respondent, the exceptions cited by the latter
The Court En Banc agrees with the Corporation that compromise penalties could not be imposed against it for it never consented to t
After a careful evaluation of the records, more particularly those relating the issue on the validity of the waivers and, consequently, o
Similarly, the Court cancels the remaining compromise penalties in the amounts of P8,500 and P20,000.00 because under Revenue M
The Court finds that although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner to its amended quarterly VAT return for the pt Qu
In summation, petitioner is entitled to its claim for refund/TCC in the reduced amount of P27,967,813.47. , CTA Case No. 9743
The essential nature of taxes for the existence of the Stategrants government with vast remedies to ensure its collection. However, ta
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court is required to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court, which by tradition and confor
While the settled rule is that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and regarded as derogation of the sovereign authority, t
In line with the foregoing jurisprudence, the issuance of a mere LN and the absence of an LOA in the conduct of said examination or in
In view of the foregoing factual circumstance, it can be deduced that petitioner only had until August 14, 2015, within which to reply
Applying the aforecited doctrine laid down by the SupremeCourt in the Medicard case, and the foregoing BIR issuances (RMCNo. 75-2
After a careful review of the evidence presented in the proceedings a quo, there is no showing that petitioner falls under the category
Considering that the merits of the present controversy have been fully addressed without the need of touching on the constitutional
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Tax Code. Under
Basic is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claim
It is the conclusion of the Court that petitioner was only able to prove that its client, FTL, is a foreign entity; without however showin
Statutes that grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. T
To reiterate, neither the law nor the implementing regulations provide that in claims for refund of input VAT that there be zero-rated
The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and f
Petitioner is entitled to a refund/tax credit of its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the first quarter o
Neither the law nor its implementing regulations contain a statement requiring payments of the CGT and DST on prior transactions a
In this case, however, respondents failed to establish the factual basis of their claim for a refund. Specifically, there is no showing tha
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as
In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund/TCC in the reduced amount of P4,065,163.03, representing unut
Petitioners failed to establish that they are not Philippine citizens or nationals, so as to entitle them to the tax exemption granted un
Contrary to the settled principle that an assessment should indicate the specific period to pay the assessed tax, a perusal of the foreg
Clearly, upon receipt of the CIR's formal letter of demand, the taxpayer should ftle a protest within thirty (30) days to dispute the CIR
Taking bearing in the above-quoted case, respondent failed to authenticate and present the corresponding registry return receipts or
While it is axiomatic that all presumptions ate in favor of the correcmess of tax assessments, the assessment itself should not be base
However, Zuellig failed to give ample justification for the Court in Division to consider secondary evidence, such as its ITRs, in this case
All told, not being a cabaret, night or day club, respondent cannot be assessed and held liable for deficiency percentage tax (amusem
To seal the conclusion of guilt, the misdeclaradon and undetvaluation in weight, measurement or quantity was found to be more than
It is explicit from the foregoing that all audit investigations must be conducted by a duly designated RO authorized to perform audit a
Considering that petitioner failed to present proof of prior payment, the same divests this Court of jurisdiction to determine the mer
Based on the foregoing, it can be easily surmised that there is no factual dispute that the subject earmarked amount had been given t
As categorically declared by the Supreme Court, lack of authority to examine, i.e., absence of an LOA, renders the assessment issued
Moreover, respondent's witness also categorically admitted that the PAN was only served ten (10) days after the FLO was served on
Thereafter, a NIC, PAN and FAN were issued pursuant to the said LN. Evidently, the authority of the revenue officer to conduct an exa
The conclusion can be made that no valid assessment was issued by respondent as petitioner did not receive the same. Thus, the ass
In this case, for failure of the CIR to prove the receipt of PAN by MSH, due process was not complied with. The CTA Division is correct
The very provision of the Tax Code that the CIR relies on is unequivocal with regard to its power to grant authority to examine and ass
In view of the above pronouncement by the High Court, Respondent's only ground for assessment becomes devoid of merit. It follow
As to the claim that any VAT assessment not computed a on quarterly basis must be declared null and void. We find no basis to declar
Applying the said periods, petitioner filed its administrative claim, together with the supporting documents, on March 17, 2017. Thus
As to the filing of the judicial claim, the taxpayer must await the decision on its administrative claim rendered within the 120-day per
The Court finds the ICPA report in order. The above input VAT of P44,159,257.12 must be disallowed from petitioner's claim for not b
In view of respondent's failure to prove that he actually issued and sent a PAN and FAN to petitioner, and that the same were actuall
To recapitulate, the final determination of the Commissioner as to the tax liability is necessary in order for this Court to rule on the ci
In view of the foregoing, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sony case, the revenue officer who conducted the investigation an
This Court maintains that substantial justice, equity and fair play take precedence over technicalities and legalisms. To deny the claim
In view of the foregoing, the interest charged by the respondent against the deficiency DST of petitioner is properly imposed. Thus, th
Unfortunately, this Court does not agree. Further reading of Section 222(b) explicitly states that while the three-year period to assess
The nullity of the alleged tax deficiency assessments and other notices issued by the BIR has rendered the alleged acts or omission of
An examination of petitioner's claim for refund50 shows that at the time the advances were made from 2008 to 2011, petitioner relie
The rationale for requiring a valid LOA as a prerequisite to a valid assessment is not that difficult to perceive - it is to prevent undue h
At this juncture, it must be pointed out that in order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual fac
In his Petition, the CIR primarily argues that sales of goods andservices by VAT-registered enterprise to Coral Bay, a PEZA-registereden
The accused were charged with the crime of an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of income tax for taxable year 2007, pursua
The Court partially agrees with petitioner. The assessed undeclared sales which arose from the amounts per TPI should be cancelled
The amendment to Section 27 introduced by R.A. No. 9294 was adopted in the NIRC of 1997, when the latter was further amended b
the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must be filed wit
The Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, finding that while the BIR established that it was able to personally serve the notices at the o
there is no evidence to substantiate respondent's claim that there was payment to non-resident foreign corporation in 2012. This Cou
The Court En Banc also does not find any merit in petitioner's contention that refund claims may only be granted when there is paym
Respondent did not fail to submit supporting documents within the sixty (60)-day period. Thus, the subject assessments did not beco
Although the arguments raised by both parties were merely a rehash of earlier discourse and have already been discussed or passed u
The sale of MAPL shares is not contemplated by Section 135 of the LGC, which is a tax on the transfer of real property ownership.First
The claim for refund was filed within two years from date of payment of tax.the Supreme Court has consistendy ruled that a claim fo
The instant Petition for Review has no leg to stand on, hence, should be denied. Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended, as implemente
We deny the Petition for lack of compelling ground to merit the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution. The CIR's general ass
The petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory period of 120+30 days is fatal to its claim for refund on the ground of prescriptio
In this case, petitioner received a copy of the FLD with the FAN on June 6, 2014, finding it liable for deficiency IT, VAT, WTC, EWT, FWT,
TOP 2 has become conclusive and unappealable.Pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC, when a notice of assessment is received by the t
The rule on disputed assessments is unlike the rule on refund of excess input VAT. In input VAT refund claims, following Section 112(C)
The City of Makati may not Impose Local Business Taxes on MPTDC's Dividend Income. Unlike the power to tax by the state which is
Clearly in this case, the CIR failed to comply with the issuance of a new LOA, despite the reassignment of the investigation to a new RO
the Supreme Court already established that the CTA has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity or constitutionality of rules an
Petitioner failed to prove that it is a VAT-registered entity.To prove that it is a VAT-registered taxpayer, petitioner offered in evidence a
Relative to the resolution of the said issue are Sections 204(C) and 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as ame
It is worthy to mention that Section 11 O(B)12 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, is clear that for input tax attributable to zero-rated sale
According to the Destination Principle, goods and services are taxed only in the country where these are consumed.ISO In connection
The law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the income tax is beneficial both to the Government and to its citizens
Article 1148. The limitations of action mentioned in Articles 1140 to 1142, and 1144 to 1147 are without prejudice to those specified
It must be emphasized that the issue raised in the petmon is a mere reiteration of the same issue which had already been duly consid
"Ultra Mar would nevertheless point an accusing finger at its counsel for the latter's gross negligence. However, nothing is more settle
After a careful review of the CIR's arguments and the records of the case, the Court En Banc finds that the Court in Division had fully a
The Court En Banc agrees with the Court in Division. To reiterate, Section 7B.14(d) of the RMRC provides two (2) options for the taxpa
It is important to understand the provisions of the Corporation Code on merger and thereafter link these with the relevant provisions
Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code 17 states that the Commissioner has the power to decide on tax refunds, but his or h
Similarly, pursuant to Sections 21, 28 and 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 197710, tax was imposed upon the taxable net
In balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law o
Section 112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9337,19 states: "SEC. 112.
Based on the aforesaid provisions, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, na
Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy.57 It is conferred o
Evidently, it is a well-entrenched rule that fraud is not presumed - it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.72 Fraud is nev
To reiterate, an assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed perio
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and is the capacity of a court to "entertain, hear, and determine controversies."21 The CTA, as a court
When the denial of the motion rests upon the discretion of the of a lower court, this Court will not interfere with its exercise, unless t
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 provides for the procedure and manner on which tax deficiency assessments should be issued, viz: "
while the petitioner implores the liberal application of the rules of evidence to serve the interest of justice and truth,43 the Court is a
It is clear from the foregoing provision that electric cooperatives registered under the NEA shall be exempt from payment of income
It is clear from the earlier quoted provision of RAMO No. 1-00 that failure to serve the LOA to petitioner within the 30-day mandator
For petitioner's failure to timely take a plain and appropriate remedy within the prescribed period, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Le
In fine, petitioner was able to meet all the requisites for its claim for refund/TCC of unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated
The said contention is contrary to the definition given in the Medicard case in that 'ta]n LOA is the authority given to the appropriate
In fine, the pieces of evidence show that the total zero- rated sales reported by petitioner in the Amended 1st Quarterly VAT Return fo
Accordingly, petitioner's income tax deficiency had already become final, executory and demandable therefore this Court has no juris
From the foregoing, the conclusion can be made that no valid assessment was issued by respondent as petitioner did not receive the
Here, only naphtha, when used as a raw material, is subject to PO.OO excise tax, which under Sec. 148 (e) of the NIRC of 1997, as am
To prove the fact of mailing of the FLD/FAN, respondent presented its letter to the Postmaster, Central Post Office dated January 23,
All told, the Court is convinced that petitioner is entitled to its pleaded reliefs. , CTA Case No. 8557
It is clear from the records of this case as well as the aforequoted narration of Coral Bay that its sales are qualified to be zero-rated u
To reiterate, respondent failed to observe the due process requirements when it issued the Audit Results/Assessment Notice (RPS), s
Considering that petitioner is exempted from paying income tax realized from its gaming revenues, the amount of P4,812,080.00 rep
As regards the contention of petitioner that the Court in Division should have focused on the issues jointly stipulated by the parties, i
Without a valid assessment, the subsequently issued PCL, FNBS, and WDL are likewise illegal since a void assessment bears no valid fr
Moreover, although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same remaine
Reinstated policies are those policies where the applicant signed the insurance application form, paid the premium, received the poli
It is explicit from the foregoing that all audit investigations must be conducted by a duly designated RO authorized to perform audit a
As computed, the real property interest of GECRF PH does not exceed 5O%, thus it cannot be said to have assets consisting principall
This Court merely applies the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the said PSALM Case and the ruling enunciated therein pre
On the strength of the above observations, the validation/examination piloted by ROs Sittie Skhanesa Jalila A. Ali and Leilah Jane L. D
Verily, the transfer of the two parcels of land pursuant to Sections 61 and 62 of the Corporation Code as pre- incorporation subscript
The rule is that for the Court of Tax Appeals to acquire jurisdiction, an assessment must first be disputed by the taxpayer and ruled up
It was similarly held that in order for a formal assessment to be valid, it must contain not only a computation of tax liabilities but also
Neither does the established practice of not taxing Filipino ADB Employees, tax-exemptions granted by other ADB member-States on
The Court finds no need to discuss the issue of non-revalidation of the LOA raised by petitioner since the LOA is void ab initio for wan
It bears stressing that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and libe
Pursuant to RMO No. 01-90, compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be im
Although the allegations in the present consolidated cases may show that petitioner indeed has a claim for refund, nonetheless, it fail
There are two options available to the corporation whenever it overpays its income tax for the taxable year: (1) to carry over and app
In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Phils.) Enerv Corporation (formerly Mira
Hence, the issue on the authority of revenue officers to conduct an examination of petitioner pursuant to a MOA shall be resolved firs
In this case, the Court finds that there is no basis for imposing the additional four percent (4%) excise tax as explained above. At the ti
It is rudimentary in law that the name of the consignee appearing in the coupon Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration should likew
It is evident that the assessments made against petitioner for CY 2010 were issued without basis in law and in fact. Necessarily, havin
The dispute involves the denial of petitioner of respondent's claim for refund of erroneously paid VAT for taxable year 2013. Furtherm
Thus, on the basis of the provisions of the WTO Agreement, there was no need to secure import permit from the NFA at the time pet
In the present case, petitioner was able to establish its right to the refund claimed by providing the applicable provisions of law confe
Considering that there is no actual denial of the claim, it should be treated as inaction. Hedcor's allegation that its claim was acted up
Absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike." Indeed, the doctrine of stare decisis compe
Statutes that grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. It
The Court finds petitioner in a similar position. In relying on the possibility that respondent CIR might reconsider her previous decisio
Credit facilities by themselves are not considered debt instruments that are subject to DST. There must be another document to prov
This Court adheres to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, the
Thus, the parties herein are both public entities under the Executive Branch of the Republic of the Philippines, albeit there is no show
Thus, the Court finds that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused willfully failed to file her
Tax assessments issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are null and void. While the government has an interest in
It has been a long standing principle of this Court that parties must come to court with clean hands. Parties who do not come to cour
Correspondingly, the subject tax assessments, which came about as a result of the examination of respondent's books of accounts an
, CTA Case No. AC-185
To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services, where
However, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, we find that the DOJ is vested by law with jurisdiction over this case. This cas
Thus, just as in the instant case, so long as the input VAT being claimed are evidenced by the pertinent documents, i.e., VAT sales invo
Tax assessments by the examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty to prove otherwise. In th
A claim for tax refund necessitates only the preponderance of evidence threshold.66 Preponderance of evidence is defined as the we
The Court submits that fraud must be proven to justify forfeiture.l It must be actual, amounting to intentional wrong-doing with the c
Moreover, it is well-settled that the acquittal of a taxpayer in the criminal case cannot operate to discharge him or her from the duty
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency taxes t
A careful reading of RMO Nos. 69-2010 and 62-2010, cited by the petitioner, shows that nowhere do these administrative issuances e
Contrary to the assertion of petitioner and as correctly held by the Court in Division, "continuous heavy losses incurred by the taxpay
In the present case, there is no question that the sale of other real property was made by the City Government of Iligan. Section 2.57
With respect to the compromise penalty, the Court En Banc agrees and adopts the Court in Division's ratiocination in the assailed De
In other words, to be exempt from all taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all its importation
Pursuant thereto and as outlined by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, in order to be entitled to a refund or issuance of a
The records of this case do not show that petitioner is engaged in activities that may be classified as performing functions similar to a
The Court has always decreed that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the governm
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. 19 It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only
The authority of BIR examiners to conduct audit investigation goes into the validity of an assessment itself; as such, any assessment a
Settled is the rule that tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the
Respondent's transfer of bulk of its net assets in favor of FTC in exchange for the latter's shares of stock and APIC, no sale occurred si
The fifteen-day period granted to the taxpayer to reply to the PAN before a FAN can be issued is mandatory. Time is essential in this e
The Philippine VAT system adheres to the Cross Border Doctrine, according to which, no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cos
The absence of the disallowed CWT in the FAN and its subsequent inclusion in the FDDA without breakdown of such computation cal
"[T]rial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription when the parties' pleadings or other fa
It is not incumbent upon respondent to still issue a FAN when the tax due had already been paid. Meanwhile, petitioner is not entitle
A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. 5 4 Tax refunds are in the
Petitioner's Schedule of Net Retail Price of SML Products did not qualify as the Sworn Statement as required under the rules, hence, t
The computation of delinquency and deficiency interests in case where the tax liability became due before the effectivity of the TRAI
In order to be entitled to a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, the fo
The filing of the return ahead of the payment of the tax due thereon is still in accordance with 'pay-as-you-file' principle , CTA Case N
It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it i
A taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process as non-observan
Article 2154 of the Civil Code provides that if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered t
A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored nor presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax exempti
compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxp
the allegations in the Information shows that the accused was charged for violation of Articles 3601 in relation to Article 1302 and 36
It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it
In the case at bar, the two elements of the crime charged were proven by the prosecution and was impliedly admitted without qualif
Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, and the taxp
A tax refund claimant has the burden of proving the factual basis of his or her refund claim. This is because tax refunds are in the natu
Basic is the rule that when the tax is paid in installments, the prescriptive period of two (2) years should be counted from the date of
For the just disposition of the subject controversy, the rule is that from the date an administrative claim for excess unutilized VAT is f
In case the protest to the assessment is denied, whether wholly or in part, or the 180-day period had lapsed, the taxpayer adversely a
constructive service of assessment may be validly effected if the following concur:a) leaving the FLD/AN at the taxpayer's premises; b
The following grounds can suspend the collection of taxes; (1) during which the Commissioner is prohibited from making assessment
The CIR is given 120 days within which to grant or deny a claim for refund. Upon receipt of CIR's decision or ruling denying the said cl
Without any zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales being shown by petitioner, the attribution requirement or that the input tax
An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It a
It is worth emphasizing at this point that the burden of proving entitlement to a tax refund is on the taxpayer. It is logical to assume
We should also take into consideration the nature of VAT as anindirect tax. Although the seller is statutorily liable for the payment ofV
Finally, let it be stressed that a claimant has the burdenof proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim fortax credit or refund
There being no mutual agreement between the parties, theCourt cancels the above compromise penalty. Settled is the rule thatthe im
The issuance of a valid formal assessment is asubstantive prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains notonly a computation of tax lia
Considering that the first element of the offense charged, i.e., theperson is required to pay a tax, is not present, accused-appellantdes
The Court finds it unnecessary and futile to discuss the existenceof the second and third elements of the offense charge as the samea
Considering that Respondent failed to act on the subject claim within March 27, 2014, Petitioner had thirty (30) days from March 27,
Under the present provisions of the Tax Code andpursuant to elementary due process, taxpayers must beinformed in writing of the la
It should be emphasized that the Court is consistent in applyingthe well-settled rule that "actions for tax refund or credit, as in theinst
In thepresent case, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of complyingwith the substantiation and reporting requirements of its cla
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Consequently, it must be remembered that tax refunds are construed strictly against the taxpaye
In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the gu
Clearly, a revenue officer must be clothed with authority before he can proceed with the examination or assessment. And since the la
Evidently, the above-quoted provisions impose tax on the income of resident individual citizens from all sources within and without t
Earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business24 and the law does no
All the foregoing, coupled with the observations that no registry return or certification from the post office confirming service of the
From the foregoing, it is apparent that there is no competent or sufficient evidence which would show that the failure of the accused
In the the case of Deutsche Knowledge Services, Pte Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue45 Court En Bane held that to be consid
In the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East Bank & Trust Company/5 the Supreme Court emphasized
The Certificates of Registration/Foreign Incorporation/ Association as well as the List of Shareholdings only prove that the named ent
Based on the foregoing provisions, a taxpayer may only be assessed for deficiency taxes within three years after the last day prescrib
In fine, respondent is given 120 days only to decide an administrative claim for refund/credit of unutilized or unapplied input Value A
The Court agrees. In the imposition or assessment of income tax, it must be clear that there was an income, and such income was rec
As between the WTO Agreement entered into by the Philippines and became part of domestic law as early as 1994, and the NFA Mem
Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as derogation of sovereign au
Moreover, the local government of Quezon City which imposed the alleged realty tax and conducted the auction sale is not the respo
Furthermore, in the Nestle Case15 I the Supreme Court ruled that "once a written protest is seasonably filed with the Collector of Cus
In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund in the reduced amount of Php1,977,907.07, representing unutili
While the Court is mindful of the well-entrenched principle that the government is never estopped from collecting taxes due to the m
It must be emphasized that without the Certificate of Non-registration issued by the SEC, the Court would not be able to ascertain wh
In the present case, as proof that Petitioner was served with and actually received copies of the FAN and the FLD, Respondent presen
No less than the Supreme Court declared that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous inte
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dakudao & Sons Incorporated, this Court affirmed the refund claim of Dakudao, a domestic c
A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds are in the nat
The imposition of deficiency interest under Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, clearly applies to all internal revenue tax
Strict compliance with due process requirement is necessary for a valid tax assessment. For respondent's failure to establish th
The crucial element to determine whether an entity is engaged in NBFI activities is its principal activity. To clarify, not all entities who
In case there is a notice of assessment issued by the local treasurer against a taxpayer, and even when the latter disagrees therewith
The particular notation in the AOI "that it shall not act as investment company or securities broker or dealer" cannot be used as a def
Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. It bears stressing that w
Internal revenue taxes must be assessed by the government within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law for the filing o
The audit investigation of petitioner's books of accounts was made without proper authority, hence the resulting deficiency tax asses
To be considered as a non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported, at leas
A taxpayer claiming for a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax must comply with the following requisites:1) The claim m
As the sale or transfer of shares of stock is not subject to CGT, We arrive at the same conclusion as the Court in Division that it is of n
Interest is imposed to compensate the State for the delay in paying the tax and for the concomitant use by the taxpayer of funds tha
The taxing power of a local government unit does not extend to income tax. The exception is if it is levied on banks and other financia
The taxpayer shall be inform in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment is void.
Absent sufficient evidence to support the assessment, the presumption of correctness no longer applies. Thus, the assessments ha
To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in
A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. Strict compliance with the 12
It would be unfair to require the taxpayer to prove the existence of the input tax which was already admitted by the Commissioner o
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Tax Code. It is we
Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. To those therefo
In computing the time limit for enforcing a final judgment, the general rule is that there should not be included the time when execu
Without presenting credible and sufficient evidence to show the amount of expenses actually incurred by accused Co Ho in his transa
The certificates with the related invoices and official receipts as well as the Sworn Statement of petitioner's Accounting Officer, Ms. E
For the same reasons that made us conclude in the 10 December 2014 Decision of the Court sitting En Banc in G R. No. 215427 that P
Thus, considering that in the instant case, the administrative and judicial claims were filed within the two-year prescriptive period un
We do not agree with the CIR that COMELEC is not included in the enumeration in Section 247(b) of the NIRC of 1997. Said provision
To merit the application of the ten-year period to assess, respondent, as the taxing authority, must clearly state and prove the basis f
Notably, in Commission of Internal Revenue vs. Hantex Trading Co., Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that an assessment must be based
Further, tax laws are civil in nature.[1] [I]n the course of trial, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the b
Further, petitioner was able to prove that the claimed input VAT of P7,486,676.34 for the four quarters of CY 2014 was not applied a
Meanwhile, upon examination of the documents supporting petitioner's input VAT on importations" in the amount of P4,456,515.OO
Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and th
To reiterate, only the CIR or his duly authorized representatives who can authorize the examination of taxpayers for purposes of asse
Clearly, from the foregoing, the DOTr undertook the responsibility of settling petitioner's tax liabilities. As such, petitioner should not
In this case, however, petitioners failed to establish the factual basis of their claim for a refund. Specifically, petitioners failed to show
As the Supreme Court reminds us in Lim Caw, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the government's recovery o
In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly M
Further, the Court agrees with petitioner that there is no legal or factual basis for requiring the maintenance and submission of a bac
Finding that the subject tax assessments are void, for being issued for lack of authority to conduct an examination of petitioner's boo
This Court, in the case of Michigan Holdings, Inc. vs. The City Treasurer of Makati City, Nelia A. Barlis, [1] accurately ruled that a holdin
In this case, respondent TRANSCO received the Letter of Assessment on December 16, 2004. [1] Thereafter, respondent TRANSCO file
On the basis of the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, the Court in Division still has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for rev
It must be remembered that part of the essence of the due process clause enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the right o
Plethora of jurisprudence consistently decrees that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., m
In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc declares that respondent is a holding company and not a non-bank financial intermediary
Since the waivers executed by petitioner are void, the deficiency income tax assessment for taxable year 2006 is likewise void for hav
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty r
Petitioner failed to consider the "inaction" of respondent as "deemed denial" of its administrative claim. Petitioner's assertion that th
In this case, there is no indication that an LOA was issued against petitioner but only LN No. 54A-RLF-09-03-00042 dated August 8, 20
In the landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation[1], the Supreme Court held that the tax
Considering that the petitioner failed to prove that the PAN or FAN was indeed served to the taxpayer, either personally, or through
It must be emphasized that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming ex
To reiterate, the taxpayer may protest the assessment within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt thereof; and that failure to con
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provision of the Tax Code. [1]Purs
In this case, petitioner simultaneously submitted its complete supporting documents upon filing of its administrative claim on Decem
Under the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA),the Court in Division shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction to revie
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Consequently, it must be remembered that tax refunds are construed strictly against the taxpaye
These cases pertain to the charges of non-filing of VAT returnand non-payment of VAT for taxable year 2011.To sustain a conviction fo
Anent petitioner's argument that the 30-day period should becounted from the time the denial of the claim for refund issued byrespo
In this case, the FLD /FAN with Details of Discrepanciesissued on December 5, 2014 was served to petitioner onJanuary 22, 2015. Hen
To reiterate, donor's tax is an excise tax imposed on the privilegeof transferring property by way of gift inter vivos, i.e., during thelifeti
It is clear from the aforequoted provisions that thetaxpayer does not have to prove actual remittance of the taxesto the BIR. It is suffi
Applying the foregoing provision to the instant case, sincepetitioner made its initial sales only in the 2nd quarter of TY2015, the two-y
Considering the foregoing discussions, the Court a quo, therefore,correctly held that ER S.A. is qualified to avail of the 10% preferentia
It must be emphasized that the determination ofwhether a person or an entity is (a) performing banking orquasi-banking functions, o
A party should present all its evidence at the first instance and not by piecemeal when it suits the case. An additional documentary ev
Based on the afore-quoted provision, it is clear that unless authorized by the CIR himself or by his duly authorized representative, thro
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that examination ofpetitioner PTI's records emanates not from a Letter ofAuthority but from a Tax V
Based on the foregoing provisions, the Sangguniang Panglungsod is mandated, inter alia, to approve resolutions in the proper exercise
Based on the foregoing, a taxpayer may only be assessed for deficiency taxes within three years after the last day prescribed by law fo
Based on all the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, an authority from respondent or his duly authorized representative is required be
Based on all the foregoing rules and jurisprudence, an authority from respondent or his duly authorized representative is required be
Anent the deficiency VAT assessment in the amount of P39,836,303.87, the Court En Bane finds the same improper because the trans
Nevertheless, while it is true that with the enactment of the EPIRA Law, petitioner's franchise had been modified, i.e., its transmissio
Per the foregoing provision, a request for reconsideration must be made by the taxpayer within thirty (30) days from receipt of the ta
In our view, the law is clear. A claimant must first file a written claim for refund, categorically demanding recovery of overpaid taxes w
In the present case, while the Memorandum of Assignment cannot be treated as an LOA as precisely, any re-assignment of cases requ
In this case, as can be gleaned from the records and as admitted by both parties in their Joint Stipulation of Facts and lssues,40 LOA N
Thus, on the strength of such observation, we have previously ruled that the appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases· w
Finally, the Court cannot tolerate this highly suspicious situation. In this case, the taxpayer, on the one hand, after voluntarily executin
Lastly, considering that petitioner's reported sales for FY 2014 are 99.84°/o zero-rated, the substantiated input VAT in the amount of P
In this case, petitioner FPUC voluntarily executed and submitted the Waivers, one after the other, and never raised a single objection
Let it be stressed that the governing rules on pre-trial should be strictly complied with. This does not however mean that it should at
Based on the foregoing provision, petitioner had thirty (30) days from April 17, 201541 , the date of receipt of the FDDA, or until May
Established is the rule that the burden of proof to establish entitlement to refund is on the claimant taxpayer. Being in the nature of a
An act or omission is "willfully" done, if done voluntarily and intentionally and with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or
The administrative and judicial claims for refund and the appeal to this Court were timely filed "SECTION 196. Claim for Refund of Tax
In essence, Section 1113 (a) and (k) of the CMTA clearly states a rule that a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, including its cargo, used unlawfu
Applying the foregoing, the Court is convinced that petitioner acted in good faith when it believed that intercompany advances are no
Although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns33, the same remained unutiliz
One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30-day mandatory and
Since petitioner filed the administrative claim for refund on September 30, 2015, the 120-day period ended on January 28, 2016. Peti
Since in the instant case, the Commissioner or the Bureau of Customs was not impleaded as a party to the claim for refund of CE Case
In this regard, respondent must be circumspect on the procedure and evidences needed in proving the issuance of a PAN and its prop
The basic deficiency EWT relates to the disallowed income payments in the amount of P17,889,776.47 due to nonwithholding of EWT
Respondent has sufficiently established its entitlement to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate on the erroneously withheld F
In the absence of evidence showing that petitioner engaged in activities which brought it within the ambit of a bank or other financia
At this juncture, it bears stressing that tax refunds are a derogation of State's taxing power.73 Such being the case, tax refunds, like ta
The subject tax assessments are not valid because the revenue officer who conducted the investigation of petitioner's books of accou
The variant contemplated under the tax Code has a technical meaning. A variant is determined by the brand (name) of the beer produ
Evidently, the interest income derived by petitioner From GADC's unpaid rentals, is considered a transaction made in the course of pe
The Petition for Refund filed by respondent before the RTC reveals that the amount being claimed for refund is only P264,261.84, whi
Needless to state, in answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it is basic that in case of doubt, such statutes are to be c
It is apparent, therefore, that the authority relied upon by the revenue officers who conducted the audit and investigation of the taxp
In other words, within the judicial system, the law intends the Court of Tax Appeals to have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all tax pro
Considering the foregoing discussion and the declarations made by petitioner in the Supplemental Declaration on Valuation118, Meth
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc, 26 although St. Luke's was found liable for deficiency income ta
Consequently, for failure to substantiate the alleged zero-rated sales, petitioner cannot claim the input taxes attributable thereto. Acc
Thus, respondent's issuance of the PCL and the FNBS was null and void as no collection can stem from an invalid tax assessment. As th
The 2-year period, therefore, cannot be stretched to allow for other special circumstances, when none has been provided. Where the
To reiterate, only the CIR or his duly authorized representatives can authorize the examination of taxpayers for purposes of assessmen
There is no merit to Mckinsey's argument that the Court in Division should have recognized its prior year's excess credits without the
As correctly pointed out by the Court in Division, this case involves a claim for refund. And like tax exemption, which is in derogation o
A bulk of the disallowances was due to the fact that the Court is unable to trace the sales invoice amount to the certification of inwar
With the afore-cited prov1s1ons of laws and the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court En Bane, it is plain that the instant cas
It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Tax Code. Pursua
(a) From the foregoing, it is indubitable that the word ''final" in the phrase "the assessment shall become final" means that taxpayer
(a) Dividends comprise any distribution whether in cash or other property in the ordinary course of business, even though extraordin
In a case, the Supreme Court declared the waivers executed by a taxpayer ineffective to extend the period to assess or collect taxes b
(a) It appears that Majella R. Canzon completed her installment payments on July 9, 2014, while Helen B. Cruda, on July 15, 2014. Cou
(a) Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99, clearly state that the taxpayer shall be informed in w
Now, in order to attribute to accused a "willful failure to pay" the tax, it must be shown that such failure or omission by accused was
However despite these clear wordings on its effectivity, respondent still proceeded to collect income tax payments from petitioner st
(a) From the foregoing, it follows that while the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is merely formal and not jurisdiction
Considering the above consistent ruling of the Supreme Court, filing an appeal before the Court En Bane via a Petition for Review is n
The instant claim for refund covers input tax incurred for the 3rd quarter of 2008 allegedly attributable to zero-rated sales for the 1st
Finally, the validity and/or constitutionality of RMC No. 90-2012 is also the lis mota of petitioner's judicial claim for refund. Petitioner
Based on the foregoing, the royalty payments petitioner made to Toyota Motor Corporation and Daihatsu Motor Company in Japan,
(a) It is unfortunate that petitioner, in its Petition for Review with the Court En Banc, also failed to challenge nor rebut the findings of
Finally, Iconic questions the Court in Division's imposition of both deficiency and delinquency interest on its tax liability. The simultan
(a) Applying the foregoing definitions, there is nothing in the record showing that respondent is engaged in "lending, investing or plac
The presence of the first two elements, however, does not support a verdict of conviction, unless the prosecution was able to prove,
In sum, compensation income of resident cttlzens is subject to the graduated income tax rates unless expressly exempted under trea
Thus, based on the foregoing, there is no dispute that when there are mixed transactions, and a direct attribution of the input VAT can
Thus, based on the foregoing, there is no dispute that when there are mixed transactions, and a direct attribution of the input VAT can
(a) Significantly, in both the August 22, 2016 Decision of the District Collector and the November 23, 2016 Decision of respondent CO
(a) This rule places upon the prosecution the burden of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidenc
And in instances where an interlocutory order is appealed before the Court En Bane by way of a Petition for Review under Section 4(
(a) In this case, upon a cursory examination of the instant Petition for Review, We find the allegations therein sufficient. First, the said
(a) Given the foregoing, the Court upholds the finding of the Court in Division that the Next Mobile case is applicable to the present c
(a) In view the foregoing, petitioner has a clear and unmistakable right to protect its properties of public dominion from being taxed a
The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an
For petitioner's failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision, it
(a) Considering that Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the PAN and FAN were actually received by Petitioner
(a) Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court En Bane has reconciled and interpreted the provisions of PD No. 242 and declared in n
(a) Thus, in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration o
(a) It is clear from the aforequoted law and relevant regulations, that the failure to file a timely protest makes the assessment final, d
(a) Therefore, a consolidated rural bank will possess such tax exemption as was enjoyed by its constituent rural banks. If the exempti
(a) Based on the foregoing, it is clear that while respondent City of Davao is empowered to impose local business taxes on banks and
(a) final assessment notice provides for the amount of tax due with a demand for payment. This is to determine the amount of tax d
Accordingly, to allow this item of assessment to prosper would be to sanction the respondent in collecting anew VAT on transactions
The doctrine laid down in San Roque was reiterated in subsequent cases. In CJR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. the Court cited
Since the taxing power of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays is to be construed in strictissimi juris, any doubt or ambiguit
It is well-settled that the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for refund/tax credit of excess income
On that basis, FTC could not possibly distribute all its earnings as it will need all funds as required by the loan agreement's covenants.
(a) Based on these jurisprudential pronouncements, the determination of which documents would be necessary to support the legal
Applying the foregoing in the instant case, VPLI, being a "CIIF company", is deemed owned by the Government, thus, any tax imposed
(a) It is clear from the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements that a prior application for tax treaty relief is not mandatory before
Without receipt of the PAN, FAN and FLD, FNF was deprived of due process required under Section 22828 of the National Internal Re
(a) The rule is that from the date an administrative claim for excess unutilized VAT is filed, a taxpayer has thirty (30) days within whic
(a) Since it is not disputed that petitioner is entitled to tax exemption, it should not be precluded from presenting evidence to substa
The Rule on this matter is patent that even documents which are identified and marked as exhibits cannot be considered into evidenc
(a) In the case at hand, it was established that although petitioner provides some form of entertainment, the same are but incidental
From the foregoing, it can be discerned that the two (2) provisions grant separate and distinct tax incentives. Article 39(a)(1) refers to
(a) In the present case, Petitioner received the compensation income being subject to income tax in calendar year 2012. During this p
(a) In the present case, petitioner advanced or deposited the excise taxes from January 12, 2009 to December 31, 200928 and also ex
Guided by the foregoing disquisition, this Court holds that the Memorandum of Assignment No. LOA-125-2013-183 issued by Mr. Edw
(a) We therefore find that the three-year period to assess the income tax liabilities of petitioner applies in the instant case, thus the F
(a) In Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly
(a) It is clearly established that the undeclared gross receipts were for the year 2008 and any disallowed deduction must be offset fro
To reiterate, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal of the denial of the claim or inaction on the part of the BIR Commission
(a) To emphasize, petitioner, as a coal mine operator under its COC, is exempt from national taxes (including VAT and excise tax), oth
(a) The requirement to indicate a fixed and definite period or a date certain within which a taxpayer must pay the assessed deficiency
(a) Very clearly, petitioner as the statutory taxpayer, who paid the excise taxes on petroleum products sold to international carriers f
(a) Counting from the filing of the administrative claim on June 23, 2016, the 120-day period ended on October 21, 2016. From the sa
(a) Thus, for petitioner to be deemed a cabaret, or night and day club, it must be established that its operations involve dancing as th
The amusement tax imposed on the gross receipts of the proprietor, lessee, or operator of cockpits, racetracks and cabarets was first
(a) Considering such admission, petitioner should have requested respondent's representative to reconsider his findings and to show
(a) Thus, even when there is under-declaration of purchases, the same is not prohibited by law. Accordingly, mere reliance on the fac
Appellant cannot feign ignorance of the assessment, let alone knowledge of the Company's obligation to pay the assessed taxes. Awa
Thus, for failure to file a protest within the reglementary period, the assessment in question became final, executory, and demandab
(a) Absent decision from the petitioners, this Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. Under the rules of statutory constructio
(a) As applied to the present case, petitioner complied with the prescribed periods. Petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund
The records of this case do not show that petitioner is an investment company, a bank or other financial intermediary as defined by p
(a) From the foregoing disquisitions of the Supreme Court on the matter, it is clear that a prior application for tax treaty relief is not r
However, petitioner did not present the pertinent tax returns. While respondent presented petitioner's Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Fo
(a) However, the prima facie correctness of a tax assessment does not apply upon proof that an assessment is utterly without founda
(a) Lastly, there is no evidence on record, showing that petitioner held itself out as a non-bank financial intermediary. Such being the
From the foregoing, it appears that petitioner must first prove that its clients are situated in an economic zone or is a PEZA-registered
In the present case, a review of the evidence presented by the parties reveals that strict observance of the applicable tax regulations
Significantly, this Court, on May 3, 2018, was furnished with a copy of the Resolution dated February 14, 2018, issued by the Suprem
The above-quoted case may be applied to the instant case. Since both petitioner and respondent caused the infirmities in the two wa
Based on the foregoing, it is required that petitioner not only issue the PAN, and the FAN /FLD in writing to respondent, but also that
(a) Considering the foregoing, the Court En Bane rules that the findings of the Court in Division with respect to the alleged fictitious e
To reiterate, the LOA is the proof that the person/ s named therein is I arc authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/ audit, i
Similar to the above-quoted case, the instant case arose from tax assessments for deficiency income tax and VAT only on the basis of
(a) In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner is a holding company for purposes of local taxation. In this connection, petitioner cont
In the case at bar, since the record is bereft of any evidence that petitioner filed a DST return for the subject period or for the subject
(a) There is therefore no merit in the contention of petitioner that because of respondent's failure to discharge the burden of proving
(a) Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioner cannot be considered as an investment company, nor as a bank or other financial inst
Insofar as respondent's service agreements with DIOM, PDSK, and NSSPL are concerned, respondent correctly argues that the parties
(a) Applying the Oceanic case in the instant case, the Court En Bane rules that the subject letter constitutes the final decision of respo
(a) However, the simple truth is that while it is true that the mandate of its operation may be imbued with public interest, it is by no
Petitioner failed on this aspect. As the records would show, the first decision denied the petition on the ground that petitioner is not
It is clear from the foregoing that after a return has been filed by the taxpayer, it behooves respondent or his duly authorized represe
Accordingly, petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim or failure to observe the mandatory 120+30 day periods is fatal to its claim
(a) Considering that the December 19, 2013 Letter reiterating collection was received by petitioner on January 17, 2014, petitioner h
In fine, there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of all the accused. Where there is reasonable doubt, an accused must be acquitted ev
It is not the Department of Justice which is the government agency tasked to determine the amount of taxes due upon the subject es
A request for reconsideration of an adverse decision of one do not automatically suspend the proceedings of the other. A taxpayer cl
With the foregoing functions mandated by law before the abolition of the ATO, the latter had the means of knowing the facts stated in
While the Court takes note of the fact that certain applications forrefund flled before the DOF-OSS Center were acted upon beyond th
In the determination of whether there is locally available Jet A-1 fuel in reasonable quantity, quality, or price, Jet A-1 fuel which was im
In sum, petitioner has sufficiently established its entitlement to refund or issuance of a TCC in the reduced amount of P2,361, 101.61,
Considering that the FAN was received by petitioner only on January 22,2014, the same was clearly issued beyond the 3-year prescrip
It has been ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also ju
The city may impose business taxes on banks and other financial institutions, but such taxing power is subject to certain limitations pr
The taxpayer needs to establish not onlythat the refund is justified under the law, but also thecorrect amount for refund. If the latter
Considering that petitioner failed to prove its entitlementto ITH incentive for taxable year 2011, respondent's deficiencyincome tax as
The records are, likewise, bereft of any indication that a LOA was issued to petitioner. Therefore, following the ruling in the above-qu
Thus, considering the foregoing appellate jurisdiction of thisCourt En Bane, it must perforce have the same power to issue a writof ce
It bears stressing that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and libe
In view of petitioner's failure to timely file its administrative and judicial claims for refund, the Court is deprived of jurisdiction to revi
In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of a TCC in the amount of P1 ,272,449.90, representi
Costs are certain allowances authorized by statute or court rule to reimburse the successful party for expenses incurred in prosecutin
all controversies involving government offices, bureaus, agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCCs fall within the initial jurisdic
Contrary to Respondent's allegation, the assessment for taxable years 1997 to 2001 includes deficiency VAT. The First LOA73 clearly s
Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any revenue officer can conduct an examination or assessment. Equally important
It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund.38 T
was made earlier than the "deemed denial" or inaction just because the Letter of Assistant Commissioner Simple was dated on June
In this case, considering that petitioner is a registered Clark Freeport Enterprise based on its Certificate of Registration and Tax Exemp
To recapitulate the findings of the Court in Division, the respondent is a special purpose trust (SPT) or a special purpose entity (SPE) t
Following the well-settled rule that a void assessment bears no valid fruit, the FLD/FAN dated April 14, 2014 and the FNBS dated Mar
Taking into consideration the foregoing, the conclusion in the present case is inevitable. At any rate, it was already established before
The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid; that is, the facts stated therein are true and correct. In
The Court ought to reiterate the Supreme Court's teachings that "in balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and i
After careful evaluation of the parties' arguments as well as the evidence duly presented, this Court holds that petitioner failed to suf
Based on the foregoing, the receipt of a copy of the first waiver, which was accepted and perfected as an agreement, can only be pro
All said, petitioner is not a non-bank financial intermediary but a holding company, which cannot be legally made liable for local busin
when there is a showing that a taxpayer has substantially underdeclared its sales, receipt or income, there is a presumption that it ha
It is established that, in cases where Respondent does not render a decision to the taxpayer's protest, the issuance instead of a collec
Indubitably, the gains realized by petitioner from the sale of its shares in DPI to DAHL shall only be taxable in the US pursuant to Artic
Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar as the CIR is concerned. The CIR, therefore, may no l
The Supreme Court held there that all San Miguel held by the holding companies, together with all dividends declared, paid and issue
The law imposes an alternative, not cumulative, qualification for the determination of whether importations under Sec. 13 (2) of PD 1
Instructional letters, as well as journals and cash vouchers evidencing advances to affiliates, are considered as loan agreements. As su
When an office assumes jurisdiction over a case at the time when the rules vest jurisdiction upon it, yet, during the pendency of such
Domestic Corporation or Joint Stock Company, orInsurance or Mutual Fund Company or RegionalOperating Headquarters of a Multina
Due process requires that the receipt of the Assessment Notices be proven by the prosecution. Notably, accused denied having receiv
Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditableincome tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due
The application for tax credit or refund of unutilized excess input VAT must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable qu
Jurisprudence dictates that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result to loss of revenue for the government. Upon
Being a court of record, the Court of Tax Appeals is bound to conduct a formal trial (trial de novo) where the parties to a case must p
Assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It also signa
Section 113(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, andSection 4.113.3 of RR No. 16-2005 require that a Subsidiary Sales Journal and a S
A sales invoice is a commercial document. Commercial documents or papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to promot
Tax refund, which is in the nature of a tax exemption,should be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. However, when the cl
A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or c
Since petitioner's reported sales for FY 2013 were all zero-rated, the substantiated input VAT in the amount of P32,821,463.15 is enti
However, well entrenched is the rule that rulings and circulars, rules and regulations promulgated by the CIR would have no retroacti
The Court finds the above findings of the ICPA in order. The aforesaid input taxes of P272,631.89 shall be disallowed from petitioner'
The Court reiterates its ruling that actions for tax refund, as in the instant case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law
In order for the CTA En Banc to take cognizance of anappeal via a petition for review, a timely motion forreconsideration or new trial m
An entity should be authorized by the ERC to operate the generation facility, to be considered as a generation company. Necessarily,
An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables s
In sum, the Court En Bane begs to differ from the Court in Division's finding that respondent opted to appeal the inaction of petitione
The presence at the deliberation and the affirmative vote of five (5) members of the Court en banc shall be necessary to reverse a de
For claims for tax credit or refund filed prior to June 11, 2014, such as the claim at bench, the completeness of documents to support
As oft-repeated, the deficiency taxes were computed using the net worth method wherein the SIR compared the increase in accused
The statute on limitations imposed by the NIRC of 1997 precisely intends to protect the taxpayer from prolonged and unreasonable a
Where the acts of the public official are the object of the litigation, meaning, petitioner seeks to control them, then the suit must be
Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any RO can conduct an examination or assessment. Equally important is that the RO
Applying the foregoing to the instant case, it is petitioner's duty to discharge such burden of proof that the assessed deficiency taxes
Under RMO No. 01-90, as amended by RMO No. 19-2007, compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of crimin
In this case, record is bereft of anything that would show that CIR sent a written notice requiring respondent to submit additional doc
Clearly, petitioner is not only SOl-registered, but was also PEZA-registered. Accordingly, petitioner can avail of the Income Tax Holida
While taxes are the lifeblood of the government, it has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude and must be exercised reasonably and in
The Court notes that petitioner failed to present the VAT invoices/official receipts in support of the P38,649,658.55 input tax deferre
Erroneous or illegal tax is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or upon property not subject to taxation or by some offic
The issuance of Re-Assignment Notice for purposes of audit examination and tax assessment is strictly prohibited. Thus, the said Re-A
The prosecution did not adduce any evidence that will show a final assessment which had been finally decided by the Commissioner.
Considering the invalidity of the assessments due to the lack of a valid LOA, and the prescription of respondent's right to collect, assu
This requirement in the issuance of assessment conforms with the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his or h
Taxes are lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. But even as we concede the inevit
To conclude, the Court stresses the hornbook doctrine that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Consequently, it must be remember
This Court finds that there is no identity of rights asserted in both cases. The cause of action in the criminal case is founded on respon
The BIR ruling required thereon serves to monitor the tax-free properties in order that in cases of subsequent sales of said properties
Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
It is clear that only food manufacturers are not required to secure/submit a CPR for importations of products for its own use. Conside
The records of the case failed to show whether petitioner complied with the foregoing provision. Furthermore, it filed an appeal with
From the provisions above, what is critical to be shown in the imposition or assessment of VAT in the sale of goods or properties, is t
Since the subject San Miguel shares of respondent, and respondent itself, are owned by the government, it follows that the dividend
In light of the factual circumstances, KPPI having complied with the requirements for refund provided for under the NIRC, and withou
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, for purposes of claiming tax credit or refund of input VAT, the 120+30 day periods must be stric
Having settled that the prescriptive period to assess was not suspended due to a granted request for reinvestigation of the FAN, the C
However, in refund cases, Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, plainly and clearly states that the two (2)-year period shall be
Accordingly, the additions to the tax or deficiency tax such as, among others, Civil Penalties or Surcharges under Section 248, Deficien
Guided by the above pronouncement, this Court finds respondent's imposition of 50% surcharge by the mere fact of substantial over
Here, petitioner failed to justify that the evidence it shall present is newly discovered, or that the same was omitted through inadvert
Evidence show that the assessment and examination of petitioner's internal revenue taxes for calendar year 2007 was precipitated b
Evidence indicates that the Province of Batangas owned the subject properties during the relevant period. In fact, titles thereto were
While it is true that tax assessments have the presumption of correctness and regularity in its favor, it is also equally true that assessm
Pursuant to Section 7(a)(3) of Republic Act (RA) 1125, as amended by RA 9282, and Rule 4, Section 3(a)(3) of the 2005 Revised Rules
Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, prescribes two options to a taxable corporation whose total quarterly income tax paym
It must be emphasized that a tax assessment that has become final, executory and enforceable for failure of the taxpayer to assail th
A state that has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations those modifications that may be necess
In fine, the necessity of a valid LOA in audit investigations is not merely an administrative requirement but a statutory requirement w
A more careful reading of the foregoing provision would reveal that a taxpayer is allowed to file a written claim either of a refund or a
In the assailed Decision and Resolution, the Court in Division ruled that LOA No. 21730 is void, in so far as it authorizes the conduct o
As presented in the preceding computation, petitioner's excess input taxes were more than enough to cover output tax liability. How
In this case, the records disclose that the Amadeus Commercial Organization Agreement executed on August 13, 1997 and the Distrib
Although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns76, the same remained unutiliz
It must be noted that RR No. 12-99, as amended, is silent as to the mode of filing an administrative protest against an FLD/FAN. In su
Therefore, following the previous pronouncements of this Court, and applying Section 6 of RA No. 7459, the income of petitioner for
In view of the effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 10963 or otherwise known as the "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion" on Ja
It is settled that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretations of government age
To be entitled to the refund sought, petitioner must comply with the following requisites under Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as am
"Contrary to respondent's asseveration that the Assailed Decision did not show that the sales invoices and/or official receipts fully co
it must be emphasized that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. O
To avail of the VAT zero-rating, the foregoing provision requires the VAT-registered taxpayer to prove three (3) essential and distinct fa
Thus, when the respondent did not submit other supporting papers in support of its claim, petitioner should have decided such claim
To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services, where
A comparison of Section 249(B) and 249(C)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reveals that the deficiency interest on any deficiency
The imposition of a deadline in the actions on claims for refund of this nature provides a fresh take on the concept of "exhaustion of
In this case, there is no indication that a LOA was issued against petitioner but only an undated LN No. 048-TRS-08-00-00027. In the a
Evidently, respondent's receipt of the FAN, seven (7) days after the receipt of the PAN is a violation of the due process requirements
Upon examination of the foregoing pieces of evidence, the Court noted that O.R. No. 347478 under the name of Chevron Texaco Chi
A waiver of the statute of limitations under the NIRC, to a certain extent, is a derogation of the taxpayers' right to security against pro
However, the evidence presented by the prosecution and admitted by the Court is lacking as to the computation of the deficiency inc
As already explained, petitioner failed to file its protest within the 30-day period provided by law. Thus, the assessment is deemed to
Lastly, a perusal of respondent's Quarterly VAT Returns reveals that it had no output tax liability against which the claimed input VAT
Compliance with Section 228 of the NIRC is a substantive requirement. It is not a mere formality. Providing the taxpayer with the fact
Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, and all presumptions are in favor of the correctness
In an action for tax credit or refund, the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove that he is entitled thereto, and failure to discharge the
To reiterate, Section 29 of the NIRC of 1997 provides that an IAET equivalent to 10°/o of the improperly accumulated earnings shall b
Likewise, the law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in the formal letter of demand and assessmen
Although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same remained unutilized
Based on the above provisions of the law and regulations, a taxpayer has the right to be fully informed of the law and the facts upon
Clearly, sales made by a VAT-registered entity to PEZA registered enterprise operating within an ecozone qualify as VAT zerorated tra
As a general rule, tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith. All presumptions are in favor of the
All told, respondent failed to prove that the assessment notices were indeed served by registered mail to petitioner. Accordingly, the
Based on the foregoing, the dutiable value of an imported article shall be the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or pay
In view of the above-stated findings, the Court En Bane views that failure to return the original LOA for revalidation is tantamount to
Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC clearly provides that an assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsider
Jurisprudence dictates that in a claim for tax refund or tax credit, the applicant must prove not only entitlement to the claim but also
To uphold the validity of the Waivers would be consistent with the puplic policy embodied in the principle that taxes are the lifeblood
VAT is a form of sales tax. It is a tax on consumption levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties and services
It must be emphasized that to be entitled to a tax deduction, the taxpayer must competently establish the factual and documentary
Section 252 of the Local Government Code (LGC) mandates that "no protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pays the ta
Time and again, it has been ruled that the prima facie correctness of a tax assessment does not apply upon proof that an assessment
The instant Petition for Review should be denied on jurisdictional ground.The CTA, as a court of special jurisdiction, can only take cog
The imposition of LBT on nonbank financial intermediaries springs from Section 143(f) in relation to Section 131(e) of the LGC and it m
Appeal sh II be made by filing a petition for rev ew under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of th 1997 Rules o
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, before an examination of the taxpayer may be validly done, it is a legal requ
While additions to tax that are "qualified" must be limited to the type of "deficiency in t e tax due as the term is defined in the Code"
Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, it is clear that unlike the BIR, this Court is not endowed with assessment powers.
The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains not only a computation of tax l
In the case of tax-free articles brought or importedinto the Philippines by persons, entities, or agenciesexempt from tax which are sub
All said, respondent has complied with all the requisites to justify the grant of its claim for refund in the aggregate amount of P216,91
To summarize, in the Assaijed Decision, the Court in Division partially granted Jardine Lloyd's claim for I refund or issuance of tax cred
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules whic
Based on the provision of the abovementioned Section 150 (a), the sales should be recorded in the branch or sales office where the s
It bears stressing that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. One of
In sum, the CGT and DST payments that petitioner made under protest on December 20, 2012 are erroneous, and thus, refundable un
In this case, the term 'zero-rated" appears on the face of petitioner's sales invoice, albeit, they are rubber stamped. Considering the f
In sum, considering the the redemption of the 2,597,133 preferred shares issued to GTRC resulted in capital gain amounting to P125,2
It must however be stressed that the declaration about petitioner's exemption is subject to the condition that all the requirements fo
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a claim for refund or credit with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to this Court must
Tax exemptions must be clear and unequivocal. A taxpayer claiming a tax exemption must point to a specific provision of law conferrin
As to evidence proving that the unlawful importation was willfully or knowingly done, the term "willful" is defined as voluntary and in
"An invalid assessment bears no valid fruit". The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed heedlessly
Respondent City of Davao, through Respondent City Treasurer, issued a Business Tax Order of Payment assessing Petitioner for allege
As to the completeness of the documents presented as evidence before the Court, let it be stressed that "in the judicial level or when
Consequently, upon filing of his application for tax credit or refund for excess creditable input taxes, the taxpayer-claimant is givin th
Based on the foregoing, a claimant for refund must first file an administrative claim for refund before the CIR, prior to filing a judicial c
The absence of Letter of Authority (LOA) and the failure of the respondent to prove petitioner's actual receipt of preliminary assessm
At this juncture, it must be emphasized that an invalid assessment bears no valid fruit. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a fo
Moreover, for purposes of computing any internal revenue tax, the value of the property shall be whichever is higher between the fa
Pursuant thereto and as laid down by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, the following requisites must be satisfied by the t
As stated in the Details of Discrepancies, the excess input tax amounting to P259,034.46 was not applied against the allowable input
In fine, petitioner was able to establish that its local purchases of goods and services from SMCC were consumed and rendered outsid
Records reveal that as early as March 20, 2013, the Court in Division denied petitioner's Exhibit "WW-3-384", among others, on acco
The tax credit granted a taxpayer shall not be refundable in cash but shall only be applied to future tax obligations of the same taxpay
Sections 204(C) and 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, provide: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Com
Considering that petitioner failed to discharge the burden to prove that it had zero-rated sales for first quarter of the taxable year 201
From the above findings of the ICPA, the input VAT under "Failed to Comply with the Substantiation Requirements" in the total amou
The testimonial and documentary evidence have established that the PAN and the FAN were not received by petitioner because of th
It must be noted that while it is true that EO No. 173 was issued pursuant to Section 277129 of the 1991 LGC, which provides for the
For obvious reason, petitioner should not be allowed to benefit from its own wrongdoing and should be deemed estopped from ques
Finally, considering that the subject assessment is a nullity and following the time-honored principle in taxation that "a void assessme
Time and again, the Court reminds respondent that the LOA is the proof that the person/s named therein is/are authorized to conduc
It is well-settled that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abi
Significantly, the determination of what constitutes complete supporting documents in an administrative action depends on the taxp
At most, the issue of falsity is a mere afterthought or a figment of imagination to justify the application of the 10-year prescriptive pe
To qualify for the 10% assessment level under Section 218(d), the properties must first qualify as part of the "Special Classes" under S
The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in the formal letter of demand and assessment notice. T
To prove the fact of mailing, it is essential to present the registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return card wh
Correspondingly, the belated filing of petitioner's judicial claim on June 13, 2014, or way beyond the 30-day period to appeal, is fatal
Moreover, Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, explicitly provides that once a taxpayer chooses the option of carry-over, it sh
In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the reduced amount of P3,
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue as well as his duly authorized representative must indicate clearly and unequivocally to the tax
Considering that the FAN was issued within the extended period as stated in the Waiver, and in view of petitioner's failure to file a va
The settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must be filed wi
In fine, the evidence pOint to the fact that "Mirant SuaL Corporation" and "Team SuaL ¢orporation" are one and the same entity. Hen
"To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services, where
As the CIR aptly pointed out, the phrase 'othermatters arising under this Code', as stated in the second paragraph of Section 4 of the N
Moreover, RR No. 17-200345 provides that "the payment of DST shall accrue upon the execution of Deed of Absolute Sale, but the ba
Notably, both the administrative and judicial claims for refund should be filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period indicated th
the liability for donor's tax falls upon the donor and not the donee. Relying on Sections 98,20 99,21 and 10322 of the 1997 National I
Thus, in the absence of proof evidencing receipt of the PAN, FAN, or FLD by the respondent, no valid assessment was made within th
"The following differences between an LOA and LN are crucial. First, an LOA addressed to a revenue officer is specifically required und
It is worthy to note that the administrative claim referred to under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the 1997 NIRC pertains to any written
To repeat, due process requires that taxpayers be informed in writing of the facts and law on which the assessment is based in order
Thus, applying the doctrine in the Asiatrust case, both parties should have filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the As
Petitioner, as taxpayer-claimant, has the burden of proof to show that it is entitled to the refund of the amount claimed for taxes wh
The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives [Section 13 (b) (2) of PD No. 1590] shall be in lieu of all other taxes
Thus, in order for the CT A En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or n
Further, in a plethora of cases involving the Philippine Airlines, Inc., although of different taxable period, the Court En Bane had consi
Well-settled is the rule that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. O
Under the branch accounting principles in the Philippines, the net income is a standard component or entry in the I lead Office Accou
Thus, the protest letter to the PAN, FAN, and FLOshould be filed with the enumerated named BIR officers and the protest must be "in
Completely oblivious of the content of the FDDA, petitioner filed its appeal to respondent CIR on December 13, 2013, and the Petition
Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
The Court therefore finds that petitioner failed to establish that it is a VAT-registered entity. Absent this requisite, discussion on the ot
Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the
Since petitioner's purchases of local goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction and installation of the
It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it
It must be emphasized that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. O
Evident from the foregoing that once the taxpayer opts to carry-over the excess income tax against the taxes due for the succeeding t
The Court En Banc finds the need to stress that the Court in Division is not bound by the findings of the ICPA. The ICPA Report is a me
It should be noted that the CT A Court En Bane already affirmed the foregoing findings and conclusions of the Court in Division in our
We are well aware that tax refunds partake the nature of tax exemptions, a legislative grace, which cannot be allowed unless granted
In the present case, petitioner filed its amended Annual ITR for CY 2012 on July 9, 2013. Counting from this date, petitioner had until
Verily, the rule is that a statute should be so construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other laws on
Based on the foregoing, importers of cigarettes "shall submit a written report of inventory of all internal revenue stamps issued by th
Pursuant to Section 110(A)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Section 4.110-3 of RR No. 16-05, input VAT on ca
As earlier discussed, apart from the bare allegations of the customs broker and its corporate officers, petitioner Kingson failed to pres
The Court finds that petitioner failed to pass the "Immediacy Test". Hence, petitioner is liable to pay the deficiency Improperly Accum
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that it is erroneous for petitioner to apply as credit (in the form of advance payments) th
As previously discussed, petitioner's excess input VAT is more than enough to apply it against its output VAT liability for the third and f
From the foregoing, Petitioner's judicial claim for the aforementioned quarters was flied with the Second Division only on July 18, 201
As regards the assignment of shares in FLRI to PMFTC, Inc., petitioner did not controvert the assessment. In this connection, it is a we
In fine, this Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that it is a VAT-registered entity. Absent this requisite, discussion on the oth
A plain reading of Section 248(B)22 ofthe NIRC of 1997, as amended, shows that in case of a false return, the penalty to be imposed s
After a careful and thorough evaluation and consideration of the parties' arguments as well as the records of the instant cases, the CT
Indubitably, a payee's claim for refund of unutilized creditable withholding taxes is not conditioned upon the existence of proof of ac
As regards to the CIR's contention that the FAN for deficiency VAT and DST containing the imposition of 50% surcharge is prima facie
In light of the foregoing jurisprudential guidelines, the Court finds that no competent evidence whatsoever was presented by respond
To reiterate, Section 3 of RR No. 02-01 prescribes the "Immediacy Test" in determining what constitutes the reasonable needs of busi
Well-settled is the rule that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is construed
In fine, We reiterate our consistent ruling that actions for tax refund, as in the instant case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption
In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Court of Appeal et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the three elements in th
In the instant case, there was no evidence showing that respondent gave petitioner further extension to submit documentary require
Thus, applying the abovementioned case, a formal assessment should be: (1) addressed to the taxpayer; (2) contained a demand on t
Accordingly, on the basis that petitioner's employees' compensation is subject to WTC instead of FWT, the claimed amount of P10,36
Accordingly, petitioner's fatally defective Motion for Reconsideration did not prevent the Assailed Decision from becoming final and e
However, accused repeatedly argued that only a small amount of profit was earned or sometimes she even lost profit because of the
The provision under RR No. 2-98 on the withholding of percentage GRT on banks shall be considered as revoked or repealed for being
In its original 2011 AITR electronically filed on April 16, 2012, petitioner marked the option "To be refunded". Moreover, in its subseq
The imposition of the surcharge amounting to P7,385,209.00 for late filing of return and payment of tax may be harsh but surely not u
However, as correctly observed by respondent LBAA, petitioner failed to first pay under protest the questioned assessment as require
Considering that RA No. 7109 was approved and took effect on August 14, 1991, Local Water Districts, including herein petitioner, had
Since respondent has the sole authority or discretion to abate petitioner's tax liability, the Court therefore must not interfere with su
Further, considering that petitioner failed to prove that its service fees and commissions are integral parts of the gross interest incom
Significantly, accused relied on the work of his subordinates, particularly on his accountant, in declaring his income in the ITRs, and th
Based thereon, it is clear that, in order for petitioner to be exempt from paying taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, r
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 evidently requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for deficiency taxes throu
Moreover, although the claimed input VAT was carried over by Petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same remaine
Based on the above provision, the original three-year prescriptive period may be extended by virtue of a valid waiver. In this regard,
Based on the foregoing, RMC No. 90-2012, through which legislated, is an administrative rule with the force of law. Hence, it cannot
Hence, on the basis of the foregoing provisions of law, there is a clear delineation between banks, on one hand, and petitioner, on the
In fine, the Court holds that petitioner's reliance on respondent's previous rulings that it was not liable for DST justifies the non-impo
Records show that petitioner filed his Final/ Amended ITR for the year 2006 on June 12, 2007. Counting three years from petitioner's
To reiterate, neither the law nor the implementing regulations provide that in claim for refund of input VAT that there be zero-rated
By the Tax Code's clear terms, a proprietary educational institution is entitled only to the reduced rate of 10% corporate income tax. T
Records show that petitioner filed its ITR for FY 2006-2007 on October 13, 2007.36 Since petitioner's fiscal year ended on June 30, 20
Absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically designating RO Sunga to conduct the audit and examination of petitioner's b
Also glaring is the BIR's delay in issuing the PAN. Again, as discussed earlier, the BIR allegedly discovered the deficiency interest and p
In the instant cases, both parties failed to file their respective motions for reconsideration of the Amended Decision dated October 1
Records reveal that NPC received the FANs and the FLDs with computations of deficiencies on January 15, 2007 through a certain Dan
In sum, the Court cannot treat the Referral Memorandum into the LOA required under the law. Revenue Officer Mary Anne P. Cruz is
The last law, however, limited the period of exemption from taxes of local water districts (LWDs) to only five (5) years from its date o
A perusal of petitioner'sQuarterly VAT Returns for the four quarters of 2008 shows that it had no output tax liability against which the
The irregularity in the dates of issuance and receipt of the FAN fails to escape the intrusive eye of this Court, emphasizing more clear
Although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same remained unutilized
In this case, the CIR's failure to move for a reconsideration of the Amended Decision of the CTA Division is a ground for the dismissal o
The petitioner failed to prove that part of the professional fees, rent expense and security services was either not subject to withhold
Any tax benefit derived by petitioner from such carry-over redounds to the succeeding period; thus, at most, petitioner may only be
A scrutiny of the details of discrepancies will show that the alleged VAT analysis proffered by the witness of IPCCO was never even me
The records of the case indubitably show that the CTA-Third Division had already fully and exhaustively resolved the issue in relation t
It bears stressing that a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. To rep
It must be noted, however, that there was a denial of petitioner's claim by respondent on September 10, 2013, which was received b
Applying the Supreme Court'sruling in the Medicard case to the present case, the Memorandum of Assignment issued to Revenue Of
There being no supporting documents filed on or before June 19, 2013, the counting of the one hundred and twenty (120)-day period
We should also take into consideration the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. Although the seller is statutorily liable for the payment o
The purchases of goods and services by the petitioner that were destined for consumption within the ECOZONE should be free of VA
Thus, the Court En Bane is one with the Court in Division in holding that without an administrative claim for refund filed, petitioner ca
Similarly, in this case, petitioner appears to have honestly believed in good faith that it is not liable to pay the tax assessed because o
Petitioner cannot now shield itself from the principle that claims for refund are to be construed strictissimijuris against the taxpayer a
Contrary to petitioner's view, April 15, 2004 was the reckoning date of accrual of penalties and surcharges and not the due date for p
The value-added tax is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or passed on to the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goo
While this Court is allowed to make its own determination of the taxpayer's liability in the process of reviewing the SIR's assessment,
Without receipt of the PAN and FLD, respondent was deprived of due process required under Section 228 of the NIRC, as amended. C
Petitioner failed to provide the proof of Application for Registration together with the required attachments of its employees in comp
The Court notes that in its VAT assessment, respondent addedback petitioner's excess input taxes for the year 2009 amounting toP3,9
Thus, the petitioner was not able to establish that herein respondent was informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the a
Clearly, therefore, to attribute to accused a "willful failure to pay" the tax, it must be shown that such failure or omission by accused
Clearly, the remedy available to assail the decision or ruling of the RTC in local tax cases is an appeal which shall be made by filing a P
In the instant case, petitioner entered into a Plan of De facto Merger whereby it transferred substantially all of its assets in exchange
It is evident from the above-quoted provisions that the law exacts from common carriers extraordinary diligence in its affairs, and the
In the present case, there is no question that the sale of other real property was made by the City Government of Iliigan. Section 2.57
Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar as the CIR is concerned. The CIR, therefore, may no l
In the same vein, petitioner's recourse for its purchases of goods and services where it paid VAT is not a claim for refund against the
From the foregoing provisions, in order to be entitled to a tax credit or refund of excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectiv
".The contention of the petitioners that the exclusion of Filipino employees from the tax-exempt provisions of the ADB Charter would
"Therefore, without the corresponding CWT certificates to support Philam's prior year's excess credit of P43,223,633.96, the said amo
Be that as it may, notwithstanding the above-stated findings ofthe Court En Bane that there are certain periods which haveprescribed
"Thus, in order for the CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or n
Failure to identify with reasonable specificity the flawed invoices and receipts purportedly introduced by respondent and admitted b
The mere fact that the EWT declared per tax returns is higher than that per audit does not disprove respondent's assessment. The sa
Without any proof of receipt of the tax assessment, the Courtcannot determine whether the accused has the knowledge of the taxde
In view of the foregoing, the assailed tax assessmenthas no basis under the Local Government Code or the Makati Revenue Code, and
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the defensefailed to overcome the convincing proof presented by the prosecution.Acc
It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the reckoning of thetwo-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for refund/taxcredi
Clearly, not only did respondent complied with the mandatoryrequirement of issuance of PAN prior to the FLD/FAN, petitionerwas ev
A perusal of the evidence on record shows that Petitioner granted Respondent's request for re-investigation and that Petitioner was
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that for expenses to bedeductible, the same must be substantiated with official receipts orother ad
Based on the records of the case, the Bureau of Treasury paid and remitted to the BIR the FWT on the first coupon payment on Janua
Finally, as a rule, penalties cannot be imposed absentany showing that the taxpayer agreed to it, as in the case atbar. A compromise im
In this case, it is evident that petitioner, having failed to demandpayment within a specified period of time and to serve uponrespond
There is no showing that respondent exerted anyeffort to collect the other or remaining deficiency taxes on orbefore September 24, 2
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that there isunlawful importation of 28,055 bags of wheat flour and that such
Petitioner is entitled to a partial refund of its excess input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales. The claimed input VAT was carrie
Thus, the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with theBIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must befile
Considering that the power to assess is lodged in the respondentand is not within the province of this Court, the Court is constrained
The Court finds that respondent failed to prove that petitioner JV received the PAN. As established above, the sending and receipt of
The Court finds the petition partly meritorious. The inaction on the part of the previous BIR commissioners to enforce the collection o
Considering that petitioner complied with the requirements for refund of local business taxes under Section 196 of the LGC, and given
Based on the foregoing provision, the VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated, may, within a period
Based on the foregoing, in order to be entitled to a refund or to a tax credit of input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, the following
As can be gleaned from the assailed Amended Decision dated July 27, 2015, the Court in Division, after careful examination of the doc
Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 112(A), the application for tax credit certificate/refund of input VAT must be filed within two y
In the present case, both the petitioners and respondent are in pari delicto. The respondent executed the subject waiver in considera
Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 112(A)Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the administrative claim for th
It must however be noted that the VAT zero-rating on the sales of goods, properties or services by a VATregistered entity to a PEZA..:
While basic is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity
CIR cv Metro Star Suprema Case-It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that no person shall be deprived of prope
Applying the same to the instant case, from March 20, 2014, the date when petitioner filed its administrative claim and presumably s
We uphold the finding of the Court in Division that the assessment was issued beyond the prescriptive period because the waivers w
-The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on mat
We deny Toledo's petition. First, the Court is well-aware that under Section 8 of RA 1225, as amended, proceedings before the CT A a
We fail to be persuaded. As discussed in the assailed Resolution, the Revised Rules of Court, specifically Sections 19 and 24 of Rule 13
In the present case, while the BIR is fully aware that the liability for the "additions to the tax," if any, may only be imposed on SSS' res
Verily, the Certificates of Authentication issued by the Philippine Consul in Singapore are sufficient to prove the due execution and gen
The CIR's reliance on RMO No. 53-98 regarding the sufficiency of supporting documents submitted by PBCom is misplaced. This Court
Thus, considering that fraud is not duly proven in this case, the period of limitation is three (3) years from the filing of the return, pur
The settled rule is that good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the basis of previous interpretation of governme
In fine, the Court in Division did not err when it assumed jurisdiction over the Petition for Review of Deutsche timely instituted on Se
A certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is complete in the relevant details that would aid the courts in the evaluation of any
Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the
Based on the above-quoted provisions, the following elements must be established by the prosecution to secure the conviction of acc
To determine prescription, what is essential only is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period were sufficiently
Nevertheless, to determine whether or not the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving the first element of the crime
The 3-year period rule to assess internal revenue taxes is explicitly provided in Section 203 of the NIRC, as amended. Hence, an assess
Based on the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporatio
The irrevocability rule provided in Section 76 of the NIRC admits of an exception in its application in the event of cessation of busines
Based on the foregoing provisions, to exempt petitioner from paying taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, o
The Court En Banc likewise held in recent cases, that a taxpayer's right to due process is violated if the FLD /FAN is issued prior to the
Indeed, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is a court of special jurisdiction and as such can only take cognizance of such matters as are cle
However, the CIR correctly identified that Maxicare's VAT returns for the subject year under audit are false. Consequently, We hold th
Considering that the present judicial claim was filed only on January 9, 2015, the same does not fall within the period when BIR Rulin
Notice, by way of a request from the tax collection authority to produce the complete documents in theses cases, is essential. Indeed
In fine, proof of actual remittance is not a condition to claim for a refund or tax credit of ununtilized/excess CWT. Also, the testimony
It is elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 constitution that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. In b
A claim for tax exemption, whether full or partial, does not question the authority of local assessor to assess RPT, but merely raises a
The outright denial of petitioner's claim for a refund, on the sole ground of failure to apply for a tax treaty relief prior to the payment
The rule is that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissim
If the question deals with the legality or validity of the assessment (e.g. authority and power of the assessor to impose the assessmen
The admissions made in a motion are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such party is precluded fro
The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must takeprecedence over the objective of RMO No. 1-2000. Logically, noncompliance with
As clearly held therein, tax refunds (or tax credits), as opposed to tax refunds, "are not founded principally on legislative grace but on
Our tax laws provide for a period within which the government can exercise its right to assess taxpayer for any deficiency tax. Under
The Supreme Court's ruling that the distribution of liquidating dividends as a result of dissolution is not subject to tax, constitutes a b
The Supreme Court found that Contex's VAT exemption under RA No. 7227 is limited to the VAT on which it is directly liable as a selle
It must be noted that the Court of Tax Appeals being a court of record, the cases flied before it are litigated de novo and party litigan
Even though the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding VAT Returns/Declaration, the same remained unu
The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments by action is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their
As aptly found by the Court in Division, respondent was able to prove by its relevant supporting documents that it is entitled to its cla
Having ruled that petitioner is not a bank or other financial institution, it cannot be said that the 0.55% LBT mandated by Section 69({
The Court finds it improper for respondent to deduct the amount of P392,227. 78 because any tax benefit derived by petitioner from
The CIR claims that petitioner cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal since petitioner did not protest the compromise pen
The basis of the findings in BIR Ruling No. 001-2003 is the 2002 DOE Certification. As testified to by Mr. Tiaoqui, petitioner's expert w
It is well settled that the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for refund/tax credit of excess income
In this case, petitioner simultaneously submitted its complete supporting documents upon filing of its administrative claim on Decem
There being a question as to whether the CIR can collect on said assessment, the Court may also look into the validity of said assessm
It has been held that if the CIR decides the claim on the 120th day, or does not decide it on that day, the taxpayer still has 30 days to
In addition, petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the long established doctrine that tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed str
Indeed, under Sections 110(A) and 113(A) of the NIRC, any input tax that is subject of a claim for refund must be evidenced by a VAT
Enshrined in our basic legal principles is the time-honored doctrine that no person shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of ano
Concededly, there is no clear statement under R.A. No. 1125, the amendatory R.A. No. 9282, let alone in the Constitution, that the CT
The law is clear. Pursuant to Section 203 of the 1997NIRC, respondent should issue an assessment for deficiency taxes within three (3
The issuance of a valid formal assessment is asubstantive prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains not only a computation of tax li
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).- If after review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or his
The mandate is clear - the taxpayers must be informed in writing of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made; otherw
This Court, citing Aznar vs. Court of Appeals, reiterated that it is quite easy for revenue officialsto claim that there was falsity in the re
As a corollary, it is of no consequence that the electricity transmitted to BATELEC II is subsequently distributed to end-users located i
Income tax is imposed on an individual or entity as a form of excise tax or a tax on the privilege of earning income. Income in tax law
Respondent was able to prove compliance with the following requisites mandated under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amende
While it is axiomatic that all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments, the assessment itself should not be base
Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 is clear that "the taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law a
To be entitled to a refund or tax credit representing any excess or unutilized creditable withholding tax, a claimant must comply with t
Let it be stressed that statutes granting tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of th
Clearly, the person who appeared before the notary public is the one who 'executed the foregoing waiver for and in behalf of the said
Section 112(A) of the 1997 NIRC states that a taxpayer has two (2) years from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were m
Finally, as to the compromise penalty, GQRI voluntarily paid Php2,000.00 out of the Php15,000.00 imposed thereto. Because of this p
Finally, the Court En Bane finds no reason to reverse the application of the ten (10)-year prescriptive period for the VAT assessment.
However, the fundamental rule is that reliefs granted a litigant are limited to those specifically prayed for in the complaint; other relie
The city's taxing power does not extend to the levy of income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial institutions. The d
The rule is that the BIR rulings have no retroactive effect where a grossly unfair deal would result to the prejudice of the taxpayer, as i
tions of inward remittances from HSBC purportedly showing the remittances of its foreign clients, the Court cannot ascertain whether
respondent to prove actual receipt of petitioner of the PAN and the FAN. Having failed to prove compliance therewith, respondent de
econsider her previous decision, petitioner waived its remedy of appeal before this Court. Whether the same be due to inadvertence o
ount due will have to be adjusted if paid beyond xxx," will not be considered as a valid assessment, as the amount of tax due therein r
ed from the taxpayer, Section 196 of the LGC, side by side with paragraph (d), Section 7B.14 of RMRC, confer upon the taxpayer the op
or refund is unnecessary since the truth of its contents is not in issue but only the fact of (the prior execution of the administrative clai
he NIRC for his failure to declare his income and to pay the corresponding taxes thereon. Accused may be prosecuted even without an
have requested reconsideration of the investigation's findings or, at the very least, asked the CIR's representatives to demonstrate how
gations in its original petition before the case was submitted for decision. In fact, it was given another chance to prove its claim and fil
m for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign au
ner failed to present any evidence or to refute the evidence presented by respondent does not ipso facto entitle the respondent to a t
e of tax assessments is that the taxpayer must be informed in writing of the law and of the facts on which the assessment is made. Su
se penalties in the aggregate amount of P200,000.00. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that a compromise is, by its nature, mutual in
rescribed by law for the filing of the tax return or from the actual date of filing of such return, whichever comes later. Accordingly, an
ed professional fees paid to GPPs. Next Mobile should have presented the corresponding billings/invoices, statement of accounts, offic
easonable specificity the flawed invoices and/or receipts purportedly introduced by respondent and admitted by the Court in Division
ereof. It is elementary that burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. Mere allegation is not evidence, and is noteq
ense of tax evasion, the same is not deemed instituted in the criminal case.Considering that the Court has not acquired jurisdiction ov
and parcel of the phrase "other taxes" subject to the capped preferential specialty realty tax rate.On a final note, this Court is not unaw
s." In the context in which it is used in the NIRC, an assessment is a written notice and demand made by the BIR on the taxpayer for th
hin the two-year period under Section 112(A) of the NIRC. The 30-day period from denial of the claim or from the expiration of the 12
ect to tax on the basis of previous interpretations of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law are sufficient justification t
vices to be subject to the VAT rate of zero percent (0%), under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: 1. The ree1p
ment of interest on the amount to be refunded to the taxpayer, nor is there any allegation or showing that the collection of tax sought
her the same was indeed issued and served to Petitioner. In any event, it must be mentioned that RO Lutching further testifted as to th
issue on the invalidity of the FAN and FLD, albeit the parties have not raised the same in their pleadings or memoranda.To reiterate, an
oms territory, and business establishments operating within the ECOZONE is exempt from national and local taxes, except for real prop
BAA in dismissing petitioner's Appeal/Petition on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pay
and other financial institutions" under Section 143(f) of the 1991 LGC and Sections 3A.02 (p) in relation to Section 3A.02 (h) of the RMR
process. The "realized forex gain not subjected to tax" only appears in the FDDA, and is not found in the PAN and FLD.Section 228 of th
which was the last day for extension specified in the second waiver. The flaw cascaded to the fourth and fifth waivers executed by res
ued for the continuation of the investigation. Thus, the investigation conducted was without the requisite authority. Absent the neces
administrative level or in the petition before this Court, it is of no consequence. The Court may rule related issues necessary to achiev
of the raw alcohol from one place to another, supposedly for each process such as compounding and packaging, it failed to support the
ares transferred are of DPI which is a domestic corporation. It is now necessary to determine whether the assets of DPI consist principa
o comply with Paragraph 2 of Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as implemented by Section 3.1.4 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, which
nce, must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. The taxpayer claiming the
Tax exemptions must be strictly interpreted such that exemption will not be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clea
d prove every minute aspect of its case. 35 It is not precluded from accepting respondent's evidence assuming these were not present
mi juris against the entity claiming the same. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent
assessment. In this aspect, a valid grant of authority from the CIR or his duly authorized representative before a revenue officer condu
y (30) days from date of payment of tax. If protest is denied or upon the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period to decide the protest, the t
claim does not apply to claims for refund of overpaid or erroneously paid taxes such as in this case. As ruled by the Court in Division, r
wing elements to be entitled to its claim for refund, to wit:1. The basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, must
at the basis was such certification which petitioner himself certified, i.e., that the Share Transfer Agreement between respondent and
was an inescapable result of BOI's withdrawal of its ITH during the year in question a withdrawal that the Supreme Court had now con
d assessment bears no valid fruit, and could not have attained finality. Relative thereto, it is a hornbook doctrine that a person comm
und/TCC'in its Amended 3rd Quarterly VAT Return of FY 2015. By virtue thereof, the subject claim, which includes the above-stated
m for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as derogation of sovereign auth
vember 24, 2017 and January 5, 2018 cannot be characterized as having been issued "arbitrarily'' or "despotically'' by the Court in Divi
ondents, as shown in the administrative claim for refund filed before respondent City Treasurer, in its Complaint before the RTC, and
ffense charged under Section 255 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. Thus, there is reasonable doubt if indeed the accused willfully failed
he PAN is not cured by the fact that petitioner was nonetheless able to protest the FLO. In light of the palpable violation of petitioner
w only on June 2, 2017 or forty-four (44) days late, the last day of filing the Petition for Review being April 17, 2017. Since the present P
tary customs stamps would divest any customs official, such as the respondent, from recognizing or acting on the document,which in t
ntly, a tax assessment issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer is null and void, and bears no valid fruit. Considering t
enalty in the amount of P5O,OOO.OO. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that a compromise is,by its nature, mutual in essence. It imp
arity in favor of the BOC Customs Examiner must be sustained.As a general rule, "official acts" enjoy the presumption of regularity, and
r be subject of an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court of Tax Appeals can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside such
on April 10, 2014, the premature issuance of the subject FLD/FAN on March 28, 2014 has divested Petitioner of its right to submit its c
ior to the promulgation of the Filinvest case, or from January 1, 2011 to July 18, 2011, while the advances from July 19, 2011 to Decem
nt of tax liabilities for which petitioner is accountable. Specifically, the FLD states that the interest will still "be adjusted if paid beyond
ot a mere formality. Providing the taxpayer with the factual and legal bases for the assessment is crucial before proceeding with tax co
at such tax wa admittedly illegally, erroneously or excessively collected. "Tax refunds or tax credits -just like tax exemptions - are stric
cted with abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness. Thus, this Court shall not disturb its factual findings. On the other hand,
vent the application of the non-retroactivity rule was shown to exist. Respondent's assertion that petitioner committed misrepresenta
assessments based on the absence of due date and demand for payment within a prescribed period. The FLD and FAN in Assessment
of the subject PAN dated May 10, 2011, 107 was directed to continue the audit/investigation of petitioner merely by virtue of Memor
ing it should ask the court's permission to have the exhibit attached to the record. These procedures are known as offer of proof or te
t 29, 2013 issued by RR No. 8 -Makati, could not be given effect to petitioner as of date of the latter's transfer of registration to RDO N
neration company unless such person has received a COC from the ERC to operate facilities used in the generation of electricity. More
ph (d) Section 78 of the RMRC does not take into consideration other existing laws on the subject, such as its enabling law, the LGC. To
e. In fine, all the sales made by respondent FHIC in its office in Makati shall be recorded in such office and the tax thereon shall accrue a
m of refund on the ground of prescription, resulting in the First Division's lack of jurisdiction over the said judicial claim. With the forego
isions of the NIRC of 1997. Under RMO No. 01-90, as amended by RMO No. 19-2007, compromise penalties are only amounts suggest
x assessment functions in accordance with law, and strict adherence thereto, with their own rules of procedure, and always with regar
ion 18(A), (B), and (C). Specifically, there is no indication that petitioner has been issued a DOE Certificate of Accreditation, a BOI Regis
DA by ASTI, which was on June 29, 2016, the filing of the Petition for Review only on June 5, 2017 is clearly made beyond the jurisdictio
e BIR to conduct an independent investigation and consideration of the petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records, i
he amount of compromise penalties paid by petitioner is deemed to have been collected without authority. Moreover, upon the sam
light of the passage of Republic Act No. 9282 as clarified in the Yamane Case and China Banking Corporation Case, is construed that Re
ents issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are null and void. While the government has an interest in the swift col
he examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records should be rendered void due to lack of authority on th
willful. Intent is described as the state of mind accompanying an act, especially a forbidden act. Being a state of mind, intent can be de
alid compromise requires that: (1) except for financial incapacity, the compromise rate must be equivalent to a minimum of 40% of th
00 is established through the Chinabank BTr-BIR Deposit Slip dated November 5, 2013, marked as Exhibit "P-4".Like Exhibit "P-3", Exh
h 2, 2018 (denying petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration of the Order dated December 8, 2017) on March 19, 2018. Thus, co
hout admitting that the waivers were not valid, the 10-year prescriptive period will apply pursuant to Section 222(A) of the NIRC, as he
tion should be denied on the ground that the deficiency assessments upon which the present case is anchored on are intrinsically void
gning a revenue officer, to perform tax assessment functions, in order that such officer may examine taxpayers and collect the correc
ted. The SEC Certificate of Non-Registration shows that the named entity is not registered in the Philippines, but does not prove that s
nRegistration of Company and Articles of Incorporation of Foreign Affiliates necessary to establish prima facie its right to the claim for r
r 31, 2013 is concerned, the expiration of 120+30 periods came sooner than the date of receipt (i.e., on April 25, 2016) by petitioner o
the subject deficiency tax assessments was willful or intentional. On the contrary, accused denies having received any of the subject n
rns the period of limitation and not the Civil Code. Likewise, petitioner would not have invoked the special jurisdiction of this Court, wh
of pacta sunt servanda is utterly misplaced. The reason is evident these are simply authorities that may support the taxpayer in obtain
ssessment was made within the ten ( 10)-year period, petitioner did not contest nor offer proof, much less argue to debunk the finding
d "negligence or mistake" in sending of dual notices of its resolutions. For petitioner's guidance, even while the Court may send notice
) additional fine on accused-petitioner as partner of SITC under Section 256 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, such was improperly impo
etition for Revival of Judgment reveals that the only change or amendment done was to include Baliwag Navigation, Inc. and FIM Limi
ry to resolve whether petitioner complied with the remaining requisites for the successful prosecution of its input VAT claim for refun
ceipt of the LOA beyond 30 days from date of its issuance. There is no basis to rule that estoppel exists in this particular matter. Finally,
ncluded in the allowable deductions xxx, RR 11-05 amended RR 02-05. In other words, the allowable deductions from gross income of
taxpayer only that she willfully supplied incorrect and inaccurate information therein. Accused's repeated act of substantial under-dec
wo (2) years from April 15, 2015, the date it filed its AITR, petitioner had until April 17, 201767 within which to file both the administrat
gainst petitioner. Her action was merely based on the MOA dated May 19, 2014 directing her to continue the tax audit. Hence, the de
e are likewise invalid for failure to demand payment of taxes within a prescribed period. Consequently, the Court deems it unnecessa
by the BIR, to show that it has no internal revenue tax liabilities. It merely alleges that it filed an application for tax clearance and pres
succeeding taxable quarters, petitioner's amended quarterly VAT returns for the subject period of claim showed that petitioner had n
No. 1-2000 and 72-2010 is not only illogical, but also not found at all in the applicable tax treaties. Clearly, the BIR should not impose a
e SIR's exercise of summary administrative remedies, the subject Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy is indeed void and ineffectual. , CTA
the audit of petitioner's tax liability for taxable year 2013. While MOA 0442015LOA-00134 dated April 6, 2016 was issued by Revenue
ed by petitioner, there is no valid assessment which could be serve as a legitimate subject of collection under the WDL. Consequently,
cannot substitute for the facts. A mere assumption cannot be used as basis in deciding a case. Sorely, respondent remained passive a
ppines, petitioner's sales of services to Lovercius Consultants, Ltd. cannot qualify as subject to the zero percent (0%) VAT under Sectio
nd not an LOA. Moreover, the said TVN is merely signed by a Revenue District Officer, and not a Revenue Regional Director. Correspon
2016, without furnishing the RTC with a copy of the said petition. Even before the CTA Division rendered the assailed Decision on Dece
dress the other arguments raised as they are not yet ripe for judicial determination. , CTA Case No. 9700
the instant case. It must be reminded that the invocation of the phrase "in the interest of justice" is not a magical incantation that wou
mend the assessment of any deficiency taxes against petitioner. Consequently, applying the above-quoted jurisprudential pronounceme
o City Water District, et al. v. CSC, where the Supreme Court ruled that local water districts are GOCCs with original charter. The Supre
dering its decision. In reviewing the case's history, the Court En Bane is unconvinced that petitioner was given an unfair trial. It appear
of excess CWT for CY 2013 but, however, only to the reduced amount of P10,992,786.35, as computed below, to wit , CTA Case No. 9
CTA decide in its favor, and thereafter filing a judicial claim on March 30, 2017, records clearly show that both the administrative and
rs, the latter having the burden to prove strict compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit." "This is the re
o show any proof that there was a final determination by the CIR, with regard to the taxes subject of these consolidated cases. Withou
illegal tax" is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or upon property not subject to taxation or by some officer having no
or the succeeding first quarter of taxable year 2015, the same remained unutilized since it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed
y's witness cannot be taken as a judicial admission of the former of any imputation made against him or her. Discrediting the witness a
tain and determine the belatedly filed Petition for Review as petitioner failed to observe the 120 and 30 days mandatory and jurisdictio
ual or legal basis for its imposition in this case.Moreover, absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penal
ions. It is a basic rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. Without the corresp
m its sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, or from the sale or exchange of services performed. VAT, like income tax, also can
over a case at the time when the rules vest jurisdiction upon it, yet, during the pendency of such action, a new doctrine divests the off
te indicated on the FLD. Correspondingly, with BlR's substantial and procedural lapses, the inevitable conclusion is that the subject tax
petitioner had knowledge, notice, or suspicion that RO Pedrosa had no authority to examine or investigate. There is also no indication
hat may arise from evidence not admitted by this Court as evidence is suspect to an invalid premise. It is a time-honored principle that
RR No. 16-05, input VAT on capital goods purchases attributable to zero-rated sales may be claimed either in full during the month of
f discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented bythe parties.In
exceptions cited by the latter (quoting several Supreme Court decisions), for the relaxation of the requirement embodied in Section 3
st it for it never consented to the said imposition. It has been held that compromise penalty implies a mutual agreement between the
e waivers and, consequently, on whether the assessments are barred by the three-year prescription under Section 203 of the NIRC, th
.00 because under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 01-90, compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement
terly VAT return for the pt Quarter of CY 2016, it remained unutilized since petitioner had no output tax liability for the period, and th
47. , CTA Case No. 9743
ure its collection. However, taxpayers are guaranteed their fundamental right to dueprocess of law, as articulated in various ways in th
which by tradition and conformably with our system of judicial administration speaks the last word on what the law is, and stands as
n of the sovereign authority, thus should be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption, We find t
nduct of said examination or investigation renders such without valid authority. Therefore, all subsequent notices of assessment issued
4, 2015, within which to reply to the PAN. Since it failed to reply within the said period, the FAN should have been issued by responden
ng BIR issuances (RMCNo. 75-2018 and RMO No. 43-90), the subject tax assessments arevoid, in view of the lack of the requisite autho
tioner falls under the category, or can be considered as within the purview, of the term "Banks and other financial institutions" as defi
ouching on the constitutional issue raised by Dino eta/., the Court will no longer pass upon such issue. It cannot be over-emphasized
visions of the Tax Code. Under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 01-90, compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlem
i juris against the entity claiming the same. A claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax
tity; without however showing that it is not engaged in business in the Philippines. Even the NIRC makes a distinction between a "resi
avor of the taxing authority. Tax refunds in relation to the VAT are in the nature of such exemptions. It is a claimant's burden to prove
t VAT that there be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated transactions at the time the claimed input VAT was incurred or paid. In sum, th
ry but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory.
ted sales for the first quarter of CY 2013 in the amount of P1,059,249.06. , CTA Case No. 9129
d DST on prior transactions and the BIR does not have the authority to impose taxes which are not clearly imposed by a provision or
ically, there is no showing that they fall within the coverage of those entitled to tax exemption under Section 45(b) of the RP-ADB Agr
visions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromi
065,163.03, representing unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2014 , CTA Case N
the tax exemption granted under Section 45(b) of the RP-ADB Agreement. Correspondingly, the income tax imposition on Philippine c
sed tax, a perusal of the foregoing FLD and Details of Discrepancies shows that there is no fixed date when payment of the subject tax
ty (30) days to dispute the CIR's assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. , CTA Case No. 9585
ing registry return receipts or any certification from the post master, showing that the said assessment notices were indeed received b
sment itself should not be based on presumptions no matter how logical the presumption might be. In order to stand the test of judici
ce, such as its ITRs, in this case. It did not establish first the existence of the relevant CWT certificates, prove the loss and destruction o
ency percentage tax (amusement tax) under Section 125 (b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in the aggregate amount of Php22,098
ity was found to be more than 30% between the value, weight, measurement or quandty declared in the entry, and the actual value in
authorized to perform audit and examination of taxpayer's books and accounting records, pursuant to an LOA. In case of re-assignme
sdiction to determine the merits of this case. In other words, there can be no valid claim for refund or nothing could be refunded whe
rked amount had been given to the concerned government agency. Hence, there is no necessity to present evidence to prove the said
enders the assessment issued by respondent inescapably void. Here, the subject assessment was issued without the issuance of an LO
s after the FLO was served on June 10, 2016. With these admissions, it is clear that petitioner's due process rights were violated becau
enue officer to conduct an examination of petitioner's tax liabilities is already lacking since the beginning. Under RMO No. 32-2005, th
eceive the same. Thus, the assessments and the FDDA issued against petitioner for taxable years 2009 and 2012 are clearly void for be
th. The CTA Division is correct in cancelling the deficiency income tax assessment in the total amount of P2,469,652.51 for taxable yea
t authority to examine and assess a taxpayer.Clearly, there must be a grant of authority before any revenue officer can conduct an exam
mes devoid of merit. It follows therefore that the deficiency income tax assessment against Petitioner should also be invalidated. , CT
oid. We find no basis to declare such VAT assessment void. In this case, petitioner was assessed for deficiency VAT for the period Janua
ents, on March 17, 2017. Thus, respondent had one hundred twenty (120) days therefrom, or until July 15, 2017, within which to act o
ndered within the 120-day period, whether full or partial, or the expiration of the 120-day period from the submission of complete do
om petitioner's claim for not being properly substantiated by VAT invoices or official receipts as prescribed under Sections 110 (A) and
nd that the same were actually received by the latter, there is no valid assessment which could be a valid subject of collection under W
for this Court to rule on the civil liability. This Court cannot merely rely on the computation of deficiency income tax found in the Join
conducted the investigation and issued the assessment notices has no authority to examine petitioner's books and other accounting re
d legalisms. To deny the claim for refund where an erroneous collection of taxes clearly exists would be tantamount to unjust enrichm
r is properly imposed. Thus, the total amount of interest paid by petitioner cannot be the subject of its claim for refund.However, the C
he three-year period to assess internal revenue tax may be extended by agreement between the CIR and the taxpayer, such is only true
he alleged acts or omission of the accused from which the civil liability allegedly arises nonexistent. , CTA Case No. O-634
2008 to 2011, petitioner relied on prevailing court decisions to the effect that inter-company loans and advances covered by inter-off
ceive - it is to prevent undue harassment of a taxpayer and level the playing field between the government's vast resources for tax ass
t must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on
Coral Bay, a PEZA-registeredentity, are subject to zero-rated value-added tax (VAT). To support itspositiOn, the CIR cited Coral Bay's PEZ
for taxable year 2007, pursuant to Section 254 of the NIRC, as amended. It is the prosecution's theory that the crime was committed
s per TPI should be cancelled since the same were based merely on figures extracted from respondent's own database (AITEID data) n
latter was further amended by R.A. No. 9337, which took effect on July 1, 2005. Thus, the tax exemption enjoyed by FCDUs under the
f Tax Appeals must be filed within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. In this case, petitioner paid on June 30, 20
nally serve the notices at the office of the taxpayer, it failed to establish that said notices were served to the taxpayer or authorized re
corporation in 2012. This Court cannot sustain an assessment for deficiency taxes based on empty allegations. It is an elementary rul
e granted when there is payment of taxes under a mistake of fact. In this regard, the Court in Division correctly ruled that wrongful pa
ject assessments did not become final, executory and demandable. We reject petitioner's view that the assessment has become final
ady been discussed or passed upon by the Court in Division in the assailed resolution, this Court shall reiterate the disquisitions therein
f real property ownership.First, under the context oflocal government taxation, petitioners should note that "a tax is never presumed a
nsistendy ruled that a claim for refund or credit with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to this Court must be filled within two (2) yea
C, as amended, as implemented by Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 12-99 spells out the requirements that must be strictly observed by t
solution. The CIR's general assertions that the VAT was not separately indicated in some of Macquarie's VAT official receipts and invoic
nd on the ground of prescription. Accordingly, the Court in Division has no jurisdiction over the petitioner's judicial claim for refund. W
ciency IT, VAT, WTC, EWT, FWT, VAT withholding, DST, and corresponding penalties in the total amount of Five Hundred Fifty Two Millio
ssessment is received by the taxpayer, he may file a written protest within sixty (60) days from the receipt of such notice. Otherwise, t
aims, following Section 112(C)22 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the taxpayer can file the judicial claim only (1) within thirty (30) da
er to tax by the state which is inherent/0 the power to tax of provinces, cities and municipalities is limited by the law that granted it, t
of the investigation to a new RO. No new LOA was issued to RO Sison in relation to the investigation of OCCLL's tax liability. Thus, the in
or constitutionality of rules and regulations, and other administrative issuances of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Court o
etitioner offered in evidence a certified true copy of BIR Certificate of Registration. However, since petitioner failed to have it identified
e Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which pertain to the refund of erroneously or illegally collected taxes. While Section 204 applies t
attributable to zero-rated sales, it is only when input tax exceeds the output tax that a refund or credit is proper, subject to the provisi
e consumed.ISO In connection with the said principle, the "Cross Border Doctrine" mandates that no VAT shall be imposed to form pa
Government and to its citizens; to the Government because tax officers would be obliged to act promptly in the making of assessment
ut prejudice to those specified in other parts of this Code, in the Code of Commerce, and in special laws." Since the two-year prescripti
h had already been duly considered, passed upon and resolved by the Special Second Division in the Assailed Resolutions. "An admiss
owever, nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of a counsel are binding on the client. 'The general ru
he Court in Division had fully and exhaustively resolved the issues raised in the petition. The Court En Banc notes that the arguments p
s two (2) options for the taxpayer for the recovery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected by respondent: to claim f
e with the relevant provisions of the 1997 NIRC and its implementing regulations to get a clear picture of the legal effects of a merger
de on tax refunds, but his or her decision is subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. This means that
mposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every individual, whether a citizen of the P
ved transgressors of the law on the one side, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection o
No. 9337,19 states: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. - xxx xxx xxx (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Ta
rove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or its non
ontroversy.57 It is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction o
cing evidence.72 Fraud is never imputed and the courts never sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most create only
ment within a prescribed period. The requirement to indicate a fixed and definite period within which a taxpayer must pay the tax defi
ersies."21 The CTA, as a court of special jurisdiction, only takes cognizance of matters clearly within its jurisdiction. 22 The jurisdiction
rfere with its exercise, unless there is proof of grave abuse thereof. Likewise, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, the ruling of t
ments should be issued, viz: "SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative find
tice and truth,43 the Court is also not unaware of the principle that tax refund cases are construed strictly against the taxpayer. Releva
mpt from payment of income tax. Respondents 'contention that the exemption is merely for a period of thirty (30) years or until the c
r within the 30-day mandatory period renders the same void. In turn, a void LOA makes the authority of the revenue officers named t
Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy has become final and executory. In fine, this Court is devoid of jurisdiction to act on petitioner's appe
T attributable to its zero-rated sales, hence, it is entitled to the refund of the amount substantiated and not applied against output tax
ority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to perform assessment functions." The High Court continued: an LOA "empow
ed 1st Quarterly VAT Return for TY 2014 must be disallowed for VAT refund purposes. There being no valid zero-rated sales pursuant t
herefore this Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the substantive aspects of the subject deficiency assessment. Similarly, the Court can
petitioner did not receive the same. The assessment against petitioner for CY 2007 is clearly void for being violative of petitioner's rig
(e) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is still subject to the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Energy, in cons
Post Office dated January 23, 2015 with attached Registry Receipt No. 911687 purportedly showing that the FLD/FAN was mailed on
re qualified to be zero-rated under "export sales" in accordance with Section 106 (A) (2) of the 1997 NIRC. , CTA Case No. EB 1735
lts/Assessment Notice (RPS), sans any LOA and PAN. This wanton disregard of petitioner's right to due process rendered the Audit Res
amount of P4,812,080.00 represents erroneously paid income tax for CY 2014, which is refundable pursuant to Sections 204(C) and 2
ntly stipulated by the parties, i.e., the final and executory FAN and the BIR's right to collect deficiency taxes, we find this bereft of mer
d assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. 9231
AT Returns, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Return for the 1 of
he premium, received the policy, but the insurance policyholder did not utilize the policy for the year it was issued. Without objecting
authorized to perform audit and examination of taxpayer's books and accounting records, pursuant to a Letter of Authority. In case o
ave assets consisting principally of a real property interest in the Philippines. Therefore, petitioner's capital gains derived from the tran
ruling enunciated therein precludes this Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the petition for review. , CTA Case No. EB 1911
alila A. Ali and Leilah Jane L. Dohinog on respondent was pivoted upon a undated LN No. 110-TRS-10-00-00019.59 The record is bereft
s pre- incorporation subscription is not a disposition or exchange of properties "in the course of trade or business" and is, therefore, n
d by the taxpayer and ruled upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to warrant a decision from which a petition for review ma
tation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, to wit: The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a
other ADB member-States on its nationals, as well as executive issuances respecting the ADB Charter could save the day for them. Th
he LOA is void ab initio for want of authority of the officer who signed the same. In addition to the defective LOA, this Court finds that
s against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the Government. Accordingly, it is a claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a cla
al liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Absent a showin
for refund, nonetheless, it failed to prove how much of the claimed amount it is really entitled to get. Needless to say, a just and impa
year: (1) to carry over and apply the overpayment as tax credit against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities of the succeeding
erv Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Enerv Corporation), 17 the Supreme Court ruled that "it is fundamental that the findings of fa
to a MOA shall be resolved first by the Court. Pursuant to the Sony case and the Medicard case, the revenue officer must show that he
x as explained above. At the time of effectivity of RA No. 10351 as well as at the time when petitioner's cause of action arose, no dow
enue Declaration should likewise reflect in the accompanying commercial documents i.e. bill of lading, packing list and commercial inv
and in fact. Necessarily, having ruled that the assessments for deficiency income tax and F WT are improper, the interest and compro
or taxable year 2013. Furthermore and more importantly, the parties in this case are both public entities: the BIR, which is a governme
t from the NFA at the time petitioners imported the subject rice shipments in November 6, 13, 16, 26, 27, 30, 2013, and December 11
licable provisions of law conferring in clear and plain terms income tax exemption on the income derived from the ABS. In view of the
ion that its claim was acted upon and expressly denied precluding the application of the "deemed denial" doctrine, is, therefore, bere
octrine of stare decisis compels this Court to abide by the Supreme Court, which by tradition and conformably with our system of judi
avor of the taxing authority. It therefore bears emphasis that tax refunds in relation to the VAT are in the nature of tax exemptions. 28
econsider her previous decision, petitioner waived its remedy of appeal before this Court. Whether the same be due to inadvertence o
be another document to prove that such credit facility has indeed been converted into a loan agreement, either by the execution of a
m any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. As has been this Court's consistent ruling, where the la
ppines, albeit there is no showing that their principal law officer or general counsel is the Solicitor General. Correspondingly, the subje
used willfully failed to file her ITRs for taxable years 2011 and 2012. Consequently, lacking the element of "willfulness", the Court acqu
government has an interest in the swift collection of taxes, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and its officers and agents cannot be
rties who do not come to court with clean hands cannot be allowed to benefit from their own wrongdoing. In the instant case, petition
ondent's books of accounts and accounting records for taxable year 2008 by an RO who are not authorized through an LOA, are void.
of goods and services, where there is no right to demand it against the government, since its purchases are zero-rated, would unduly
diction over this case. This case involves a dispute between PSALM and NPC, which are both wholly government-owned corporations
documents, i.e., VAT sales invoices or official receipts, as the case may be, the same input VAT is creditable against the output VAT. Su
duty to prove otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of duties, an assessment duly made by a Bur
evidence is defined as the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonym
ntional wrong-doing with the clear purpose of avoiding the tax. 8 Forfeiture is not favored in law nor in equity.9 Mere negligence is no
arge him or her from the duty to pay tax, because that duty is imposed by statute prior to and independent of any attempt on the par
is liable for deficiency taxes through the sending of a PAN. He must be informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment
hese administrative issuances expressly grant the RDO any authority to reassign the audit of a taxpayer to another RDO with a new tea
losses incurred by the taxpayer for the last two (2) years" cannot be treated as falling under the category of a tax being "unjustly" ass
ernment of Iligan. Section 2.57.5(A) of RR No. 2-98, as amended, clearly states that the withholding of creditable withholding tax presc
atiocination in the assailed Decision as follows: This Court further notes that compromise penalty may not be imposed upon petitione
fees due on all its importations, PAL must satisfy the following conditions: 1. The basic corporate income tax or franchise / tax, whiche
d to a refund or issuance of a TCC of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, petitioner must co
rforming functions similar to a bank or other financial institution as defined by pertinent regulations. Its primary purpose as shown in
oss of revenue to the government.16 These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but shou
ge and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 20 Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right
self; as such, any assessment arising from the conduct of audit examination of a taxpayer's books of accounts by a BIR examiner who i
with the taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise. Failure to present proof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial a
k and APIC, no sale occurred since its net assets were merely transmuted into shareholdings at FTC. There being no sales incurred by r
atory. Time is essential in this entire procedure of administrative protest because any escalation in the levels of the protest, i.e., FLD/F
mposed to form part of the cost of goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority. Hence, act
down of such computation calls for the cancellation of such amount in the assessment. , CTA Case No. EB 1797
e parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed timebarred; What is essential only, to repeat, is that the facts demon
while, petitioner is not entitled to its claim for refund because it is improper to offset its erroneous payment of EWT for the month of
nd. 5 4 Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be
uired under the rules, hence, the same could not be utilized as basis of the NRP of SML in kegs. Hence, the Court deems it proper to d
ore the effectivity of the TRAIN Law on January 1, 2018, and where the full payment thereof will only be accomplished after the said e
ectively zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be met: 1. that the taxpayer is VAT-registered; 2. that the claim for refund was
you-file' principle , CTA Case No. 9570
because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so comp
due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and judicial claims would result in t
, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. In such a case, a creditor-debtor relationship is create
nesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. , CTA C
mposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. It is well-settled that the Court cannot compe
relation to Article 1302 and 3602 in relation to Article 2503 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Moreover, the alleged a
because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so com
liedly admitted without qualification by the accused. Only willful intent to commit the crime charged was not established which cause
taxing authority, and the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing the factual basis of his claim for a refund. , CTA Case No. 9087
use tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, the statutes of which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and libe
d be counted from the date of final payment. The rule proceeds from the theory that, in contemplation of tax laws, there is no payme
m for excess unutilized VAT is filed, a taxpayer has thirty (30) days within which to submit the documentary requirements sufficient to
psed, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction must file an appeal to this Court; otherwise, the decision shall becom
at the taxpayer's premises; b) fact of constructive service must be attested to, witnessed and signed by at least two (2) revenue o
ited from making assessment or beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court; (2) when the taxpayer requests a reinvestigation
n or ruling denying the said claim, or upon the expiration of the 120-day period without action from the CIR, the taxpayer has thirty (3
irement or that the input tax due or paid must be attributable "to such sales" cannot be fulfilled or complied with. To be clear
within a prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer. To enable the
axpayer. It is logical to assume that in order to discharge this burden, the law intends the filing of an application for a refun
orily liable for the payment ofVAT, the amount of the tax is allowed to be shifted or passed on tothe buyer. However, reporting and rem
er claim fortax credit or refund. 80 Tax refunds are in the nature of taxexemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation ofsover
ty. Settled is the rule thatthe imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer isillegal and unauthorized. 59 RMO No. 1-
otonly a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand forpayment within a prescribed period, thereby signalling the timewhen pena
present, accused-appellantdeserves to be exonerated for failure of the prosecution to prove hisguilt beyond reasonable doubt. , CTA C
e offense charge as the sameare dependent on the first element, the existence of which was notestablished by the prosecution by the
hirty (30) days from March 27, 2014, or until April 28, 2014, within which to file a judicial appeal before this Court. However, the prese
beinformed in writing of the law and the facts upon which a taxassessment is based; otherwise, the assessment is void. 49The rational
x refund or credit, as in theinstant case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law isnot only construed in strictissimi juris
porting requirements of its claimClearly, there are no zero-rated sales yet unto which the subjectinput VAT can be attributed for the ye
ued strictly against the taxpayers. Any claim for refund takes the nature of tax exemptions that must be construed strictissimi juris agai
of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat;
or assessment. And since the law specifically requires an LOA, a previously issued LN must first be converted into an LOA before proce
l sources within and without the Philippines. Henceforth, in the absence of a specific grant of tax exemption, the salaries and emolum
usiness24 and the law does not impose tax on retained earnings as standby capital. However, for it to be exempted from IAET, such a
fice confirming service of the PAN to respondent was presented, and no witness from the Post Office was presented, as well, who cou
that the failure of the accused to pay their correct taxes for taxable year 2007 was willful. Wellentrenched in jurisprudence is that the b
En Bane held that to be considered as a non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be s
he Supreme Court emphasized that the failure of the CIR to present any evidence or to refute the evidence presented by the taxpayer
only prove that the named entities therein were incorporated/organized/domiciled abroad. However, they do not establish that such
ears after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of a return, or if filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three-year period
ed or unapplied input Value Added Tax (VAT) attributable to zerorated sales. In case of an adverse decision or inaction after the 120-d
ome, and such income was received by the taxpayer, not when there is an underdeclaration of purchases.95 Even assuming that there
arly as 1994, and the NFA Memorandum Circular of 2013, there is no dispute that in case of discrepancy between the former (the basic
as derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund79. Petition
he auction sale is not the respondent in this case but private parties, namely, Spouses Atanacio 5. Cristobal and Isabel B. Cristobal. Also
filed with the Collector of Customs, the failure or inaction of the latter to promptly perform his mandated duty under the Tariff and Cu
7,907.07, representing unutilized excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales to a PEZA-registered entity for the second quart
m collecting taxes due to the mistakes or errors on the part of ts agents, but this rule admits of exceptions in the interest of justice and
uld not be able to ascertain whether petitioner's client, Financial Times Limited, is a non-resident foreign corporation not doing busine
d the FLD, Respondent presented a certified photocopy of the registry return receipt. Notably, no affidavit of the person mailing the sa
x on the basis of previous interpretations of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law are sufficient justification to delete
laim of Dakudao, a domestic corporation, for the VAT paid on its assignment of two parcels of land to Metro South Davao Property Co
nd. Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be con
plies to all internal revenue taxes imposed by the present Tax Code/ JURISPRUDENCE " Considering tha the payment made by petitio
dent's failure to establish that petitioner actually received the PAN, the subject assessment must be cancelled as petitioner was de
To clarify, not all entities who engage in stock investments and money market placements can be categorized as NBFIs for purposes o
the latter disagrees therewith, still opts to pay the assessed tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interest
ealer" cannot be used as a defense by respondent nor can it be challenged by petitioners because it is an established policy by the SEC
xpayer. It bears stressing that when the taxpayer has already proven its entitlement to the claim as determined by the Court a quo, su
escribed by law for the filing of the tax return or from the date of actual filing of such return, whichever comes later. Accordingly, an a
e resulting deficiency tax assessments therefrom are considered void. "THUS, the finding thata" , CTA Case No. 9273
tity must be supported, at least, by both SEC certificate if non –registration of corporation/partnership and proof of incorporation, ass
owing requisites:1) The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax, 2) It must be
Court in Division that it is of no importance that the Certification does not state the exact amount of CGT subject of the exemption. ,
e by the taxpayer of funds that rightfully should be in the government's hands. It is imposable upon failure of the taxpayer to pay the t
ed on banks and other financial institutions. Thus, the taxing power of a local government unit may extend to income tax as long as it
rwise, the assessment is void. , CTA Case No. 9298
plies. Thus, the assessments have no factual basis nor sufficient supporting evidence, and must therefore be cancelled. , CTA Case No
tive of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporti
. Strict compliance with the 120 + 30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. , CTA Case No. EB 1656
mitted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who used its existence to prop up his findings of VAT deficiency. , CTA Case No. EB 1
visions of the Tax Code. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty becau
the taxpayer. To those therefore, who claim a refund rest the burden of proving that the transaction subjected to tax is actually e
ncluded the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the taking of an ap
by accused Co Ho in his transactions with BPS, there can be no allowablE deductions in this case. Hence, for failure of the accused to s
ner's Accounting Officer, Ms. Elena D. Cabahug, disclosed that the claimed CWTs pertain to professional fees received by petitioner in
Banc in G R. No. 215427 that PAGCOR is subject to corporate income tax for 'other related services', we find it logical that its contract
wo-year prescriptive period under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as shown earlier, and that there were erroneously coll
e NIRC of 1997. Said provision reads: (b) If the withholding agent is the Government or any of its agencies, political subdivisions or inst
arly state and prove the basis for the application of the longer period as well as the willful intention on the part of the taxpayer to misl
an assessment must be based on actual facts. Accordingly, the local business tax assessment should be based on actual facts. Since the
e in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict mu
of CY 2014 was not applied against any output VAT in the succeeding quarters and the same remained unutilized as the said amount
the amount of P4,456,515.OO, the Court finds that the same complies with the invoicing and substantiation requirements prescribed
a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a t
taxpayers for purposes of assessment of any deficiency taxes. Stated differently, unless duly authorized by the CIR himself or by his du
As such, petitioner should not be made to pay the increments for the late payment by the DOTr of the income tax due, especially that
ally, petitioners failed to show that they are not Philippine nationals or citizens, so as to entitle them to the tax exemption granted un
y the government's recovery of the taxes and penalties relative to the criminal case. The remedy of the taxpayer to appeal the dispute
nergy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that "it is fundamental that the findings of fa
nance and submission of a backend report to the BIR. The nearest requirement for such kind of report is under Item No. 5.1.3 of RR No
xamination of petitioner's books of account and other accounting records for TY 2010, on the part of the concerned revenue officers,
] accurately ruled that a holding company is not among the entities enumerated as "banks and other financial institutions" as defined i
after, respondent TRANSCO filed its protest on February 11, 2005, 23 which is within the sixty (60) day reglementary period provided f
to entertain a petition for review appealing a final decision on a disputed assessment issued by petitioner, even after the expiration o
pine Constitution is the right of a person to be given an opportunity to be heard and in tax cases, it is the right to dispute or present it
not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence. [1] A mere assumption may not be the basis in deciding a case, or in g
on-bank financial intermediary or an investment company. Thus, the dividends and interest income it received in 2010 may not be the
ar 2006 is likewise void for having been issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period mandated by law. , CTA Case No. 9001
ayment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commiss
m. Petitioner's assertion that the counting of 30 days starts from the receipt of the Letter[1] dated September 29, 2015 on October 15,
9-03-00042 dated August 8, 2011 issued by former BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares. In the absence of competent proof that
preme Court held that the taxpayer can seek judicial review of its claim for refund/TCC in either of the following ways: (1) file the judi
either personally, or through registered mail, the subject deficiency tax assessments must be declared void. Hence, the respondents c
sts upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed [1][2] In this case, petitioner fa
hereof; and that failure to contest the assessment within the said 30-day period renders the assessment notice final, executory, and d
vision of the Tax Code. [1]Pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 01-90, as amended by RMO No. 19-07, compromise p
dministrative claim on December 29, 2015. Accordingly, respondent had 120 days from December 29, 2015, or until April 27, 20 16 to
ve original jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments. Said appeal may be availedof b
ued strictly against the taxpayers. Any claim for refund takes the nature of tax exemptions that must be construed strictissimi juris agai
2011.To sustain a conviction for attempt to evade or defeat tax underSection 254 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, by failure to pay VA
laim for refund issued byrespondent was received by petitioner even though it was receivedbeyond the 120-day period, the ruling of t
oner onJanuary 22, 2015. Hence, petitioner had 30 days from itsreceipt of FLD/FAN on January 22, 2015 or until February 23,201536 w
nter vivos, i.e., during thelifetime of the donor. In the present case, what is being subjected tothe payment of donor's tax is the privile
f the taxesto the BIR. It is sufficient that the certificate of creditable taxwithheld at source is presented in evidence to prove that taxesw
d quarter of TY2015, the two-year prescriptive period to file an administrativeclaim for refund will commence from the close of the sai
to avail of the 10% preferential rate ondividends received from ERO Philippines on May 6, 2010 and on August 31,2010. Petitioner has
g orquasi-banking functions, or (b) engaged in other types offinancial intermediation is vested in the Monetary Boardsubject to judicia
An additional documentary evidence, which is already in existence or available before or during a trial; known to and obtainable to pe
authorized representative, through an LOA, an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken. The circumstances contem
er ofAuthority but from a Tax Verification Notice (TVN) and that thepersons who conducted the examination of petitioner PTI'srecords
olutions in the proper exercise of its power to sue. And in connection thereto, the said Sanggunian shall pass resolutions, among othe
e last day prescribed by law for the filing of a return, or if filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three-year period shall be cou
representative is required before an examination/audit of a taxpayer may be made, such authority comes in the form of a LOA. The LO
representative is required before an examination/audit of a taxpayer may be made, such authority comes in the form of a LOA. The LO
me improper because the transfers of properties in exchange for controlling shares in FLRI and PMFTC, Inc. do not constitute sales trans
modified, i.e., its transmission and generation functions were transferred to TRANSCO and PSALM, respectively, a careful reading of t
30) days from receipt of the tax deficiency assessment, otherwise, the decision becomes final, unappealable and therefore, demandab
g recovery of overpaid taxes with the CIR, before resorting to an action in court. This obviously is intended, first, to afford the CIR an op
ny re-assignment of cases requires the issuance of a new LOA, its fatal infirmity is further highlighted by the fact that it was signed and
n of Facts and lssues,40 LOA No. LOA-2009-00025791 dated June 25, 2010 was issued by the BIR and was received by defendant only o
e CTA is not limited to cases· which involve decisions of the CIR on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the
and, after voluntarily executing waivers, insisted on their invalidity by raising the very same defects it caused. On the other hand, the B
d input VAT in the amount of P52,481,934.04 attributable to its zero- rated sales was not applied against any output tax. Even though t
ever raised a single objection thereto. Petitioner only assailed their validity after the issuance of the assessments on the ground that it
owever mean that it should at all times, be applied in absolute terms. While faithful compliance with these rules is undoubtedly desirab
eipt of the FDDA, or until May 17, 2015 within which to appeal the said decision before this Court. Considering that petitioner filed thi
xpayer. Being in the nature of a claim for exemption, refund is construed in strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the refund and
something the law forbids, or with specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose
N 196. Claim for Refund of Tax Credit. -No case or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax, fee, or char
cluding its cargo, used unlawfully in the importation or exportation of goods or in conveying or transporting smuggled goods in comme
ntercompany advances are not subject to DST prior to the 2011 Filinvest case. After all, it was based on numerous rulings of the BIR th
3, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted in its Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2016, as "VAT Refund/TCC cla
he 120+30-day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30-day periods is necessary for such a claim
ded on January 28, 2016. Petitioner, therefore, only had until February 27, 201645 to file its judicial claim before this Court considerin
he claim for refund of CE Casecnan, this Court does not acquire jurisdiction over the former. Consequently, this Court cannot order th
issuance of a PAN and its proper service. If by registered mail, the facts to be proved in order to raise the presumption are (1) that it w
due to nonwithholding of EWT. As discussed, petitioner failed to prove that the said income payments have been properly subjected t
on the erroneously withheld FWT. We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings found by the Second Division. Petitioner cannot sh
bit of a bank or other financial institution, and considering that respondents had no authority to impose local business taxes upon hold
g the case, tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the State.74 Consequen
of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 was not authorized to do so. Th
rand (name) of the beer product, whether it was formed by prefixing or suffixing a modifier to the root name of the alleged parent bra
ction made in the course of petitioner's lease business, and is subject to VAT pursuant to Section 105 in relation to Section 108 (A) of th
efund is only P264,261.84, which is below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC of Manila. Thus, the RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction o
oubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens
t and investigation of the taxpayer was faulty. By any account, it is not the LOA issued either by the CIR or the Revenue Regional Direct
risdiction to resolve all tax problems. Petitions for writs of certiorari against the acts and omissions of the said quasijudicial agencies sh
aration on Valuation118, Method 1 or the Transaction Value is applicable to the subject shipments. In fine, the Court finds that the Aug
liable for deficiency income tax in 1998 under Section 27 (B) of the NIRC, it was not liable for surcharges and interest on such deficienc
taxes attributable thereto. Accordingly, this Court finds it unnecessary to discuss petitioner's compliance to the rest of the requisites pu
n invalid tax assessment. As the case of Samar-! Electric Cooperative v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue47 aptly ruled, and we quote
has been provided. Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room fo
yers for purposes of assessment of any deficiency taxes. Stated differently, unless duly authorized by the CIR himself or by his duly auth
ar's excess credits without the ITRs for said prior years, since the Court in Division rendered a Decision to that effect. As a general rule,
ption, which is in derogation of the State's taxing power, claim for refund must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally
nt to the certification of inward remittances. The certification shows the foreign remittances for the whole TY 2013 listed by date of re
, it is plain that the instant case between PSALM Corporation, a GOCC and the BIR, a government bureau, involving the disputed defici
isions of the Tax Code. Pursuant to RMO No. 01-90, as amended by RMO No. 19-07, compromise penalties are only suggested in settle
me final" means that taxpayer is barred from disputing the correctness of the issued assessment by introduction of newly discovered o
iness, even though extraordinary in amount, made by a domestic or resident corporation to the stockholders out of its earnings or pro
od to assess or collect taxes because (1) the accountant who executed the waivers had no notarized written board authority to sign th
B. Cruda, on July 15, 2014. Counting the two (2) years from the said dates, petitioners had until July 9, 2016 and July 15, 2016, respecti
axpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is based and it should be given the opportunity t
e or omission by accused was done knowingly, intentionally and with the specific intent not pay the tax. In other words, it must be sho
ax payments from petitioner starting 2012. Seen against the backdrop of confirmations and affirmations of various revenue officials th
ely formal and not jurisdictional in nature; the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission t
e via a Petition for Review is not the proper remedy from a denial of Motion to Quash. Even if this Court would treat the Petition for R
to zero-rated sales for the 1st quarter of 2010. Both these periods come before the issuance of either COC for Plant A or B. However,
ial claim for refund. Petitioner filed the judicial claim for refund to compel respondent to refund the amount representing the differen
tsu Motor Company in Japan, are subject to the preferential tax rate of 10% under Article 12(2)(b) of the Philippines-Japan Tax Treaty
enge nor rebut the findings of the Court in Division that a PAN was never received by respondent, instead he tried to re-focus the ang
n its tax liability. The simultaneous imposition of both deficiency and delinquency interest can be gleaned from the provisions of Secti
d in "lending, investing or placement of funds or evidences of indebtedness or equity deposited with them, acquired by them, or othe
rosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the failure of petitioner Caluag to file her income tax return for taxable y
xpressly exempted under treaty. With the Philippines' reservation in the ADB Charter to the effect that it maintains the right to subjec
attribution of the input VAT cannot be made on such sales, a proportionate allocation on the basis of volume of sales must be made. N
attribution of the input VAT cannot be made on such sales, a proportionate allocation on the basis of volume of sales must be made. N
16 Decision of respondent COC, there is failure to state or describe in detail any facts or circumstances that would prove the knowled
he strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable d
n for Review under Section 4(b) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court En Bane has no jurisdiction to rev
herein sufficient. First, the said Petition for Review adequately alleges petitioner's right to the refund of its input VAT for 2013; second
e is applicable to the present case since both parties in this case are in pari delicto or in equal fault and that petitioner was guilty of es
c dominion from being taxed and from being the subjects of an auction sale by respondent Mandaluyong City for non-payment of real
ormance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawful
eipt of the adverse decision, it has lost its right to appeal. There is nothing more to appeal as the decision sought to be appealed had a
actually received by Petitioner or its duly authorized agent, the said assessments notices are deemed to have not been issued by Resp
f PD No. 242 and declared in no uncertain terms, that all controversies involving government offices, bureaus, agencies and instrume
y motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failur
makes the assessment final, demandable and unappealable. Petitioner in the instant case claims receipt of the FLD /FANs on August 1
ent rural banks. If the exemption period had not lapsed when the consolidated rural bank was formed, then it shall enjoy such exempt
l business taxes on banks and other financial institutions, it is subject to the specific prohibition with regard to the imposition of taxes
a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence offered by the claiman
etermine the amount of tax due to a taxpayer. However, due process requires that taxpayers be informed in writing of the facts and l
ing anew VAT on transactions for which the taxes were proven to have already been declared and paid. That would be tantamount to
ny of Asia, Inc. the Court cited the general rule that parties must observe the mandatory 120-day waiting period to give the CIR an opp
mi juris, any doubt or ambiguity arising out of the term used in granting that power must be resolved against the City of Davao. Thus, a
d/tax credit of excess income tax paid/withheld, both in the administrative and judicial levels, commences from the date of filing of th
e loan agreement's covenants. To stress, the touchstone of the liability. is the purpose behind the accumulation of the income and not
necessary to support the legal basis in disputing tax assessments is dependent on the taxpayer, not on the BIR. Thus, any document su
rnment, thus, any tax imposed upon VPLI is considered, in effect, as a tax on Government. Considering that the subject shares are ow
elief is not mandatory before a taxpayer may enjoy the reliefs provided under Philippine tax treaties. As ruled by the Supreme Court,
28 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Compliance with Section 228 of the NIRC is a substantive requ
as thirty (30) days within which to submit the documentary requirements sufficient to support his claim, unless given further extensio
presenting evidence to substantiate the amount of refund it is claiming on mere technicality especially in this case, where the failure t
not be considered into evidence when the same have not been formally offered as part of the evidence, but more so if the same were
nt, the same are but incidental to its main line of business of serving food and drinks. While customers may dance within the dining are
ntives. Article 39(a)(1) refers to an exemption from income taxes that may be imposed by the national government; while Section 133
endar year 2012. During this period, Petitioner was of the honest belief-and neither did Respondent enforce rules to the contrary tha
ember 31, 200928 and also exported its products within the same period. Counting two years from the said period, petitioner only ha
25-2013-183 issued by Mr. Edwin T. Guzman, OIC-Chief of LTS-RLTAD II cannot validly grant RO Sison and GS Lingan the authority to co
in the instant case, thus the FLD/FAN for FY 2006 issued on June 15, 2010 falls outside the three-year prescriptive period provided un
) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation), the Supreme Court ruled that "it is fundamental that the findings o
d deduction must be offset from whatever net loss the taxpayer may have in the same year. Thus, it was simply proper for the Division
he part of the BIR Commissioner is both mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance therewith precludes the CTA from acquirin
uding VAT and excise tax), other than income tax, and on duties and taxes on importation of materials (diesoline, in this case) required
ust pay the assessed deficiency tax liabilities is indispensable to the validity of the assessment. Otherwise stated, an assessment sans a
sold to international carriers for their use or consumption outside the Philippines, is entitled to claim refund of the subject excise taxe
October 21, 2016. From the said date, petitioner had 30 days, or until November 20, 2016, to appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals. Cle
erations involve dancing as the main business and customers patronize the place in order to dance either with their own partners or w
etracks and cabarets was first imposed in Section 260 of the 1939 Tax Code. It was carried over to Section 123 of the 1977 Tax Code, a
sider his findings and to show and explain to the latter instead how the said machines can generate the required report. However, pe
ingly, mere reliance on the fact that there were under-declared purchases is not enough basis for the Court to uphold respondent's as
o pay the assessed taxes. Aware of possible legal consequences, she even wrote the BIR on behalf of the Company requesting time to
nal, executory, and demandable. The fact that an assessment has become final for failure of the taxpayer to file a protest within the re
e rules of statutory construction, exceptions extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in f
dministrative claim for refund of unutilized excess input VAT for CY 2013 on March 27, 2015, which is within two (2) years from Marc
al intermediary as defined by pertinent regulations. Its primary purpose as shown in the Articles of Incorporation neither shows that a
on for tax treaty relief is not required before a taxpayer can avail of the preferential tax treatments under Philippine tax treaties. Hen
s Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Form No. 2250Q) for the first quarter of 2007 (Exhibit "R-4'') and Monthly Remittance Returns of Income T
ment is utterly without foundation, meaning it is arbitrary and capricious. Where the BIR has come out with a naked assessment, i.e.,
intermediary. Such being the case, this Court finds that petitioner is not a non-bank financial intermediary, and the interests and divi
mic zone or is a PEZA-registered entity to qualify its sales as zero-rated. In support of its claim, petitioner submitted certificates from PE
the applicable tax regulations is required, should be applied; and not the exception as embodied in the Next Mobile case. In contrast
4, 2018, issued by the Supreme Court in the Certiorari Case filed before it granting petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Deci
d the infirmities in the two waivers, and considering that petitioner benefited from the flaws of the waivers which it voluntarily execu
g to respondent, but also that the same be received by the latter. It is elementary that a taxpayer must actually receive any assessme
pect to the alleged fictitious expenses arising from bank overdrafts should be upheld. On the other hand, the above interest expense
ecessary investigation/ audit, it is an express grant of authority. Thus, absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically naming
x and VAT only on the basis of or pursuant to a mere LN, specifically the undated LN No. 051-RLF-11-00-0015840, without a subseque
his connection, petitioner contends that as its main and regular business is to hold shares of stock for purposes of control and not for
bject period or for the subject transactions, the ten-year prescriptive period applies. Clearly therefore, the assessment has not yet pre
scharge the burden of proving that it is entitled to refund or credit, he was effectively deprived of the opportunity to fully exercise his
s a bank or other financial institution. Besides, other than the mere admission of petitioner that it is a holding company, respondents f
orrectly argues that the parties to the contract involve the relevant non-resident foreign corporation, and not the crew whom respond
utes the final decision of respondent that is appealable to the CT A. In other words, said letter demonstrated a character of finality, su
with public interest, it is by no means indispensable or obligatory on the national government. Indeed, petitioner is a GOCC. Regardless
e ground that petitioner is not the proper entity to file the claim for refund. A Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed by petitioner
or his duly authorized representative to authorize the examination of the said taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of
ay periods is fatal to its claim and rendered the Court devoid of jurisdiction over petitioner's claim. Therefore, the dismissal of the ins
January 17, 2014, petitioner had until February 16, 2014 to file its appeal. Thus, the instant petition for review was timely filed on Feb
accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established. When guilt is not proven with moral cert
taxes due upon the subject estate, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whose determinations and assessments are presumed correc
ngs of the other. A taxpayer claimant must prove the veracity of its claim independently in the proceedings before the BOI and the BIR
s of knowing the facts stated in the subject ATO Certifications.Thus, there can be no merit on petitioners' contention to the effect that
er were acted upon beyond the 30-dayperiod, as prescribed by AO No. 266, this does not result in allowing petitioner to sleep on its ri
price, Jet A-1 fuel which was imported cannot bepossibly included in the computation.In view of the foregoing, the Court En Bane find
ed amount of P2,361, 101.61, representing unutilized excessinput VAT for the first quarter of FY 2011 attributable to its zero-rated sale
ued beyond the 3-year prescriptive period allowed by law. Hence, respondent's deficiency VAT assessment for calendar year 2009 is n
not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the righ
ubject to certain limitations provided under the Local Government Code.Accordingly, in the instant case, respondent City of Davao ma
mount for refund. If the latter condition cannot bedetermined with certainty, the claim must necessarily fail.Tax refunds partake the na
dent's deficiencyincome tax assessment on the net income of P162,130,433.20is upheld. In sum, petitioner is liable to pay basic deficie
wing the ruling in the above-quoted case, the income tax and VAT assessments issued by respondent is void. In view of the foregoing, i
me power to issue a writof certiorari over the interlocutory orders of public respondent CBAA.Apropos, as in The City of Manila case, i
s against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the Government. 71 Accordingly, it is a claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a
deprived of jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner's claim for refund. Accordingly, it has no other recourse but to dismiss the P
of P1 ,272,449.90, representing its unutilized input VAT incurred for the 1st quarter of taxable year 2014, attributable to its zero-rate
xpenses incurred in prosecuting or defending an action or special proceedings. They are in the nature of incidental damages allowed t
Cs fall within the initial jurisdiction of the DOJ such interpretation must be respected by all courts. , CTA Case No. 9355
VAT. The First LOA73 clearly specified that the scope of the examination of Petitioner's books of account and other accounting record
ssessment. Equally important is that the revenue officer so authorized must not go beyond the authority given. In the absence of such
m for tax credit or refund.38 Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign
ner Simple was dated on June 25, 2015, which is still within the 120-day period. To do so will encourage a situation wherein a letter de
of Registration and Tax Exemption Clark Business Registration No. C2011-04828, issued by Clark Development Corporation, it is entitl
special purpose entity (SPE) that issued the Bahay Bonds pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-approved Securitizat
2014 and the FNBS dated March 4, 2015 cannot be validly used as a basis for the issuance of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy. , C
was already established before the Court in Division that respondent had reported its receipt of the liquidating dividends in its 2012 IT
therein are true and correct. In fact, even without petitioner's tax claim, the Commissioner can proceed to examine the books, record
ower of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional righ
ds that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove any of the foregoing requisites. Save for the judicial affidavits of its witnesses, 35 no othe
an agreement, can only be proved by a mere signature, whose owner of the same is unknown.The prescriptive period on when to asse
ally made liable for local business tax imposed on "banks and other financial institutions" under Section 143(f) of the LGC of 1991 LGC
ere is a presumption that it has filed a false return. As such, the CIR need not immediately present evidence to support the falsity of th
he issuance instead of a collection letter and/ or warrant of distraint and levy is tantamount to an outright denial of the request for re
ble in the US pursuant to Article 14 in relation to the reservation clause in the RP-US Tax Treaty. Hence, said gain is not subject to Phil
d. The CIR, therefore, may no longer question the merits of the case before this Court. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to
dends declared, paid and issued thereon as well as any increments thereto are owned by the governement, having been acquired usin
ations under Sec. 13 (2) of PD 1590 will be subject to the exemption and that it would suffice to be able to prove even just one qualific
ered as loan agreements. As such, DST may be properly imposed. , CTA Case No. 9225
t, during the pendency of such action, a new doctrine divests the office of the jurisdiction it originally exercised, the proper and prude
ting Headquarters of a Multinational Company, orShare in the Distributable Net Income of a Partnership(Except a General Professional
, accused denied having received the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Final Assessment Notice (FAN) and the Formal Letterof De
e payments shall be given due course only when it is shown that the income payment has been declared as part of the gross income an
ter the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. , CTA Case No. 9270
nue for the government. Upon the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the exemption by w
e the parties to a case must present their respective evidence in support of their respective cases for the appreciation of the Court , C
prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to
ubsidiary Sales Journal and a Subsidiary Purchase Journal are required to be maintained by all persons subject to VAT. , CTA Case No.
nts or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. Business forms, e.g., order slip, delivery charge invoice and th
axpayer. However, when the claim for refund has clear legal basis and is sufficiently supported by evidence, then the Court shall not he
on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioners of Customs, t
ount of P32,821,463.15 is entirely attributable thereto and was not applied against any output tax. Even though the claimed input VA
he CIR would have no retroactive application if to so apply them would be prejudicial to the taxpayers. Without doubt, private respond
be disallowed from petitioner's claim as they were not properly substantiated by VAT invoices or ORs as prescribed under Sections 110
aim for exemption and the law is not only construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, but also the pieces of evidence presente
rreconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure to do so is
eration company. Necessarily, said facility is required to secure a Certificate of Compliance (COC) from the ERC , CTA Case No. 9048
ons. It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the
ppeal the inaction of petitioner, instead it opted to appeal the denial of petitioner in the form of the WDL. As to the WDL, although it
l be necessary to reverse a decision of the division xxx Where the necessary majority vote cannot be had, the petition shall be dismiss
ness of documents to support a claim is determined by the taxpayer and not by the BIR whose duty under Section 112(C) of the 1997
pared the increase in accused's net worth and the reported taxable income and considered the difference as unreported income. We
prolonged and unreasonable assessment and investigation by the BIR. , CTA Case No. 8945
l them, then the suit must be filed in the RTC whose territorial jurisdiction encompasses the place where the respondent public officia
qually important is that the RO so authorized must not go beyond the authority given. In the absence of such an authority, the assess
the assessed deficiency taxes fall under the afore-mentioned circumstances which are tax-exempt. Failure to do so, the Court is const
gested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to p
ndent to submit additional documents. Truth to tell, the CIR cannot validly rely on non-submission of documents as basis to deny the c
avail of the Income Tax Holiday on the activities registered with the BOI, and on those registered with the PEZA. Petitioner's entitleme
e exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. , CTA Case No. AC-182
8,649,658.55 input tax deferred on capital goods exceeding P1 Million from previous quarter. Hence, any claimed amortization of inpu
ct to taxation or by some officer having no authority to levy the tax, or one which is some other respect is illegal. Simply put, a tax ass
prohibited. Thus, the said Re-Assignment Notice cannot be a source of authority for an RO to examine the books of accounts and othe
decided by the Commissioner. The abovementioned provision requires that in order to be included in the judgment of said civil liabilit
pondent's right to collect, assuming there is a valid assessment, the Court will no longer discuss the remaining issues raised by petition
on shall be deprived of his or her property without due process of law. , CTA Case No. EB 1523
even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised
quently, it must be remembered that tax refunds are construed strictly against the taxpayers. , CTA Case No. 9330
inal case is founded on respondent's alleged criminal liability for its failure to pay the correct taxes as well as the right of the Governm
equent sales of said properties, they shall be taxed accordingly. Stated differently, the BIR ruling/certification required under RR No. 1
er and liberally in favor of the government. The burden in claiming tax refund rests upon the taxpayer. In this case, petitioner was not
oducts for its own use. Considering that petitioner is licensed as a Food Distributor /Importer, then it does not fall under the category
ermore, it filed an appeal with the LBAA without paying the RPT as assessed by the municipal assessor of Tupi, South Cotabato in viola
ale of goods or properties, is that the taxpayer is paid or ought to be paid in an amount of money or its equivalent in consideration of
nt, it follows that the dividends and any income therefrom are also owned by the government. Stated otherwise, respondent's dividen
or under the NIRC, and without the CIR showing contrary evidence other than the bare assertion that there was a violation of exhaust
0+30 day periods must be strictly complied with. Hence, it was erroneous on the part of petitioner to have waited for the decision of re
investigation of the FAN, the Court En Bane shall determine the issue of prescription for all the assessed taxes. Since the instant case
he two (2)-year period shall be counted from the date of payment of the tax or penalty. In other words, while penalties may be impose
es under Section 248, Deficiency Interest under Section 249(B), Delinquenry Interest under Section 249(C), and Installment on Extende
e mere fact of substantial overstatement of deductions as incorrect since there was no proof that there was "willful falsity" on the par
was omitted through inadvertence or mistake. What petitioner seeks is for this Court to allow it to present "an exhaustive and compre
year 2007 was precipitated by a mere Tax Verification Notice issued to RO Albert C. Eya for the purpose of verifying the supporting d
od. In fact, titles thereto were issued in its name but were subsequently invalidated by the RTC, Branch 11 of Manila in Civil Case No. 0
s also equally true that assessments should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical the presumption
(3) of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as amended, the Court in Division has jurisdiction over decisions, re
al quarterly income tax payments in a given taxable year would exceed its total income tax due. The taxpayer may either file a tax ref
ure of the taxpayer to assail the same as provided in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 can no longer be contested. In other words, since
difications that may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. Thus, laws and issuances must ensure that th
but a statutory requirement which is vital to the validity of an audit of a taxpayer, and consequently, to the validity of the FAN that ma
n claim either of a refund or a tax credit. As a corollary, this is even permitted by the aforequoted Section 196 of the LGC of 1991. Wh
as it authorizes the conduct of audit investigation of CSPCC' s books of accounts and accounting records for TYs 2003, 2004, and 2005
cover output tax liability. However, an examination of the Quarterly VAT Returns reveals that the excess input VAT in the subject claim
ugust 13, 1997 and the Distribution Agreement executed on January 1, 2001, between petitioner and Amadeus IT Group S.A., which w
6, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed'177 in its Quarterly VAT Return for the third quarte
test against an FLD/FAN. In such cases where the applicable rules and regulations in quasi-judicial proceedings are silent or deficient, t
9, the income of petitioner for CY 2010 in the total amount of P159,490,000.00 pertaining to the commercial sale of qualified invented
celeration and Inclusion" on January 1, 2018, the Court shall apply the pertinent provisions thereof on the imposition of deficiency an
rpretations of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of surcharges
229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit:1. the tax has been erroneously or illegally collected,or the penalty has been collected w
and/or official receipts fully complied with the requirements, the Decision listed in detail all the evidence that did not comply with the
strictly against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with th
ee (3) essential and distinct facts,namely: (1) fact of sale; (2) fact of actual shipment of goods to a foreign country; and (3) fact of paym
hould have decided such claim based on the alleged incomplete documents. However, petitioner failed to do so. The submission of the
ncy interest on any deficiency tax is assessed "from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof"; while the deli
he concept of "exhaustion of administrative remedies" because the taxpayer is not obligated to rely on this remedy for a long period
048-TRS-08-00-00027. In the absence of competent proof that the revenue examiners who conducted the audit and investigation of r
he due process requirements in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment. Upon receipt of the PAN, the taxpayer has fifteen (15) da
e name of Chevron Texaco China Energy Co. per schedule of export sales, actually pertain to PT Chevron Oil Products Indonesia as evid
rs' right to security against prolonged and unscrupulous investigations and must therefore be carefully and strictly construed. The wa
mputation of the deficiency income tax of accused. In the instant cases, the Court cannot consider the Preliminary Assessment Notice
, the assessment is deemed to have not been protested. Accordingly, there is no "denial of a valid protest" in this case and the issued
t which the claimed input VAT may be applied to or credited from. The Court En Bane agrees that respondent may no longer avail of t
ding the taxpayer with the factual and legal bases for the assessment is crucial before proceeding with tax collection. Tax collection sh
are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment unless proven otherwise. With the submission of the Documentary Stamp Tax Decl
o, and failure to discharge the said burden is fatal to the claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1695
y accumulated earnings shall be imposed on corporations that permit its earnings and profits to accumulate, instead of being distribu
ter of demand and assessment notice. Since petitioner never received the FAN and the FLD, it was not, therefore, informed of the ass
the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the first q
of the law and the facts upon which an assessment is based, the purpose being that the taxpayer should be given the opportunity to r
ne qualify as VAT zerorated transactions. Consequently, the sales of services made by Ibex to Ibex Global, an entity registered with PEZ
resumptions are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment. It is to be presumed, however, that such assessment was based on suf
to petitioner. Accordingly, the subject deficiency tax assessment for taxable year 2007 must be declared void, for having been issued
s the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for import in the Philippines. The transaction value of the imported goods
revalidation is tantamount to the same LOA having lost its validity. A void assessment bears no valid fruit.56 Thus, RO Marcellano acte
filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof in such form and manner as may be
itlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. Well-settled is the rule that tax ref
ple that taxes are the lifeblood of the government,and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. Taxes are the nation's
ods or properties and services in the Philippines and on importation of goods into the Philippines. It is an indirect tax, which may be sh
the factual and documentary bases df its claim. Deductions for income tax purposes partake of thle nature of tax exemptions; hence,
s the taxpayer first pays the tax." It is settled that the requirement of "payment under protest" is a condition sine qua non before an a
pon proof that an assessment is utterly without foundation, meaning it is arbitrary and capricious. In order to stand the test of judicia
jurisdiction, can only take cognizance of matters clearly within its jurisdiction.If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an act
tion 131(e) of the LGC and it must be strictly exercised in accordance with its precepts. This is consistent with Article 1158 ofthe Civil C
nder Rule 42 of th 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days fro the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the ca
validly done, it is a legal requirement that there must first be an Letter of Authority (LOA) issued to the concerned revenue examiners
e term is defined in the Code", to impose or demand payment of 20°/o deficiency interest on all deficiency tax liabilities would render
wed with assessment powers. However, when deciding a refund case, this Court's determination of whether the refund claimant is en
not only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, thereby signalling the time when pe
exempt from tax which are subsequently sold, transferred or exchanged in the Philippines to non-exempt persons or entities, the purch
aggregate amount of P216,919,2 6.53, representing erroneously collected final taxes. , CTA Case No. EB 1477
refund or issuance of tax credit certificate representing unutilized creditable ~thholding taxes (CWT) for calendar year (CY) 2008 in th
d out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by pro
nch or sales office where the sale or transaction was made, and, in the absence of such, the sale should be recorded in the principal o
y against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+
neous, and thus, refundable under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. To borrow from Commissioner of Interna
ber stamped. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner substantially complied wilth the requirement that the word 'ze
pital gain amounting to P125,231,619.00 and not dividends and that the capital gain realized therefrom was exempt from capital gains
on that all the requirements for a grant of refund are satisfied. In this case however, petitioner failed to establish that the claimed amou
uent appeal to this Court must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax. 65 Recently, in the case of Commissio
ecific provision of law conferring on the taxpayer, in clear and plain terms, exemption from a common burden. Any doubt whether a ta
" is defined as voluntary and intentional. In tax crimes statutes, "willful" is defined as voluntary or intentional violation of a known lega
ement. To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal ppn
assessing Petitioner for alleged deficiency local business tax in the amount of Php 760,933.49 on January 20,2014. The case of COCOF
t "in the judicial level or when the case is elevated to the Court, the Rules of Court governs. Simply put, the question of whether the e
e taxpayer-claimant is givin thirty (30) days within which to complete the required documents, unless given further extension by the h
e CIR, prior to filing a judicial claim before the CTA. Both the administrative and judicial claims for refund should be filed within the tw
receipt of preliminary assessment notice (PAN) are legal infirmities to the right of petitioner to due process rendering void the right of
s a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessme
hever is higher between the fair market value as determined by the Commissioner, or the fair market value as shown in the schedule o
sites must be satisfied by the taxpayer-claimant in order that its claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT attributable to zer
d against the allowable input tax in computing deficiency VAT since this shall be carried over to the next succeeding quarter(s) as prov
consumed and rendered outside the PEZA zone. Hence, the input VAT relative to such purchases may be refunded by petitioner in line
-384", among others, on account of its failure to identify the same. Thus, a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 20 Marc
obligations of the same taxpayer for the same business. If a taxpayer has paid in full the tax due for the entire year and he shall have n
SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may XXX XXX XXX (C)
quarter of the taxable year 2013, it is therefore not entitled to the refund of the alleged input VAT attributable thereto in the amount o
quirements" in the total amount of P637,782.08 (sum of P297,437.33, P283,141.23, and P57,203.52) should be disallowed for being n
ed by petitioner because of the wrong address indicated therein which was uncontroverted by respondent. The Supreme Court has a
1 LGC, which provides for the president's power to condone or reduce tax, it pertains only to RPT which remains outstanding or unpai
e deemed estopped from questioning thevalidity of the Waivers only after the assessment against it was issued , CTA Case No. EB 147
taxation that "a void assessment bears no valid fruit", the Court En Bane need not discuss the other issues raised by petitioner. , CTA
in is/are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/audit, it is an express grant of authority for that purpose. Thus, absent the
gants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that
ve action depends on the taxpayer, and not on the CIR, who can only ask for additional documents if he is unsatisfied with what has ac
of the 10-year prescriptive period to assess FSM. Moreover, CIR failed to substantiate the belated claim of falsity. The basic rule is tha
f the "Special Classes" under Section 216. For the real properties of NIA, as a government-owned or controlled corporation engaged i
mand and assessment notice. Thus, such cannot be presumed. Otherwise, the express provisions of Article 228 of the NIRC and RR No
or the Registry return card which would have been signed by the taxpayer or its authorized representative. And if said documents cou
-day period to appeal, is fatal to its claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate, for failure to observe the mandatory and jur
s the option of carry-over, it shall be irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for a tax refund or tax credit certificate shall
in the reduced amount of P3,102,813.87, representing its excess and unutilized input valueadded tax attributable to its zero-rated sal
ly and unequivocally to the taxpayer whether an action constitutes a final determination on adisputed assessment. Words must be car
petitioner's failure to file a valid protest against the FAN in the form and manner prescribed under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, a
f Tax Appeals must be filed within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. Hence, to be entitled to a refund of errone
e one and the same entity. Hence, it was error for tre Court a quo to rule that they are otherwise. Consequently, raspondents may not
paragraph of Section 4 of the NIRC, should be understood as pertaining to those matters directly related to the preceding phrase 'dispu
ed of Absolute Sale, but the basis for the imposition thereof shall be the gross selling price or fair market value of the property, which
prescriptive period indicated therein, and that the claimant is allowed to file the latter even without waiting for the resolution of the fo
d 10322 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC), it is clear that the person or entity liable to pay donor's tax is
sessment was made within the prescriptive period. The constructive receipt alleged by petitioner fails miserably. , CTA Case No. EB 1
cer is specifically required under the NIRC before an examination of a taxpayer may be had while an LN is not found in the NIRC and is
7 NIRC pertains to any written claim for refund filed with the CIR or his duly authorized representative. Hence, the letter-request filed
assessment is based in order to aid the taxpayer in making a reasonable protest. To immediately ensue with tax collection without in
s for reconsideration of the Assailed Amended Decision before they filed their respective Petitions for Review before the Court En Ban
amount claimed for taxes which are presumed to have been collected in accordance with laws and regulations on the matter. The bu
hall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, im
otion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure t
d, the Court En Bane had consistently ruled that the Table of Comparison Between Cost of Importing and Cost of Locally Purchasing Co
strictly against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the
entry in the I lead Office Account, which entry is added to the Accumulated Earnings of the previous year (i.e., CY 2009) in order to arr
rs and the protest must be "in accordance with Section 228 of the NIRC, as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 12-99". There is
mber 13, 2013, and the Petition for Review before this Court on April 4, 2014, or beyond the 30-day prescriptive period to appeal eithe
er and liberally in favor of the government. The burden of claiming tax refund rests upon the taxpayer. In this case, petitioner was abl
requisite, discussion on the other requirements is unwarranted.Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in st
a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a ta
ruction and installation of the plant facilities as well as its purchases of goods, properties and services for the whole process of explora
because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so com
strictly against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance with the
taxes due for the succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for the whole amount of the excess income tax, thus, prohibiting
ICPA. The ICPA Report is a mere tool or guide to aid the Court in the resolution of the case, hence, the determination of the merit or t
of the Court in Division in our Amended Resolution promulgated on April 6, 2017.In sum, the Court En Banc finds no cogent reason to
not be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categoricallanguage. However, lest it not be forgotten that the judiciary does n
this date, petitioner had until July 9, 2015 to file an administrative claim for refund or issuance of a TCC, and to institute the correspo
harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible system. The rule is expressed
al revenue stamps issued by the BIR before the effectivity of these Regulations using the format in Annex "A" hereof" and "shall enroll
RR No. 16-05, input VAT on capital goods purchases attributable to zero-rated sales may be claimed either in full during the month of
etitioner Kingson failed to present any evidence to convince this Court that the documents it submitted came directly from its foreign s
e deficiency Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax. With respect to the compromise penalty in the amount of P50,000.00, the same sh
form of advance payments) the alleged over remittance in July 2012 from its EWT due for the month of August 2012. Hence, for rem
VAT liability for the third and fourth quarters of CY 2012 in the amounts of Php1,205,861.66 and Php5,806,076.52, respectively.Anent
d Division only on July 18, 2014, which was way beyond the mandatory 120+30 days to seek judicial recourse. A claim for tax refund o
nt. In this connection, it is a well-settled rule that the determination of respondent is presumed correct and it behooves the taxpayers
equisite, discussion on the other requirements is unnecessary. , CTA Case No. 9004
n, the penalty to be imposed shall be fifty percent (50%) of the tax or of the deficiency tax, in case any payment has been made on the
ds of the instant cases, the CTA En Bane finds no merit in both Petitions for Review.The arguments raised by both parties in their respe
on the existence of proof of actual remittance by the payor /withholding agent to the BIR. , CTA Case No. EB 1442
f 50% surcharge is prima facie presumed correct and made in good faith, it is enough to state the presumption of correctness of tax as
ver was presented by respondent to prove actual receipt of the PAN. As already emphasized, strict compliance with due process requi
the reasonable needs of business to justify earmarking of earnings. Under this test, petitioner must be able to prove an immediate ne
ption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exe
ature of a claim for exemption and the law is not only construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, but also the pieces of eviden
d that the three elements in the imposition of income tax are: (1) there must be gain or profit, (2) the gain or profit is realized or receiv
o submit documentary requirements to support its claim. Nonetheless, petitioner also did not manifest that it no longer wishes to sub
; (2) contained a demand on the taxpayer to pay the tax liability and must set a period for payment; and (3) mailed or sent to the taxp
the claimed amount of P10,369,060.73, as computed below, constitutes erroneously paid FWT which is refundable pursuant to Sectio
ion from becoming final and executory. After alta judgment becomes final and executory upon the expiration of the period to appeal t
even lost profit because of the expenses incurred in the sale of gold. The Court is not convinced by the self-serving statements of accu
revoked or repealed for being inconsistent with the provision re-imposing GRT on banks under RA No. 9238, as amended, and with RR
nded". Moreover, in its subsequent manual filing of the said return on April 30, 2012, petitioner also marked the option "To be refund
x may be harsh but surely not unjust or excessive for it is a mandate that should be observed under Section 248(A)(1) of the NIRC of 19
stioned assessment as required under Section 252(a) of the LGC of 1991. The payment of the tax under the questioned assessment is
ncluding herein petitioner, had five (5) years from such date, or until August 13, 1996 to enjoy their exemption from the taxes mention
ore must not interfere with such exercise of discretion as to whether or not to abate petitioner's tax liability in accordance with the pa
arts of the gross interest income derived from foreign currency loan transaction with residents, which are exempt from all taxes, the sa
g his income in the ITRs, and the withholding certificates issued by the companies showing the income received from them. The Court
sating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations of commissary and catering supplies, it must establish the follow
able for deficiency taxes through the sending of a PAN. The sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is bu
AT Returns, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as “VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its quarterly VAT Return for the third
a valid waiver. In this regard, the taxpayer and the BIR may stipulate to extend the assessment period by means of written agreemen
orce of law. Hence, it cannot be attacked collaterally. While the CTA has the power to rule on the validity of a particular administrativ
ne hand, and petitioner, on the other. Correspondingly, since petitioner is not considered a bank, the period of redemption under Secti
for DST justifies the non-imposition of the surcharge, deficiency and delinquency interests. After considering the parties' respective ev
g three years from petitioner's filing of the ITR, the BIR had until June 12, 2010. For VAT, the BIR had the following dates within which t
VAT that there be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated transactions at the time the claimed input VAT was incurred or paid; that the in
of 10% corporate income tax. The reduced rate is applicable only if: (1)the proprietary educational institution is non-profit and (2)its gr
scal year ended on June 30, 2007, the last day to file its ITR for that year was on October 15, 2007. Hence, counting three years from p
examination of petitioner's books of accounts and accounting records for TY 2009, RO Sunga acted without authority when he condu
d the deficiency interest and penalties on July 8, 2010; issued a letter informing Hoya of the deficiency assessment on July 14, 2010; a
ded Decision dated October 11, 2016. Thus, applying the Supreme Court ruling in the Asiatrust case, this Court has no recourse but to
15, 2007 through a certain Danilo P. Lucafias. Counting thirty (30) days therefrom, NPC had until February 14,2007 to file its protest, w
e Officer Mary Anne P. Cruz is not authorized under LOA No.0008746 to examine petitioner CMI. The examination of Petitioner CMI's
y five (5) years from its date of effectivity. Thus, the effective period of exemption from the payment of franchise tax of petitioner wa
t tax liability against which the valid inputVATofP220,700.8may be applied or credited. Further, the input VAT of P220,700.89 was not c
ourt, emphasizing more clearly the importance of the observance of the mandatory 15-day period granted to the taxpayer to reply to
the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Returns for the fourth quarter o
is a ground for the dismissal of its Petition for Review before the CT A En Bane. Thus, the CTA En Banc did not err in denying the CIR's
either not subject to withholding tax or already subjected to withholding tax. As a result, the Court is constrained to uphold responden
most, petitioner may only be assessed in the succeeding period. 43 Accordingly, respondent's disallowance of P10,159,773.44 should
s of IPCCO was never even mentioned or cited in the CIR explanation as the basis for such findings. It merely mentioned the "Receipts
resolved the issue in relation to the arguments/grounds raised in the Petition, which We noted are mere rehash of the arguments prof
y against the taxpayer. To repeat, one of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or credit under the VAT System is compliance wit
0, 2013, which was received by petitioner on September 11, 2013, before the lapse of the 120-day period, the 30-day period, therefo
ignment issued to Revenue Officer Bravo cannot be converted into the LOA required under the law even if the same was issued by res
d and twenty (120)-day period shall commence therefrom. Hence, the CIR had until October 17,2013 to decide petitioner's claim. How
torily liable for the payment of VAT, the amount of the tax is allowed to be shifted or passed on to the buyer. However, reporting and
COZONE should be free of VAT; hence, no input VAT should then be paid on such purchases, rendering the petitioner not entitled to c
m for refund filed, petitioner cannot seek judicial intervention from this Court. , CTA Case No. EB 1462
ay the tax assessed because of the previous findings of the Court in CTA Case No. 7304. Thus, the assessment for interest and compro
simijuris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, for Respondent was able to successfully overcome this burd
ges and not the due date for payment of tax liabilities. The total amount depended upon when respondent decides to pay. The notice
transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services. This rule shall likewise apply to existing contracts of sale or lease of goods, p
viewing the SIR's assessment, any determination however in excess of what the BIR had assessed could not simply be included in the c
28 of the NIRC, as amended. Consequently, the subject assessment is deemed null and void. , CTA Case No. EB 1444
ments of its employees in compliance with the provision of Section 2.79.2 of RR No. 2-98, as amended, to warrant cancellation of the a
e year 2009 amounting toP3,977,018.59 which were carried forward to the succeeding taxableperiod. This is not proper as the applica
w and the facts on which the assessments were made. The assessments in this case did not become fmal and executory. , CTA Case No
ailure or omission by accused was done knowingly, intentionally and with the specific intent not pay the tax. In other words, it must b
hich shall be made by filing a Petition for Review under a procedure analogous to that provided under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court an
lly all of its assets in exchange for shares of stocks of FTC. Thus, there was no sale since petitioner's assets were only transformed into
diligence in its affairs, and the utmost diligence ofvery cautious , CTA Case No. 8143
ernment of Iliigan. Section 2.57.5(A) of RR No. 2-98, as amended, clearly states that the withholding o f creditable withholding tax pres
d. The CIR, therefore, may no longer question the merits of the case before this Court. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to
a claim for refund against the BIR, but to seek reimbursement of its alleged input VAT paid from its suppliers of goods and services sin
utable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be satisfied:1. that the taxpayer is VAT-registered; 3. t
ons of the ADB Charter would entail an enactment of an enabling law to put this into effect is bereft of merit as it is clear that the Phil
P43,223,633.96, the said amount cannot be applied against its reported income tax liability for taxable year 2010, as correctly found b
periods which haveprescribed, petitioner has not shown as to which portion of theassessments pertain to the prescribed periods. Cor
motion for reconsideration or new trial must first be filed with the CT A Division that issued the assailed decision or resolution. Failure
by respondent and admitted by the Court in Division is ffatal to its appeal. Such infirmity prevents the respondents from squarely conf
pondent's assessment. The said per audit findings cannot be offset against that declared per tax returns, without a clear indication th
as the knowledge of the taxdeficiency and has willfully failed to pay the same despite of suchknowledge.Thus, the guilt of the accused
the Makati Revenue Code, and the insistence of the City and the CityTreasurer in its collection of the void tax constitutes anattempt at
sented by the prosecution.Accordingly, the Court holds accused Moises Bagan Rodriguez liablefor the charged acts under Sections 360
of a claim for refund/taxcredit of excess income tax paid/withheld, both in the administrativeand judicial levels, commences from the
he FLD/FAN, petitionerwas even given thirty-one (31) days from receipt of the PAN to file itsprotest thereto before respondent had th
ation and that Petitioner was informed of such fact through a letter dated September 13,2011.31 BIR Revenue Regulation 18-2013 cle
ith official receipts orother adequate records. Petitioner should have offered in evidence thesupporting documents of its disallowed ex
rst coupon payment on January 31,2013. Hence,counting two years from such date, petitioner had until February 2, 2015 withinwhich
he case atbar. A compromise implies agreement. If the offer isrejected by the taxpayer, as shown in this case, petitionercannot enforce
me and to serve uponrespondent the subject assessment notices, unjustifiably deniedrespondent of its right to due process under earl
s on orbefore September 24, 2004, or the last day of the three-yearperiod to collect. Thus, the attempt of respondent to collectthe su
s of wheat flour and that such unlawful importation is known to all accused. The evidence of the prosecution failed to satisfactorily pro
e claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2011 until the third quarter of 20
urt of Tax Appeals must befiled within the two-year period from the date of payment of thetax. In the case of excise taxes, the goods s
Court, the Court is constrained tolimit its findings based on respondent's assessment, albeit theerroneous computation per FLD. Hence
ve, the sending and receipt of the PAN is mandatory and isa substantive, not merely a formal, requirement.65 Thus, for respondent's f
ners to enforce the collection of income taxes frompetitioners does not estop the respondent from collecting saidtaxes. This court is m
ction 196 of the LGC, and given that it is not a non-bank financial intermediary and that the subject SMC shares of stock have been dec
ero-rated, may, within a period of two-years, reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the
zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be complied with:1. the taxpayer must be VAT-registered;2. the taxpayer must be engag
careful examination of the documents formally offered as evidence by respondent CE Luzon, together with the Report of the Court-co
VAT must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were mad
he subject waiver in consideration of the opportunity to gather and submit documents to substantiate and defend its case before the B
he administrative claim for the issuance of TCC or refund of input VAT must be filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close o
ATregistered entity to a PEZA..:registered entity applies when such goods, properties or services are consumed, used or rendered with
ctissimi juris against the entity claiming the same,4o this rule is not absolute. A taxpayer who seeks for refund can justify the claim by
son shall be deprived of property without due process of law. In balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its in
rative claim and presumably submitted its complete documents in support of its application for refund, respondent had 120 days, or u
period because the waivers which sought to extend the prescriptive period were defective and infirm. The government's right to asse
er of Internal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise o
proceedings before the CT A are not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence. This provision, however, must be construed in th
Sections 19 and 24 of Rule 132, mandates how public documents are proven.Under the above-quoted provision of the Rules, public d
y only be imposed on SSS' responsible official or employee. Yet, it failed to observe the procedural requirements under Section 228 of
ove the due execution and genuineness of the documents submitted. Thus, petitioner was able to prove that it is indeed the Central B
BCom is misplaced. This Court ruled in the case of Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Visayas Geothermal Power Company Inc., tha
om the filing of the return, pursuant to Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997. Correspondingly, anent the subject deficiency income tax, r
us interpretation of government agencies tasked to implement the tax law, are sufficient justification to delete the imposition of surch
utsche timely instituted on September 30, 2010. The decision of the Court Division reads as, "The Court in Division found merit in Deu
ourts in the evaluation of any claim for refund of excess creditable withholding taxes.35 Thus, upon presentation of a withholding tax c
a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a ta
to secure the conviction of accused in the instant criminal case, to wit:1. That a corporate taxpayer is required under the NIRC of 1997
ptive period were sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record either in the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwis
the first element of the crime charged, We are guided by the provisions of Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, which mandates that a ta
as amended. Hence, an assessment notice issued after or beyond the three-year prescriptive period is no longer valid and effective. A
n, Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenu
event of cessation of business. Dissolution, however, must be sufficiently proven. Absent proof of dissolution, the exception to the irr
es, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations of commissary and catering supplies, petitioner must establishthe followin
FLD /FAN is issued prior to the lapse of the 15-day period given to the taxpayer to reply to or protest the PAN.
ance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. On this matter, Section 7 (a) (1) of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by RA Nos. 928
lse. Consequently, We hold that the ten- year period under Section 222(a) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, applies. "SEC. 222. Exception
hin the period when BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in force, i.e., from December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010. Moreover, the BIR rulin
eses cases, is essential. Indeed the Court En Banc notes that the counting of 120-day period for inaction is irrelevant, since the instant
cess CWT. Also, the testimony of the withholding agent is not required to established the fact of withholding because the certificate o
thout due process of law. In balancing the scales between the power of the state to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived t
ssess RPT, but merely raises a question of the reasonableness and correctness of such assessment. Such argument, which may involve
aty relief prior to the payment of BPRT, would defeat the purpose of Section 29. Thus, in case of dividentds payments under the Rp-Fr
law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are a
essor to impose the assessment, and of the treasurer to collect the real property tax), or a question of law, direct judicial action may p
m. Such party is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. , CT
Logically, noncompliance with tax treaties has negative implications on international relations, and unduly discourages foreign investo
ally on legislative grace but on the legal principle which underlies all quasicontracts abhorring a person's unjust enrichment at the exp
for any deficiency tax. Under Section 203 of the 1997 NIRC, internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three (3) years counted fr
subject to tax, constitutes a binding precedent in similar cases. The decisions of the Supreme Court constitute binding precedents, for
ch it is directly liable as a seller and hence, it cannot claim any refund or exemption for any input VAT it paid, if any, on its purchases o
ated de novo and party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases. Judicial claims are decided based on the evidence pr
ation, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Returns or monthly VAT
bligors from sleeping on their rights. The rule is based on the equitable principle of laches which is defined as the failure of or neglect
ents that it is entitled to its claim for refund. Whether respondent maintains a subsidiary sales journal and subsidiary purchase journa
LBT mandated by Section 69({) of the Davao Revenue Code can be imposed on petitioner. Neither can the dividends and interest from
efit derived by petitioner from the carry-over thereof may be claimed in the succeeding year 2011. In sum, the Court resolves to cance
t protest the compromise penalties totaling 200,000.00. But since there is likewise nothing in the records to show that petitioner cons
Tiaoqui, petitioner's expert witness, the DOE bases any of its conclusions on historical or past data, and it does not make projections.
d/tax credit of excess income tax paid/withheld, both in the administrative and judicial levels, commences from the date of filing of th
dministrative claim on December 29, 2014. Thus, the 120-day period started and continued to run from December 29, 2014 until Apr
nto the validity of said assessment including respondent's compliance with due process in order to determine whether the assessment
e taxpayer still has 30 days to file its judicial claim with the CTA; otherwise, the judicial claim would be, properly speaking, dismissed f
exemptions, are construed strictissimi juris. As early as the year 1961, the Supreme Court has already made the following ruling: "... w
d must be evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt. Under the law, a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange o
himself at the expense of another. It goes without saying that the government is not exempted from the application of this doctrine.
n the Constitution, that the CT A has original jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari. By virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Co
eficiency taxes within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law to file the tax return or the actual date of filing of such return
ot only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, thereby signaling the time when pen
or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to
e assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. The notices of such assessment, specifically the PAN and the FLD/FAN
that there was falsity in the return, and mere falsity does not automatically apply the exceptional 10-year prescriptive period, unless t
ributed to end-users located in certain municipalities of the province of Batangas, considering that respondent TRANSCO derives its gr
ng income. Income in tax law is an amount of money coming to a person within a specified time, whether as payment for services, inte
the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to be entitled to the refund of its alleged unutilized excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effe
ment itself should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how logical the presumption might be. In order to stand the test of
nformed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void." The taxpayer s
a claimant must comply with the essential conditions under the law and jurisprudence.1. The claim is filed with the CIR within the two
ayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Tax refunds in relation to VAT are in the nature of such exemptions• Petitioner has th
er for and in behalf of the said taxpayer', which can only be taken to mean as referring to the representative of respondent and not th
quarter when the sales were made to file an administrative claim with the CIR. The latter is given 120 days from submission of comple
osed thereto. Because of this payment, the CIR argues that GQRI is estopped from questioning the validity of the imposition of the Php
eriod for the VAT assessment. As discussed by the Court in Division, petitioner failed to prove that the land sold is a capital asset and t
or in the complaint; other reliefs prayed for may be granted only when related to the specific prayer( s) in the pleadings and supported
er financial institutions. The dividends andinterests in this case are therefore not subject to the city's taxing power, unless THI is a ban
prejudice of the taxpayer, as in this case.More recently, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Benguet Corporation, wherein the tax
ourt cannot ascertain whether the amounts reflected therein correspond to the zero-rated sales as determined above. It bears stressi
ance therewith, respondent denied petitioner of its right to due process. , CTA Case No. 9590
same be due to inadvertence or purposely resorted to, the Court cannot ignore that, since its receipt of the FDDA, more than nine (9)
e amount of tax due therein remains indefinite, as it is subject to modification, depending on the date of payment. As applied to this c
nfer upon the taxpayer the option to recover the amount illegally or erroneously collected through tax refund or tax credit. Hence, res
ution of the administrative claim before the filing of the present Petition) is needed to be proved; hence, parol evidence is allowed. No
be prosecuted even without an assessment pursuant to Section 222 of the NIRC. Hence, the prosecution of criminal cases against accu
sentatives to demonstrate how to generate the required report. As this Court has previously observed, Frankfort failed in this regard.
ance to prove its claim and file evidence in addition to those filed in the administrative level, since refund cases filed in the Court of Ta
s in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund. The pieces
o entitle the respondent to a tax refund. It is not the duty of the government to disprove a taxpayers claim for refund. Rather, the burd
ch the assessment is made. Such requirement must be embodied not only in the PAN, but also in the FLD and FAN. In case respondent
ise is, by its nature, mutual in essence. It implies agreement. One party cannot impose it upon the other. Compromise penalties are o
comes later. Accordingly, an assessment notice issue after the said three-year prescriptive period is no longer valid and effective. , C
es, statement of accounts, official receipts and Articles of Partnership of the GPPs. Its failure to present said source documents leads th
mitted by the Court in Division is fatal to its appeal. Such infirmity prevents respondent from squarely confronting the issue and bars th
n is not evidence, and is notequivalent to proof. , CTA Case No. EB 1844

as not acquired jurisdiction over the person of Enviroaire, as it is not an accused in the present case, no civil action against it pursuant
nal note, this Court is not unaware of the imperative need for our country to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to minimize the bu
the BIR on the taxpayer for the settlement of a due tax liability that is there definitely set and fixed. , CTA Case No. 9000
from the expiration of the 120-day period within which to appeal the denial or inaction of the CIR to the CT A must also be respected
aw are sufficient justification to relieve one from the imposition of surcharges and interest. , CTA Case No. EB 1906
amended, to wit: 1. The ree1p1ent of the services is a foreign corporation, and the aforesaid corporation is doing business outside the
at the collection of tax sought to be refunded was attended with arbitrariness. In the absence of proof to show that either of the two
tching further testifted as to the issuance and service of the PAN. However, even when We are to consider the unsubstantiated testim
or memoranda.To reiterate, an assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a p
ocal taxes, except for real property taxes on land owned by developers. Needless to state, such tax exempt status of said business esta
mandatory requirement of payment under protest, as provided by Section 252(a) of the LGC of 1991. Petitioner's non-compliance with
o Section 3A.02 (h) of the RMRC. The imposition of LBT on the dividend (passive) income of petitioner falls within the purview of Sect
PAN and FLD.Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 provides that the taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which
d fifth waivers executed by respondent and subsequently acknowledged and accepted by petitioner. Beyond June 30, 2014, there was
te authority. Absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA signed by the Regional Director, there is no authority to conduct the continua
ated issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. The determination of a revenue examiner's authority to conduct au
ckaging, it failed to support the actual utilization of the raw alcohol into the production.Petitioner failed to present supporting docume
e assets of DPI consist principally of real property interest in the Philippines.For purposes of determining whether under the applicable
e Regulations No. 12-99, which underscores a mandatory, imperative and compulsory character; it is a word of command. Consequentl
ity. The taxpayer claiming the tax credit or refund has the burden of proving that he is ntitled to the refund or credit, in this case inpu
under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such taxpayer is exempted from his share in the common burden of taxation
uming these were not presented at the administrative level. 36 The question of whether the evidence submitted by a party is sufficien
sh by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund. Since petitioner failed to sustain the burden placed upon
efore a revenue officer conducts an examination or issue an assessment is in the form of an LOA. , CTA Case No. EB 1925
od to decide the protest, the taxpayer may appeal to the LBAA within sixty (60) days from the denial of the protest or the lapse of the
uled by the Court in Division, respondent Univation was able to sufficiently prove its compliance with all legal requisites to be entitled
tax, whichever is lower, must be paid, under the conditions set forth in Section 13 of PD No. 1590;2. The articles, materials or supplies
ent between respondent and DAHL is not subject to CGT.A perusal of the assailed decision reveals that indeed such certification was n
e Supreme Court had now concluded to be unjust. , CTA Case No. EB 2049
doctrine that a person committing a void act contrary to a mandatory provision of law cannot claim or acquire any right from his voi
ch includes the above-stated amount of P5,475,537.44, did not form part of the excess input VAT of P13,998,107.17 as of the end of
s derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund.The pieces of
spotically'' by the Court in Division. No grave abuse of discretion, arrlounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction can be imputed in admi
omplaint before the RTC, and in the instant Petition for Review before this Court. In fine, there is no basis for respondents' argument
ed the accused willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in his ITR and VAT Returns. As to the civil liability of the accu
alpable violation of petitioner's right to procedural due process, the FLO-being fatally infirm-should be considered void. With the Cour
17, 2017. Since the present Petition for Review was filed way beyond the thirty (30)-day reglementary period to appeal, the CTA was
ng on the document,which in this case is the Notice of Appeal.It must be further stressed that the right to appeal is a statutory right an
ars no valid fruit. Considering that the subject tax assessment is void for violation of due process, the other matters raised by petitione
ure, mutual in essence. It implies agreement. One partycannot impose it upon the other. Compromise penalties are onlyamounts sug
presumption of regularity, and the presumption may be overthrown only by evidence to the contrary. When an act is official, a presum
odify, much less set aside such final assessment. And since the assessments in question had become final and unappealable, there is n
oner of its right to submit its comments or arguments with supporting documents at one stage in the assessment process. This clearly
es from July 19, 2011 to December 31, 2011 are properly subject to DST.However, petitioner failed to present evidence which would sh
till "be adjusted if paid beyond the date specified therein". Similar to the Fitness By Design case, although the disputed notice provide
before proceeding with tax collection. Tax collection should be premised on a valid assessment, which would allow the taxpayer to pr
like tax exemptions - are strictly construed against taxpayers, the latter having the burden to prove strict compliance with the condit
al findings. On the other hand, in the advent of RA No. 10963 otherwise known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN
ner committed misrepresentation of facts when it sought respondent's ruling leading to the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-245-2005, is
e FLD and FAN in Assessment No. IT-116-LOA-00021-10-13-191 for deficiency Income Tax in the amount of P78,384,643.51 and the As
er merely by virtue of Memorandum of Assignment (RRS-044-REA-REF-1010-00012) dated October 21, 2010 signed by Mr. Gerry O. D
e known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually re
ansfer of registration to RDO No. 29, since this RDO is beyond the jurisdiction of RR No. 8 Makati. Consequently, no valid authority to e
generation of electricity. Moreover, the same COC must be secured from the ERC before the actual commercial operations of the conc
s its enabling law, the LGC. To uphold the RMRC provision would effectively remove the taxpayer's choice to be refunded in cash and
d the tax thereon shall accrue and shall be paid to petitioner.In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court En Bane finds no reversible
judicial claim. With the foregoing findings, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve other matters raised. , CTA Case No. EB 1846
ties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on a taxpayer in the event that
ocedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process. Moreover, part of the administrative due process requirement is th
e of Accreditation, a BOI Registration, and a DOE Certificate of Endorsement Petitioner should have obtained the said documents since
ly made beyond the jurisdictional 30-day period. As a consequence, this Court is deprived of its jurisdiction to act on the Petition for R
nd other accounting records, i.e., no investigation therefore there was no LOA to speak of. We find that, in this case, the lack of an LOA
rity. Moreover, upon the same reason, the subject compromise penalties paid by petitioner may also be considered as a sum which w
tion Case, is construed that Regional Trial Court, the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, have original jurisdic
has an interest in the swift collection of taxes, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and its officers and agents cannot be overreaching in th
due to lack of authority on the part of the revenue officers to continue the audit/investigation of petitioner's possible tax liabilities fo
state of mind, intent can be deduced from the actions of the . accused. To reiterate for emphasis, accused has been VAT-registered ta
nt to a minimum of 40% of the basic tax assessed; and, (2) in case of a settlement lower than the prescribed minimum, the compromi
it "P-4".Like Exhibit "P-3", Exhibit "P-4" was not objected to by petitioner when it was properly offered. Thus, Exhibit "P-4" became pa
) on March 19, 2018. Thus, counting sixty (60) days from March 19, 2018, petitioner has until May 18, 2018 within which to file a peti
tion 222(A) of the NIRC, as he failed to establish such allegation. It is nothing more than an empty allegation on the part of responden
chored on are intrinsically void. The invalidity of the deficiency assessments is due to the absence of authority on the part of the reven
xpayers and collect the correct amount of tax, or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency tax due. Based on the foregoing, a r
nes, but does not prove that such entity is a non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines; while proof of re
facie its right to the claim for refund of input VAT representing unutilized input value added tax arising from its zero-rated sales for CY
April 25, 2016) by petitioner of the SIR's letter dated April 15, 2016, denying petitioner's application for VAT refund or credit. After the
g received any of the subject notices, and claims to have learned about the assessment, only when she was served with a Warrant of A
al jurisdiction of this Court, which is dedicated exclusively for the resolution of tax problems, if the ground from which such claim is ma
support the taxpayer in obtaining relief from taxes under a Tax Treaty and have no bearing with respect to petitioner's claim of input V
ss argue to debunk the findings of the Court in Division's conclusion on the application of the 3-year prescriptive period to assess. , C
hile the Court may send notices twice, such will not prejudice any party. Likewise, this is not proscribed and is not fatal to any litigant's
ed, such was improperly imposed because the said provision only applies to corporations, associations, or general co-partnerships in a
g Navigation, Inc. and FIM Limited of the Marden Group (HK) as additional parties-petitioners. The Supreme Court has ruled that if an a
f its input VAT claim for refund/credit. , CTA Case No. 9632
n this particular matter. Finally, this Court also finds no merit in respondent's contention that petitioner is estopped from denying recei
ductions from gross income of PEZA-registered enterprises enumerated in the IRR of the PEZA Law and RR No. 2-2005, as amended by
d act of substantial under-declaration of her gross sales/receipts (more than 30%) manifests her willful intention to deprive the govern
ich to file both the administrative and judicial claims for refund. Undoubtedly, petitioner's administrative claim for refund of excess CW
ue the tax audit. Hence, the deficiency tax assessments issued against petitioner, based on her finding and recommendation after audi
the Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon the remaining issues raised in this Petition. , CTA Case No. 9315
tion for tax clearance and presented a Delinquency Verification Report for Tax Clearance issued by the BIR. Such document cannot be c
m showed that petitioner had no output tax liability against which the claimed input VAT may be applied or credited. Also, the present
ly, the BIR should not impose additional requirements that would negate the availment of the reliefs provided under international agre
ed void and ineffectual. , CTA Case No. EB 1837
, 2016 was issued by Revenue District Officer Aninag, the same cannot be regarded as a valid LOA within the context of the law. This pr
nder the WDL. Consequently, the WDL, which is the subject of the present Petition for Review, must perforce be cancelled and set asid
espondent remained passive as he chose not to present any evidence during trial; and this, despite his facility in checking its own recor
ercent (0%) VAT under Section 108 (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9546
e Regional Director. Correspondingly, RO Jamael B. Hamid is not clothed with valid authority to examine the books of accounts and oth
the assailed Decision on December 18,2017, the RTC Order dated May 23, 2016 was already final and executory as stated in the Certi
a magical incantation that would automatically suffice to warrant new trial or reopening of this case. It behooves upon Deutsche to sho
d jurisprudential pronouncements in the Medicard and Sony cases, and consistent with respondent's RMC No. 75-2018 upholding the
ith original charter. The Supreme Court later reiterated that local water districts are GOCCs with special charter in Mendoza v. Commi
given an unfair trial. It appears that all the necessities of due process were met: (1) respondent's Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 9
below, to wit , CTA Case No. 9329
t both the administrative and judicial claims have been filed within two years from the date of its payment on March 17, 2017 as provi
efund or credit." "This is the reason why a claimant must positively show compliance with the statutory requirements provided for und
ese consolidated cases. Without any showing that there was an assessment, or any other proof that there was a final determination o
n or by some officer having no authority to levy the tax, or one which is some other similar respect is illegal. In other words, for taxes t
d as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the same quarter, thereby, preventing the carry-over or application of the claimed input VAT in the
her. Discrediting the witness and the veracity of his or her statements is after all, the function of cross-examination. That said, the trut
days mandatory and jurisdictional periods to seek judicial intervention in its claim for VAT refund.Note that a taxpayer must prove not
nted to the compromise penalties, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpaye
to proof. Without the corresponding invoices and/or official receipts, the Court cannot ascertain the actual nature of the assessed ex
d. VAT, like income tax, also cannot be assessed based on under-declared purchases, precisely because no sale, exchange or gross recei
a new doctrine divests the office of the jurisdiction it originally exercised, the proper and prudent course of action to take would be to
nclusion is that the subject tax deficiency assessment against the petitioner for the taxable year 2012 is void and bears no valid fruit. In
te. There is also no indication that petitioner communicated such fact to respondent in a misleading way, either by words, conduct, or
a time-honored principle that a judgment has to be based on facts. Further, a conclusion cannot be based on a premise which, in itsel
er in full during the month of acquisition, or spread over a period of time, depending on the aggregate acquisition cost of the capital g
nts presented bythe parties.In view of the foregoing discussions, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse the assailed Dec
ement embodied in Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court are no longer necessary to convince us that said amended BI
utual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter which is so compromised. The imposition of the same w
er Section 203 of the NIRC, the Court is convinced that there is no reason to disturb the findings of the Court a quo. , CTA Case No. E
ounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed on or exacted from the taxpayer in the event that a taxpay
liability for the period, and that it was eventually deducted from total available input tax under Line 23D as a "VAT Refund/TCC Claime
rticulated in various ways in the process of taxassessment. After all, the State's purpose is to ensure the well-beingof its citizens, not si
what the law is, and stands as the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. In other words, there is only one Supreme Court from wh
ming the exemption, We find that CCI in this case was able to discharge the burden of proof to establish its right to a tax credit or refu
nt notices of assessment issued by petitioner were null and void in violation of respondent's right to due process.Considering that the e
ave been issued by respondent. It is noteworthy that the voluntary payment was made by petitioner on September 4, 2015, which is t
the lack of the requisite authority of RO Sabile, through an LOA, to conduct the audit investigation of petitioner fortaxable year 2006.R
r financial institutions" as defined under Section 131(e) of the LGC of 1991 and Section 3A.01 (e) of the RMRC, so as to justify the colle
t cannot be over-emphasized that tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxp
amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpaye
asis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption is also strictissim
s a distinction between a "resident foreign corporation" and a "nonresident corporation" insomuch so that registration or incorporatio
s a claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit. , CTA Case No. 9154
was incurred or paid. In sum, the arguments raised to support the petition were bereft of legal basis. Hence, there is no compelling rea
udgment final and executory. A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is errone
rly imposed by a provision or provisions of law. The payments of CGT and DST made by petitioner for prior transactions is not sanction
ection 45(b) of the RP-ADB Agreement. Thus, respondents are not entitled to the refund of income tax collected from them for CY 201
taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because it is a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matt
arters of CY 2014 , CTA Case No. 9518
tax imposition on Philippine citizens or nationals under Section 24(A)(1)(a) and (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, must be applied
hen payment of the subject tax assessments should be made. In the same vein, an examination of the subject Assessment Notices wou
notices were indeed received by petitioner's authorized agent in its office address in Sampaloc, Manila. Such failure therefore shows th
rder to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. , CTA Case No. EB 1875
ove the loss and destruction of the originals thereof, and neither did Zuellig attempt to show, either independendy or during trial, that
gregate amount of Php22,098,415.04 for the year ending December 31,2012. , CTA Case No. EB 1960
e entry, and the actual value in weight, quantity or measurement declared in the entry which constitutes a pima facie evidence of frau
an LOA. In case of re-assignment or transfer of cases to another RO, it is mandatory that a new UA or LOA be issued with the correspo
othing could be refunded where there is no showing of prior payment. Hence, the dismissal of the instant Petition is in order. , CTA C
ent evidence to prove the said amount. In the instant case, there is still a question of whether the amounts of Php1,443,688,705.63 fo
without the issuance of an LOA. Hence, following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Medicard, Assessment Notice No. RR-16-099-082
ess rights were violated because there is failure on respondent's part to strictly observed the mandatory procedure for issuing deficie
g. Under RMO No. 32-2005, the LN should have been converted to a LOA before proceeding with the examination and assessment of
nd 2012 are clearly void for being violative of petitioner's right to due process. "An invalid assessment bears no valid fruit." Consequen
P2,469,652.51 for taxable year 2010 issued against MSH. , CTA Case No. EB 1807
ue officer can conduct an examination or assessment. Equally important is that the revenue officer so authorized must not go beyond
hould also be invalidated. , CTA Case No. EB 1922
iency VAT for the period January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012. While it is true that the there is no semiannual VAT return, the assessment
15, 2017, within which to act on petitioner's claim. However, since respondent failed to expressly act on the said claim, petitioner had
he submission of complete documents in support of such claim. Once the taxpayer receives the decision issued within the 120-day per
bed under Sections 110 (A) and (B), 237, and 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 4.110-1, 4.110-8, and 4.113-
d subject of collection under WDL No. RR5-2AMS-DA-06-21-181258(024) dated June 21, 2018 on July 2, 2018. Stated otherwise, there
y income tax found in the Joint Complaint Affidavit, which does not even bear the signature of the CIR. Accordingly, considering that s
books and other accounting records or issue an assessment against the petitioner. Further, it is noted that the Memorandum of Assign
tantamount to unjust enrichment on the part of the government. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. To be
laim for refund.However, the Court agrees with petitioner on the issue that respondent may only impose twenty five percent (25%) su
d the taxpayer, such is only true if the said agreement was made before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the ass
TA Case No. O-634
advances covered by inter-office memoranda were not loan agreements subject to DST. Petitioner relied on the cases of Filinvest Deve
ent's vast resources for tax assessment, collection and enforcement, on one hand, and the solitary taxpayer's dual need to prosecute i
on cannot be made to rest on another presumption. Hence, assessment should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how re
n, the CIR cited Coral Bay's PEZA Certificate of Registration,Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 42-200323 as well as theSuprem
hat the crime was committed by accused Ong and Chua because they underdeclared Enviroaire's gross sales and taxable income for 2
own database (AITEID data) not verified with the pertinent externally sourced documents to check its veracity and without the corrob
n enjoyed by FCDUs under the 1977 Tax Code was reinstated. Per the present Section 27 of the NIRC, as amended, income derived by a
petitioner paid on June 30, 2015 the amount of P4,565,349.07, representing additional estate tax on the HSBC Savings Account that w
o the taxpayer or authorized representative of the taxpayer. The BIR even admitted that the NIC and PAN were received by the recept
ations. It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that no person shall be deprived of property without due process o
orrectly ruled that wrongful payment may also pertain to one levied without statutory authority. There is nothing in the cases cited by
assessment has become final and unappealable. It cannot be said that respondent failed to submit relevant supporting documents th
terate the disquisitions therein. As to petitioner CIR's arguments that it was not given a single day to process the claim for refund as w
hat "a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or act
ust be filled within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax. Upon perusal of the case, petitioner paid and remitted to the BI
must be strictly observed by the BIR during the various segments of the assessment process. Both provide inter alia that the taxpayer
VAT official receipts and invoices; some of the invoices/ receipts in support of its claimed input taxes did not indicate the quantity, unit
r's judicial claim for refund. Well-settled in this jurisdiction is the fact that actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a c
Five Hundred Fifty Two Million Five Hundred Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Pesos and Sixty Centavos (P552,545, 164.60
pt of such notice. Otherwise, the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to file a protes
m only (1) within thirty (30) days after the CIR partially or fully denies the claim within the 120-day period, or (2) within thirty (30) days
d by the law that granted it, the 1991 LGC Following this, the City of Makati's taxing power does not extend to the levy of income tax,
CCLL's tax liability. Thus, the investigation conducted by RO Sison was without the requisite authority. In Medicard, the Supreme Court
nternal Revenue. The Court of Tax Appeals has undoubted jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regu
oner failed to have it identified by any of its witnesses as indicated in the Resolution dated March 7, 2016, it was denied admission. M
es. While Section 204 applies to administrative claims for refund, and Section 229 to judicial claims for refund, in both instances, howe
s proper, subject to the provisions of Section 112It is worthy to note that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove its entitlement to the
T shall be imposed to form part of the cost of the goods destined for consumption outside the territorial border of the taxing authorit
y in the making of assessment, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period of prescription citizens would have a feeling of sec
" Since the two-year prescriptive period is found in Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which is a special law, the s
iled Resolutions. "An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not requi
on the client. 'The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel['s) acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural tech
nc notes that the arguments presented herein are a mere rehash, in fact, quoted verbatim, of the arguments offered by the CIR in his
cted by respondent: to claim for refund or apply for a tax credit. Thus, there is no merit in petitioner's argument that respondent may
f the legal effects of a merger of two corporate entities and consequently resolve the issues raised in this case. Section 76 of the said
Tax Appeals. This means that while the CIR has the right to hear a refund claim first, if he or she fails to act on it, it will be treated as a
dual, whether a citizen of the Philippines residing therein or alien residing in the Philippines. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 23(A), 24,
law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen's right is amply protec
efund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certifi
uction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the p
e, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action.58 Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the su
ces which, at most create only suspicion and the mere understatement of a tax is not itself proof of fraud for the purpose of tax evasio
taxpayer must pay the tax deficiencies is vital to the validity of the assessment. Hence, the absence of the specific period in the FLD a
urisdiction. 22 The jurisdiction of the CTA, in particular those falling under the "other matters" clause has been ruled to include, but no
se of discretion, the ruling of the Court in Division in denying petitioner's Motion for New Trial will not be interfered with by the Court
authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, howev
ly against the taxpayer. Relevant to the disposition of the evidentiary nature of the issue in this case is Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,
thirty (30) years or until the cooperative becomes completely free from indebtedness incurred from borrowing, whichever comes firs
the revenue officers named therein as non-existent and not legally binding. Such being the case, the said revenue officers are deeme
tion to act on petitioner's appeal. There being no indication that the warrants issued to effect collection the subject liability, there is n
not applied against output tax. , CTA Case No. 9450
rt continued: an LOA "empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a t
lid zero-rated sales pursuant to Section 106(A)(2)(A)(l) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the claimed input VAT allegedly attributable t
ment. Similarly, the Court cannot rule on the other issues raised by the petitioner in its Petition for Review. , CTA Case No. 9563
ing violative of petitioner's right to due process. Considering that petitioner did not actually receive the assessment, the same cannot
e Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Finance. There is nothing in the provision that expressly subject alkylate to
t the FLD/FAN was mailed on even date.54 As regards the PAN, respondent expressly admitted that the same was issued and served t
C. , CTA Case No. EB 1735
rocess rendered the Audit Results/Assessment Notice (RPS) void, fruitless and without any legal significance. , CTA Case No. 9766
suant to Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9572
xes, we find this bereft of merit because it is plain from the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court that issues related to or depende
rterly VAT Return for the 1 of CY 2015. Therefore, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of Php80,430,008.8
was issued. Without objecting to such description by OAC, there is no new contract involved that must be subject of DST anew. More
a Letter of Authority. In case of re-assignment or transfer of cases to another RO, it is mandatory that a new LIA or LOA be issued with
tal gains derived from the transfer of its shares of stock in GECRF PH shall be exempt from CGT in the Philippines, pursuant to the RP-U
-00019.59 The record is bereft of any showing that such LN was transformed into a LOA as decreed by both RMO No. 32- 2005 and jur
r business" and is, therefore, not subject to VAT. , CTA Case No. EB 1776
which a petition for review may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. Where an adverse ruling has been rendered by the Commission
f a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains not only a computation of tax liabilities but als
ould save the day for them. The reason is evident there is no law or treaty explicitly sparing their compensation income earned at the
tive LOA, this Court finds that the waivers were likewise defective and the right of respondent to assess petitioner's tax liabilities for T
prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit. , CTA Case No. 7565
pay the same. Absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. , CTA C
eedless to say, a just and impartial decision fundamentally requires evidentiary facts from which the decision may be based. On a final
tax liabilities of the succeeding taxable years (also known as automatic tax credit) until fully utilized (meaning, there is no prescriptive
amental that the findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion consid
nue officer must show that he has been granted authority through an LOA to conduct the examination or assessment. Otherwise, the
cause of action arose, no downward reclassification, i.e., from Tier 2 to Tier 1, of petitioner's beer products was made. Therefore, the
packing list and commercial invoice, among others. Nevertheless, the seized steel products stand to be forfeited in favor of the govern
oper, the interest and compromise penalty imposed by respondent thereon likewise have no basis.' Clearly, the BIR made an assessm
the BIR, which is a government office; and respondent, a corporate body attached to the Department of Tourism, created and organiz
7, 30, 2013, and December 11, 2013, since the 7-year extension lapsed after June 30, 2012 and the Special Treatment was only reinsta
d from the ABS. In view of the foregoing, the income or yield derived by the investors or bondholders from petitioner's security notes,
l" doctrine, is, therefore, bereft of merit.To summarize, for the just disposition of the subject controversy, the rule is that from the da
mably with our system of judicial administration speaks the last word on what the law is, and stands as the final arbiter of any justicia
e nature of tax exemptions. 28 Consequently, the taxpayer claiming the tax credit or refund has the burden of proving that he is entitl
same be due to inadvertence or purposely resorted to, the Court cannot ignore that, since its receipt of the FDDA, more than nine (9)
nt, either by the execution of a formal loan agreement, a promissory note, a credit/debit memo, or an advice or drawings to prove tha
onsistent ruling, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation; there is only room fo
al. Correspondingly, the subject dispute or claim is one falling under jurisdiction of the Secretary of Justice. Such being the case, pursu
f "willfulness", the Court acquits the accused of the crime of willful failure to file ITRs for 2011 and 2012 under Section 255 of the NIRC
officers and agents cannot be overreaching in their efforts, but must perform their duties in accordance with law, with their own rule
ng. In the instant case, petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be prejudiced if he chooses to wait for the final decision of the CIR on h
zed through an LOA, are void. Thus, contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the subject tax assessments cannot attain finality. For bein
are zero-rated, would unduly enrich petitioner at the expense of the government. Under the law, no one shall unjusdy enriched (sic) h
ernment-owned corporations, and the BIR, a government office, over the imposition of VAT on the sale of the two power plants. Ther
ble against the output VAT. Such being the case, even when the VAT official receipts of respondent show payment to hotels and resor
ssessment duly made by a Bureau oflntemal Revenue examiner and approved by his superior officers will not be disturbed. All presum
ally considered to be synonymous with the term 'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the credible evidence.' It is evid
equity.9 Mere negligence is not equivalent to the fraud contemplated by law.10 , CTA Case No. EB 1574
ent of any attempt on the part of the taxpayer to evade payment. The obligation to pay the tax is not a mere consequence of the felo
w upon which the assessment is made. It must be remembered that the law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement
o another RDO with a new team ofROs. Neither do these issuances allow the RDO to modify the scope and coverage of a validly issue
ry of a tax being "unjustly" assessed. There is no showing that there is a rational connection between being "unjustly" assessed of a ta
editable withholding tax prescribed in Section 2.57.20) of RR No. 2-98 does not apply to income payments made to the city governme
ot be imposed upon petitioner considering that this penalty, by its nature, is mutual in essence. Therefore, the payment made under p
e tax or franchise / tax, whichever is lower, must be paid, under the conditions set forth in Section 13 of PD No. 1590; 2. The articles, m
ated sales, petitioner must comply with the following requisites: 1. the taxpayer is VAT-registered; 2. the claim for refund was filed wi
primary purpose as shown in the Articles of Incorporation neither shows that none of its activities are covered by the BSP Manual aki
indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be m
who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the RulesY Since Asurion HK-ROHQ failed to do so, it h
ounts by a BIR examiner who is not duly authorized to do so, is a complete nullity. Thus, considering that the Revenue Officers who co
ssment will justify the judicial affirmance of said assessment. , CTA Case No. 8696
e being no sales incurred by respondent, petitioner may not impose VAT on such transfer of assets. , CTA Case No. EB 1755
evels of the protest, i.e., FLD/FAN, leaves the taxpayer with fewer options, such as going to the Court of Tax Appeals on appeal or ente
he taxing authority. Hence, actual export of goods and services from the Philippines to a foreign country must be free of VAT; while, th
epeat, is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period, be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the
ment of EWT for the month of July against its EWT due for the month of August because taxes cannot be the subject of set-off or com
overeign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund , CTA Case No. 9320
he Court deems it proper to deny petitioner's claimed excise taxes on SML in kegs , CTA Case No. 9223
e accomplished after the said effectivity date. , CTA Case No. 9395
that the claim for refund was filed within the prescriptive period; 3. that there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 4. th
subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. The imposition of
udicial claims would result in the denial of the claim. 25 The party who intends to appeal must comply with the procedures and rules g
r-debtor relationship is created under a quasi-contract whereby the payor becomes the creditor who then has the right to demand th
f the taxing authority. , CTA Case No. EB 1750
d that the Court cannot compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement b
pines. Moreover, the alleged amount involved in both cases exceeds one million pesos. Thus, the Court of Tax Appeals have jurisdictio
r subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. Absent a showing
as not established which caused her acquittal. She was exonerated for absence or lack of willfulness on their part not to pay the taxes
efund. , CTA Case No. 9087
s against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, therefore statutes that allow
of tax laws, there is no payment until the whole or entire tax liability is completely paid. Thus, a payment of a part or portion thereof,
ary requirements sufficient to support his claim, unless given further extension by the CIR. , CTA Case No. 8896
rwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. , CTA Case No. EB 1686
d by at least two (2) revenue officers, other than the revenue officer who caused such constructive service; and c) the revenue officer e
yer requests a reinvestigation which is granted by the Commissioner; (3) when the taxpayer cannot located in the address given by hi
CIR, the taxpayer has thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review with the CTA. , CTA Case No. 9471
or complied with. To be clear, what is refundable under Section 112 (A) is the input VAT attributable to the taxpayer-claimant's zer
he taxpayer. To enable the taxpayer to determine his remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and rece
an application for a refund to necessarily include the filing of complete supporting documents to prove entitlement for th
r. However, reporting and remittance of the VAT paid to theBIR remained to be the seller/supplier's obligation. Hence, the properparty
arded as in derogation ofsovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi jurisagainst the person or entity claiming the refund. 81 T
unauthorized. 59 RMO No. 1-90 expressly provides thatcompromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement ofcriminal lia
y signalling the timewhen penalties and interests begin to accrue against thetaxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedie
ond reasonable doubt. , CTA Case No. 5
hed by the prosecution by the required quantum of proof.Finally, no civil liability may likewise be adjudged againstaccused-appellant a
his Court. However, the present Petition for Review was filed only on September 28, 2015. Clearly, Petitioner's judicial claim was bela
ssment is void. 49The rationale behind the requirement that taxpayersshould be informed of the facts and the law on which theassess
construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, but alsothe pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to anexemption is str
AT can be attributed for the year 2013. Correspondingly,petitioner failed to comply with the eighth requisite in obtaining acredit/refund
onstrued strictissimi juris against the claimants and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. This power of taxation being a high prerog
bation qui dicit non qui negat; i.e., "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." The conviction of appellant must rest not on the
rted into an LOA before proceeding with the further examination and assessment of the taxpayer. Otherwise, the assessment is void f
tion, the salaries and emoluments received by Filipino employees of the ADB are subject to income tax , CTA Case No. 9305
e exempted from IAET, such appropriation must be for the immediate needs of the business and the definiteness of plans coupled wit
as presented, as well, who could have testified that respondent did indeed receive the PAN, lead to the conclusion that respondent di
d in jurisprudence is that the burden lies on the prosecution to overcome the accused's presumption of innocence by presenting the q
ippines, each entity must be supported, at the very least, by both a certificate of nonregistration of corporation/partnership issued by
ce presented by the taxpayer does not ipso facto entitle the taxpayer to a tax refund. , CTA Case No. EB 1685
hey do not establish that such entities are not doing business in the Philippines. , CTA Case No. 9496
by law, the three-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed, except when a taxpayer fails to file a return, in whic
ion or inaction after the 120-day period, the taxpayer may institute a judicial claim by filing an appeal before the CTA within 30 days f
s.95 Even assuming that there is undeclared income, there are also payments or expenses which were unreported. If this is the case,
between the former (the basic law) and the latter (the rules and regulations implementing the said basic law), the former prevails, bec
laiming the refund79. Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of its claim for tax refund. , CTA Case No. 9017
bal and Isabel B. Cristobal. Also significant to note is the relief prayed for by petitioner which is not for the nullification or setting aside
ed duty under the Tariff and Customs Code should not be allowed to prejudice the right of the party adversely affected thereby. Techn
ed entity for the second quarter of year 2013. , CTA Case No. 9211
ns in the interest of justice and fairplay. , CTA Case No. 9094
n corporation not doing business in the Philippines. , CTA Case No. 9434
it of the person mailing the same was presented by Respondent. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do not prove them
ufficient justification to delete the imposition of surcharges and interest , CTA Case No. EB 1697
etro South Davao Property Corporation (MSDPC), a domestic corporation, in exchange for MSDPC shares. In the case, it was stated th
ereign authority and to be construed the person or entity claiming the refund. The pieces of evidence presented entitling taxpayers to
the payment made by petitioner under protest were lower than the amounts computed by the Court for deficiency income tax, EWT
cancelled as petitioner was denied its right to due process. , CTA Case No. 8867
orized as NBFIs for purposes of local business taxation. If an entity is not primarily engaged in NBFI activities as it principally performs
iency, the surcharges, interests and penalties, such taxpayer must still file a written protest within the 60-day period, and then bring t
n established policy by the SEC to require registrants of holding companies to insert this particular statement in their AOI as a requirem
rmined by the Court a quo, substantial justice also dictates that the government should not keep the money that does not belong to i
comes later. Accordingly, an assessment notice issued after the said three-year prescriptive period is no longer valid and effective. , C
ase No. 9273
and proof of incorporation, association or registration in a foreign country. , CTA Case No. 9100
ment of the tax, 2) It must be shown on the return that the income received was declared as part of the gross income; and 3) the
T subject of the exemption. , CTA Case No. EB 1644
re of the taxpayer to pay the tax on the date fixed in the law for its payment. , CTA Case No. EB 1611
nd to income tax as long as it is levied on banks and other financial institutions. , CTA Case No. EB 1749
e be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 9399

heir case and adduce supporting evidence. - THis is for the case of CIR v. BASF Coating + Ink. JURISPRUDENCE : Consequently, respon
eficiency. , CTA Case No. EB 1743

he compromise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subje
n subjected to tax is actually exempt from taxation. , CTA Case No. EB 1753
unction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of a party or otherwise. , CTA Cas
, for failure of the accused to show compliance with the forgoing provision, the computations made by the BIR, as appearing in the PA
fees received by petitioner in CYs 2013 and 2014 which were verified to have been booked/recorded under "Consultancy Services" in
find it logical that its contractees and licensees shall likewise pay corporate income tax for income derived from such 'related services
at there were erroneously collected/withheld STT in the amount of P62,444,697.57, petitioner was able to prove compliance with the
s, political subdivisions or instrumentalities, or a government-owned or -controlled corporation, the employee thereof responsible fo
he part of the taxpayer to mislead him [1] which are certainly not obtaining in the instant case. , CTA Case No. 9134
ased on actual facts. Since there is no proof that Fernandez Holdings, Inc. can be considered as a non-bank financial intermediary or is
case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff." x x x In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who
unutilized as the said amount was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed" in its Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the first37 quarte
ation requirements prescribed under Sections 110 (A) and 113 (A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 4.11
vidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven.26 In this case, Sonom
by the CIR himself or by his duly authorized representatives, an examination of the taxpayer by a revenue officer cannot be validly ma
ncome tax due, especially that the BIR agreed to collect any such taxes from the DOTr as reflected in the Minutes of the March 8, 200
the tax exemption granted under Section 45(b) of the RPADB Agreement. Thus, petitioners' claim for refund must perforce fail. , CTA
axpayer to appeal the disputed assessment is not deemed instituted with the criminal case. To rule otherwise would be to render nug
amental that the findings of fact by the CTA in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion consid
under Item No. 5.1.3 of RR No. 11-2004, which requires that CRM/POS machines being used by the taxpayer must be able to generate
e concerned revenue officers, and thus, bear no valid fruit,[1]it becomes unnecessary to address the remaining stipulated issue and th
ancial institutions" as defined in Section 133 ( c ) of the LGC of 1991, thus . "Section 131 ( e ) of the LGC of 1991 defines "banks and oth
eglementary period provided for under the aforequoted Section 195. On March 2, 2005, respondent TRANSCO received the denial of i
ner, even after the expiration of the above-stated 180+30-day periods, so long as the concerned taxpayer awaits the final decision of p
e right to dispute or present its arguments against a tax assessment. This is part of the procedural due process in the administrative le
asis in deciding a case, or in granting a relief. A judgment has to be based on facts. Conjectures and surmises cannot substitute for the
ceived in 2010 may not be the subject of I-BT imposed by petitioners for the first half of 2011. , CTA Case No. EB 1703
aw. , CTA Case No. 9001
d, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the ret
mber 29, 2015 on October 15, 2015 is a wrong interpretation and application of the law and jurisprudence. The inaction of responden
ence of competent proof that the revenue examiners who conducted the audit and investigation of petitioner's books of accounts and
ollowing ways: (1) file the judicial claim within 30 days after the respondent denies the claim within the 120-day waiting period, or (2)
oid. Hence, the respondents cannot be held civilly liable for the subject assessments in this case, as a void assessment bears no valid f
1][2] In this case, petitioner failed to prove that it is exempt from the 10% income tax provided under Section 27 (B) of the NIRC of 19
t notice final, executory, and demandable. , CTA Case No. 9331
MO No. 19-07, compromise penalties are only suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the
015, or until April 27, 20 16 to decide on petitioner's claim. However, respondent failed to act on the claim within the allowable perio
Said appeal may be availedof by filing a petition for review with the CTA within thirty daysafter receipt of a copy of such decision or rul
onstrued strictissimi juris against the claimants and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. This power of taxation being a high prerog
amended, by failure to pay VATfor taxable year 2011 (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-454), the followingelements must be established:1. An atte
120-day period, the ruling of the Supreme Court in theAichi Forging case is clear in stating that the 30-day period to file anappeal shou
or until February 23,201536 within which to file its administrative protest. Thus, theProtest Letter dated January 5, 2015 filed by petit
ent of donor's tax is the privilege, duly exercised bypetitioners, of transferring the subject property to their common child.It is beyond
n evidence to prove that taxeswere indeed withheld. , CTA Case No. EB 1666
ence from the close of the saidtaxable quarter on June 30, 2015. As such, petitioner had untilJune 30, 2017 within which to file its adm
August 31,2010. Petitioner has failed to muster any legal basis against the settledjurisprudence and to surmount the holding of the Cou
netary Boardsubject to judicial review. The mere fact that petitioner hasinvestments in SMC and money market placements does notp
known to and obtainable to petitioner; and could have been presented and offered in a seasonable manner; which petitioner seeks to
ken. The circumstances contemplated under Section 6 where the taxpayer may be assessed through best-evidence obtainable, invento
tion of petitioner PTI'srecords, initially to Revenue Officer (RO) Wilhelfortes Asprerwho was replaced by RO Elma V. Delluta and Group
pass resolutions, among others, determining the powers and duties of city officials, subject to the provisions of the LGC of 1991 and p
three-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed, except when a taxpayer fails to file a return, in which case a defi
es in the form of a LOA. The LOA is a proof that the person/s named therein is/are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/
es in the form of a LOA. The LOA is a proof that the person/s named therein is/are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/
c. do not constitute sales transactions but merely stock subscriptions. As previously stated, the subject transactions do not constitute s
pectively, a careful reading of the EPIRA Law reveals that petitioner was not completely divested of such functions, , CTA Case No. EB
able and therefore, demandable. Where an adverse ruling has been rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference
ed, first, to afford the CIR an opportunity to correct the action of subordinate officers; and second, to notify the government that such
he fact that it was signed and issued by the OIC-Chief of RL TAD II and not by the Assistant Commissioner of the Large Taxpayer Service
s received by defendant only on July 27, 2010. This was beyond the thirty (30)-day deadline on July 26, 2010 (July 25, 2010 being a Sun
unds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or related laws
used. On the other hand, the BIR miserably failed to exact from respondent compliance with its rules. The SIR's negligence in the perfo
any output tax. Even though the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, the same is
essments on the ground that its own representative did not have the authority to sign the Waivers. Moreover, the signatory in the Wai
se rules is undoubtedly desirable, they may be relaxed in cases where their application would frustrate, rather than facilitate, the ends
dering that petitioner filed this Petition for Review on May 15, 201542, the instant Petition for Review was timely flied. Since the Petit
ntity claiming the refund and in favor of the taxing power. This is the reason why a claimant must positively show compliance with th
hat is to say, with bad purpose either to obey or to disregard the law.Clearly, therefore, to attribute to accused a "willful failure to pay"
covery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected until a written claim for refund or credit has been filed with the loca
ing smuggled goods in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or place may be subjected to seizure, detention and forf
numerous rulings of the BIR that intercompany advances are not subject to DST. Moreover, theCA and CTA, the specialized body handl
2016, as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed"34 from the total available input tax of P25,004,942.5135, thus, preventing the carry-over or applic
s is necessary for such a claim to prosper, whether before, during or after the effectivity of the Atlas doctrine, except for the period fro
m before this Court considering that respondent has not acted on the application within the said period. As a result, petitioner's judicia
tly, this Court cannot order the Commissioner or the Bureau of Customs to refund or issue a tax credit certificate with respect to the a
e presumption are (1) that it was received in the regular course of mail and (2) that said PAN was properly addressed with postage prep
have been properly subjected to EWT; hence, the deficiency EWT assessment should likewise be sustained. Accordingly, petitioner is li
d Division. Petitioner cannot shield itself from the principle that claims for refund are to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpa
local business taxes upon holding companies' dividend, interest income and profit from the exchange or sale of property, petitioner m
vor of the State.74 Consequently, the taxpayer is charged with the heavy burden of proving clearly the factual basis of its claim.75 Failu
as not authorized to do so. Thus, the said tax assessments could not have attained finality. , CTA Case No. EB 1629
name of the alleged parent brand, or whether it carries the same logo or design. The purpose behind the definition was to properly tax
elation to Section 108 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended." Given the circumstances at bar, there is nothing in the Court in Division's
of Manila has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. In fine, considering that the RTC of Manila was bereft of authority to
ts or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor presumed to be imposed beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly imp
r the Revenue Regional Director, as the law requires. In this case, the authority to examine and verify respondent's records for taxable
e said quasijudicial agencies should, thus, be filed before the Court of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis supplied) Further, the tax law, regulation
e, the Court finds that the August 5, 2014 Decision of the District Collector has become final and executory. Moreover, even if this Cou
and interest on such deficiency income tax under Sections 248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code. St. Luke's has good rea
to the rest of the requisites pursuant to Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Herein app
ue47 aptly ruled, and we quote: " ... To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently
retation. There is only room for application. The Court may not construe a statute that is free from doubt.41 Considering the clear and
CIR himself or by his duly authorized representatives, an examination of the taxpayer by a revenue officer cannot be validly made.38 C
that effect. As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when
nst the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the State. Consequently, he who claims a refund or exemption from taxes has the burden of ju
le TY 2013 listed by date of remittance and the amount remitted. However, nothing from said list can be tied up, whether singularly or
u, involving the disputed deficiency VAT assessment on PSALM Corporation's proceeds from privatization of NPC's assets, is within the
es are only suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on a taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer
duction of newly discovered or additional evidence which, consequently, leads to the FDDA being denied. It cannot be taken to mean
olders out of its earnings or profits. Property dividend consists of a portion of corporate property paid to shareholders instead of cash
tten board authority to sign the waivers on behalf of respondent corporation; (2) there was no date of acceptance indicated on the wa
16 and July 15, 2016, respectively, within which to file their administrative and judicial claims for refund. Evidently, petitioners' admini
uld be given the opportunity to respond to the PAN. It further provides that in the event that the taxpayer fails to respond to the PAN,
In other words, it must be shown that accused was aware of his obligation to pay the tax, but he nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly
of various revenue officials that their income was subject to lower income tax rates or to zero income tax until the issuance/publicati
ot curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition and shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (b) Conseq
would treat the Petition for Review as a petition for certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in grave abuse of discretion cases, ce
OC for Plant A or B. However, contrary to the CIR's reckoning, what is significant is the period when the alleged zero-rated sales were
ount representing the difference between the amount of excise tax computed based on the rates provided under RMC No. 90-2012 a
e Philippines-Japan Tax Treaty; while the royalty payments of petitioner to TMAP-EM are subject to the preferential tax treaty rate of
ad he tried to re-focus the angle of attention to the non-submission of supporting documents and the nature of the supposed decision
ed from the provisions of Section 249(B) and 249(C)(3) of the 1997 NIRC, which provides for the periods of imposition of the interests.
m, acquired by them, or otherwise coursed through them, either for their own account or for the account of others," in order to be w
ncome tax return for taxable year 2005, was done willfully, with knowledge and voluntariness, and with intentional violation of a know
t maintains the right to subject to income tax the compensation of resident citizens employed by the ADB, the rule then is that reside
ume of sales must be made. No tax credit, however, is allowed for input taxes in case ofVAT-exempt transactions. , CTA Case No. 8941
ume of sales must be made. No tax credit, however, is allowed for input taxes in case ofVAT-exempt transactions. , CTA Case No. 8941
that would prove the knowledge or participation of the petitioner in the alleged smuggling of the metal grits. Specifically, in reversing
ng proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an ac
Bane has no jurisdiction to review said interlocutory order/s issued by the Court in Division because the Court En Bane may only revie
its input VAT for 2013; second, the same Petition avers the correlative duty of respondent to grant the said refund; and third, the sup
hat petitioner was guilty of estoppel as it did not raise any objection against the validity of the four (4) waivers until it was assessed ta
g City for non-payment of realty tax by MRTC. By virtue of petitioner's ownership over the said real properties and considering that the
is prima facie valid and lawful where it does not appear to have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. The burden of proof is upon
n sought to be appealed had already attained finality. Well settled is the rule that judgments or orders become final and executory by
have not been issued by Respondent. (b) Applying the Medicard case ruling to the instant case, Respondent should have secured anot
reaus, agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCCs fall within the initial jurisdiction of the Secretary of Justice or the Solicitor Gen
d decision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word 'must' indicates that the filing of a prio
t of the FLD /FANs on August 16, 2012 but failed to substantiate nor corroborate the same with documentary evidence. Thus, it has lo
hen it shall enjoy such exemption for the remaining period granted by RA No. 7353. However, if the constituent rural banks had alread
gard to the imposition of taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local g
vidence offered by the claimant are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No. 9344
ed in writing of the facts and law on which the assessment is based in order to aid the taxpayer in making a reasonable protest. To im
That would be tantamount to unjust enrichment which is not permitted by the law. , CTA Case No. 9127
g period to give the CIR an opportunity to act on administrative claims; otherwise, their judicial claims are prematurely filed. In Team
inst the City of Davao. Thus, a holding company is neither covered under the definition of "non-banking financial intermediaries" und
ces from the date of filing of the Final Adjustment Return. It is only when the Final Adjustment Return covering the whole year is filed
mulation of the income and not the consequences of the accumulation. Thus, if the failure to pay dividends is due to some other cause
he BIR. Thus, any document submitted by the said taxpayer is considered as "relevant supporting documents" for purposes of the afor
hat the subject shares are owned by the government, it follows that the dividends and any income therefrom are also owned by the g
s ruled by the Supreme Court, the application for a tax treaty relief from the BIR should merely operate to confirm the entitlement of
the NIRC is a substantive requirement. It is not a mere formality. Consequently, the subject assessment is deemed null and void. , CT
unless given further extension by the CIR. Then, upon filing by the taxpayer of his complete documents to support his application, or
n this case, where the failure to present invoices at the first instance was adequately explained by petitioner. (b) Technicalities and le
but more so if the same were not identified and marked as exhibits, such as in the present case. An assay of the records reveals that th
may dance within the dining area, there is no designated dance floor. Likewise, records are bereft of evidence that petitioner employ d
overnment; while Section 133(g) deals with an exemption from "Taxes" that may be levied by local government units. And while the In
orce rules to the contrary that his compensation income was exempt from tax. When Respondent issued RMC No. 31-13 and sought t
said period, petitioner only had until January 12, 2011 to December 31, 2011 to file both its administrative and judicial claims for refu
d GS Lingan the authority to conduct the examination pursuant to LOA No. 125-2011-00000150 dated October 10, 2011. In his capacit
rescriptive period provided under the aforequoted Section 203 of the 1997 NIRC making such assessment void and without any effect
undamental that the findings of fact by the CT A in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion c
simply proper for the Division to deduct from the stated net loss in BCC's 2008 ITR the undeclared gross receipts also from year 2008
ecludes the CTA from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. , CTA Case No. 9176
diesoline, in this case) required for its operations pursuant to Section 109(k) of the NIRC of 1997, in relation to Section 16 of PD No. 97
e stated, an assessment sans a specific date or period within which the alleged tax liabilities must be settled is, in legal contemplation,
fund of the subject excise taxes paid based on Section 135 of the NIRC, as amended, as the payment thereof is deemed illegal or erron
h the Court of Tax Appeals. Clearly, the Petition for Review was filed on time on November 17, 2016. Therefore, both the administrativ
er with their own partners or with professional hostesses engaged by petitioner for that purpose. The evidence however show that th
n 123 of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended, which included, among others, night or day clubs in thecoverage of amusement tax. Thereaf
required report. However, petitioner failed to do so. Thus, the imposition of penalties had its factual basis because petitioner failed to
ourt to uphold respondent's assessment of the subject deficiency income tax. Consequently, respondent's deficiency income tax on th
e Company requesting time to organize its record and if warranted, to pay the tax liability by way of compromise, but she failed to pu
r to file a protest within the reglementary period means that the validity or correctness of the assessment may no longer be question
doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. Where a general rule is established by statute
ithin two (2) years from March 31, 2013-the close of the earliest taxable quarter being claimed for refund (i.e., first quarter of CY 201
poration neither shows that any of its activities are covered by the BSP Manual akin to functions pertaining to a financial intermediary
er Philippine tax treaties. Hence, petitioner's failure to file a TTRA before the date of the transaction does not deprive it of entitlemen
emittance Returns of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation (BIR Forms No. 1601C) for January to December 2007 (Exhibit "R-9''),
with a naked assessment, i.e., without any foundation character, the determination of the tax due is without rational basis. In order to
ary, and the interests and dividends it received in taxable year 2010 may not be the subject of local business tax imposed by responde
submitted certificates from PEZA and Clark Development Corporation certifying that its clients are PEZA-registered. Upon examinatio
Next Mobile case. In contrast to the Next Mobile case, only one Waiver was executed by the parties in the present case. Further, the p
or Reconsideration of the Decision dated July 15, 2015 and declaring the Petition for Review filed with the Court in Division docketed a
vers which it voluntarily executed, the Court resolves to uphold the validity of the subject waivers. Hence, the Court finds that prescrip
actually receive any assessment issued by respondent in order for the same to be valid. , CTA Case No. EB 1476
vidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. In this case, Taganito
d, the above interest expense should be added to respondent's taxable income as disallowed expense. At any rate, even if the said am
new LOA specifically naming the person to whom the case will be reassigned with the corresponding annotation per RMO No. 43-90,
0015840, without a subsequent LOA having been issued. Thus, for lack of an LOA, the tax assessments for deficiency income tax and V
rposes of control and not for investment, any dividend it receives is deemed not to be derived in ordinary course of trade or business
he assessment has not yet prescribed when respondent issued the PAN. , CTA Case No. 9401
pportunity to fully exercise his function to decide claims for refund, or correct, modify or affirm the findings of his subordinates. (b) Co
olding company, respondents failed to establish that as such holding company, petitioner's business is akin to that of an investment co
d not the crew whom respondent trains pursuant to the provision of the applicable service agreement. Respondent's service of trainin
ated a character of finality, such that there can be no doubt that respondent had already made a conclusion to deny petitioner's requ
etitioner is a GOCC. Regardless of how one explains it, petitioner still performs a proprietary function by buying rice, imposing a certai
n (MR) was filed by petitioner which resulted in the assailed amended decision which recognized the petitioner as the proper party to
ment of the correct amount of tax. In other words, the examination of the taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax m
efore, the dismissal of the instant Petition for Review is in order. , CTA Case No. 9025
eview was timely filed on February 13, 2014 and the Court has jurisdiction. (b) In the instant case, respondent failed to make any alleg
is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must be granted as a matter of right. , CTA Case No. O-379
ssments are presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any
ngs before the BOI and the BIR because,again, while both offices perform analogous functions the mandate of their respective offices
' contention to the effect that it is only the DOE which is in a best position to determine the local availability in reasonable quantity, qu
ing petitioner to sleep on its right to appeal before the CTA when the case is deemed denied.After all, the 120-day period to decide is i
egoing, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse or modify the findings of the Court inDivision that respondent APC has suf
tributable to its zero-rated sales for the second, third, and fourth quarters of FY 2011. , CTA Case No. 8580
nt for calendar year 2009 is null and void. , CTA Case No. 9045
he effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. 10 Th
respondent City of Davao may impose tax on banks and financial institutions on its gross receipts derived from interest and dividends
fail.Tax refunds partake the nature of tax exemptions and arethus construed strictissimi juris against the person or entityclaiming the e
ner is liable to pay basic deficiency incometax for taxable year 2011 in the amount of P48,644,253.32 , CTA Case No. 9256
oid. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary for the Court to discuss the rest of the parties' arguments and counter-arguments . , CT
as in The City of Manila case, in transferring exclusivejurisdiction over appealed tax cases to this Court, it can reasonably beassumed th
to prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit. In this case, petitioner failed to discharge this burden with regard to the c
recourse but to dismiss the Petition for Review , CTA Case No. 8791
4, attributable to its zero-rated receipts for the same period. , CTA Case No. 9382
incidental damages allowed to indemnify a party against the expense of successfully asserting his rights in court. The theory on which
Case No. 9355
nt and other accounting records was "for all internal revenue taxes for the period from January 01, 1997 to December 31, 2001 ". Said
y given. In the absence of such an authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity , CTA Case No. EB 1613
as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.3 , C
a situation wherein a letter denying the claim may be dated within the 120-day period but mailed one (1) year later thereby making th
pment Corporation, it is entitled to enjoy the 5% special tax regime in lieu of national and local taxes, including VAT, so long as its sale
ion (SEC)-approved Securitization Plan, hence, not to be considered as deposit substitutes consistent with Sections 30 and 31 of Repu
nt of Distraint and/or Levy. , CTA Case No. 9109
dating dividends in its 2012 ITR and had recognized a net liquidating gain of P33,324,175.00 as part of its "Other Taxable Income not S
to examine the books, records of the petitioner-bank, or any data which may be relevant or material in accordance with Section 16 o
de, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must t
its of its witnesses, 35 no other evidence was duly presented by petitioner to prove that it has strictly complied with all the statutory
riptive period on when to assess taxes benefits both thegovernment and the taxpayer. Exceptions extending the period to assess mus
143(f) of the LGC of 1991 LGC and Section 423 of Ordinance No. 158-05, series of 2005, of Davao City. , CTA Case No. EB 1556
nce to support the falsity of the return, unless the taxpayer fails to overcome the presumption against it." , CTA Case No. 9252
ght denial of the request for reconsideration or reinvestigation and makes the said request deemed rejected. I , CTA Case No. 8765
said gain is not subject to Philippine CGT. As stressed by the High Tribunal in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fortune Tobacco C
e is no reason for the Court to discuss the other issues raised by the CIR. As the Court has often held, procedural rules exist to be follow
ent, having been acquired using coconut levy funds, to be used only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and for the development of
to prove even just one qualification out of three - not locally available in reasonable a) quantity, b) quality or c) price. , CTA Case No.
ercised, the proper and prudent course of action to take would be to refer the case to the appropriate body to which jurisdiction has b
(Except a General Professional Partnership), JointAccount, Joint Venture Taxable as a Corporation orAssociation, Interests, Royalties, Pr
N) and the Formal Letterof Demand (FLD). , CTA Case No. O-424
as part of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the pa
A Case No. 9270
justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted, it is never presumed nor be allo
e appreciation of the Court , CTA Case No. EB 1426
yer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies therefor. , CTA Case No. EB 1565
ubject to VAT. , CTA Case No. EB 1525
delivery charge invoice and the like, are commonly recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as valid between the parties and,
ce, then the Court shall not hesitate to grant the same. , CTA Case No. EB 1553
Commissioners of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional T
n though the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns. , CTA Case No. 8936
Without doubt, private respondent would be prejudiced by the retroactive application as it would be assessed of deficiency excise tax.
prescribed under Sections 110(A) and 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as implemented by Sections 4.110-1, 4.11
e pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption is strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No
resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word "must" indicates that the filing of a prior motion is
he ERC , CTA Case No. 9048
g records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination o
DL. As to the WDL, although it was not offered as evidence by both parties, hence was not admitted , CTA Case No. EB 1610
d, the petition shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental m
er Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC is to act on the claim within the allowable period of 120-day period from the date of submission o
ce as unreported income. Well-settled is the rule that assessments must be based on actual facts and not mere assumptions or presu
e the respondent public official is found or holding office. , CTA Case No. AC-170
such an authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity. , CTA Case No. 8837
ure to do so, the Court is constrained to uphold such assessment. And as observed by this Court, most of petitioner's documentary evi
nt that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposit
cuments as basis to deny the claimed refund when he himself is to blame in not informing FRC about the need to submit additional do
e PEZA. Petitioner's entitlement to the incentive arose from projects/activities in different locations duly registered with different aut
y claimed amortization of input tax related to the said amount shall be denied. , CTA Case No. 8946
is illegal. Simply put, a tax assessed or collected without legal basis may be refunded. , CTA Case No. EB 1501
he books of accounts and other accounting records of taxpayers. , CTA Case No. EB 1560
e judgment of said civil liability, it must be the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Thus, it refers to a formal asses
aining issues raised by petitioner. , CTA Case No. 9372
c regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. , CTA Case No. EB 1515
e No. 9330
ell as the right of the Government to collect the said taxes. , CTA Case No. EB 1507
ation required under RR No. 18-2001 is for determining gain or loss on a subsequent sale or disposition of property subject of the tax-
n this case, petitioner was not able to prove its entitlement to the claim for refund of DST for taxable year 2010. , CTA Case No. 9337
es not fall under the category of Food Manufacturer. All told, the Court finds that petitioner failed to discharge its burden to present s
f Tupi, South Cotabato in violation of the provisions of Section 252 of the LGC of 1991 which requires that before a protest may be en
equivalent in consideration of such sale, and not when said taxpayer purchases or disburses an amount of money to purchase goods o
herwise, respondent's dividend and interest income from its SMC shares belong to the government, and is beyond the taxing power o
ere was a violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies and that it was not given sufficient time to act on the claim, the burden o
ve waited for the decision of respondent. Respondent's failure to act on petitioner's claim within the 120-day prescribed period is deem
d taxes. Since the instant case involves deficiency income tax, VAT, and EWT, the prescribed due dates for the filing of the returns, to b
while penalties may be imposed against an erring taxpayer, Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, does not deny or reduce a ta
C), and Installment on Extended Payment under Section 249(D) are also applicable to PDMC's deficiency EWT, WTC, VAT, and Final With
was "willful falsity" on the part of the petitioner. , CTA Case No. 8833
nt "an exhaustive and comprehensive set of all relevant evidence", which is broad or vague enough to include even evidence in the na
e of verifying the supporting documents and/or other records pertinent to petitioner's internal revenue taxes for calendar year 2007.
11 of Manila in Civil Case No. 04-110602. However, by virtue of a court-approved Compromise Agreement, Evercrest/Mega Heights w
able or logical the presumption might be. , CTA Case No. 8998
s jurisdiction over decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exe
payer may either file a tax refund (either in the form of cash or tax credit certificate) or carry over the excess credit. However, once th
ontested. In other words, since the assessment for deficiency taxes has become final and executory, the taxpayer may not any more ra
issuances must ensure that the reliefs granted under tax treaties are accorded to the parties entitled thereto. The BIR must not impo
the validity of the FAN that may be issued after said audit. Here, the absence of a new LOA authorizing RO San Pedro and GS Maniego
n 196 of the LGC of 1991. What is being prohibited instead of Section 78.14 of the RMRC is not the granting of a refund in cash, but th
for TYs 2003, 2004, and 2005 for having been issued in violation of Section C(3) of RMO No. 43-1990. Accordingly, the assessment for
s input VAT in the subject claim was carried to the succeeding periods but failed to provide evidence that it was deducted as "VAT Refu
madeus IT Group S.A., which were existing for several years already, indicate continuous commercial dealings and manifest Amadeus
VAT Return for the third quarter of CY 2014, thus, preventing the carryover or application of the claimed input VAT in the next taxable q
edings are silent or deficient, the provisions of the Rules of Court may be suppletorily applied. , CTA Case No. 9056
rcial sale of qualified invented products is exempt from income tax pursuant to RA No. 7459. Thus, the assessment issued by respond
he imposition of deficiency and delinquency interests in determining the amount to be ultimately paid by petitioner. , CTA Case No. 8
e the imposition of surcharges and interest. A perusal of petitioner's claim for refund shows that it merely relied on BIR Ruling [DA (C-0
penalty has been collected without authority, and/or any sum has been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected; and
e that did not comply with the substantiation requirements under Sections 11 O(A) and 113{A){B) of the 1997 NIRC, in relation to Sect
System is compliance with the 120+30-day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30day periods
n country; and (3) fact of payment in acceptable foreign currency (or its equivalent in goods and services) duly accounted for in accord
o do so. The submission of the claim for refund together with its supporting documents though allegedly not complete is substantial c
are zero-rated, would unduly enrich petitioner at the expense of the government. Under the law, no one shall unjustly enriched hims
yment thereof"; while the delinquency interest, which is imposed for failure to pay a deficiency tax or any surcharge or interest thereo
this remedy for a long period of time. In this way, neither party can dictate the time when a claim for refund should already be elevat
he audit and investigation of respondents' books of accounts and other accounting records for the taxable year 2008 were duly autho
he taxpayer has fifteen (15) days within which to respond, otherwise, he shall be considered in default and FAN shall be issued. Petitio
Oil Products Indonesia as evidenced by the supporting official receipt and Bank Statemenf9. Since petitioner did not provide documen
and strictly construed. The waiver of the statute of limitations is not a waiver of the right to invoke the defense of prescription. It is an
reliminary Assessment Notice (Exhibit "P-16'') and the Formal Letter of Demand (Exhibit "P-17'') since these exhibits were denied adm
st" in this case and the issued FDDA cannot be considered as a decision on "disputed assessment" which would have been appealable
ndent may no longer avail of the carry-over or application of input taxes for the next taxable quarter/s because its reported unutilized
ax collection. Tax collection should be premised on a valid assessment, which would allow the taxpayer to present his or her case and
Documentary Stamp Tax Declaration Returns47 (BIR Form No. 2000), petitioner has proved that it paid the aggregate amount ofP181
ulate, instead of being distributed as dividends. Specifically, there is prima facie instance of accumulation of profits when a corporation
therefore, informed of the assessments made against it by respondent nor it was informed of the legal and factual bases of the same.
terly VAT Return for the first quarter of CY 2015. Thus, the excess input VAT of P155,729,598.4847 as of the end of the first quarter o
d be given the opportunity to refute thenfindings of the examiners and give its own version or explanation with respect to the alleged
l, an entity registered with PEZA, are subject to zero percent (0%) VAT. , CTA Case No. 9002
assessment was based on sufficient evidence. Upon the introduction of the assessment in evidence, a prima facie case of liability on t
d void, for having been issued in violation of the due process requirements under the law and RR No. 12-99. Consequently, considering
n value of the imported goods includes royalties and license fees when: (1) they are related to the goods being valued (Relationship T
it.56 Thus, RO Marcellano acted without authority when she conducted the audit of respondent, making the assessment is null and vo
form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations- which is specifically Section 3.1.4of RR No. 12-99. This
-settled is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and as such they are regarded as 1n derogation of sovereign a
us need. Taxes are the nation's lifeblood through which government agencies continue to operate and which theState discharges its fu
indirect tax, which may be shifted or passed on to the buyer, transferee or lessee of goods, properties or service. Accordingly, petitio
ure of tax exemptions; hence, if tax exemptions are strictlty construed, then deductions must also be strictly construed. Corollary to th
ition sine qua non before an appeal may be entertained. The protest contemplated under Section 252 is required where reasonablene
der to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment
tion over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the caseon the merits. Therefo
with Article 1158 ofthe Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that "Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those
e decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as her in provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. A Divisi n
concerned revenue examiners, unless the petitioner (the Commissioner of Internal Revenue) himself or is duly authorized representati
ncy tax liabilities would render senseless the unequivocal qualification in Section 249(8) of the NIRC that deficiency interest shall be im
ther the refund claimant is entitled to the tax refund being claimed includes the resolution of the issue of whether such refund claima
by signalling the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remed
t persons or entities, the purchasers or recipients shall be considered the importers thereof and shall be liable for the duty and interna
r calendar year (CY) 2008 in the amount of P3,56 ,915.23, while the amount of P5,309,498.52 was denied on the ground that Ja dine L
of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution
be recorded in the principal office and the corresponding local business taxes (LBT) should be paid in the city or municipality having ju
m is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods is nec
from Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, if the state expects taxpayers to observe fairness and hones
requirement that the word 'zero-rated' must prominently appear on the face of sales invoices covering zero-rated sales. The word 'zer
was exempt from capital gains tax pursuant to the RP-US Tax Treaty, the amount of P1 ,784,742.85 representing 15°/o FWT withheld a
stablish that the claimed amount has not been used or utilized, precisely, the petition was denied as indicated in the dispositive portio
ently, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc.66, the Supreme Court held that Section 229 of th
urden. Any doubt whether a tax exemption exists is resolved against the taxpayer.Tax exemptions cannot arise by mere implication, mu
onal violation of a known legal duty. Note that the only issue left for the resolution of the Court is the culpability of Ugnayang Magbub
tly violative of the cardinal ppnciple in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce su
ry 20,2014. The case of COCOFED was promulgated on January 24, 2012. At the time the subject assessment was issued, Petitioner an
the question of whether the evidence submitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of its prayer lies within the sound discr
ven further extension by the head of the processing unit. If, in the course of the investigation and processing of the claim, additional d
d should be filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive periock indicated therein, and that the claimant is allowed to file the judicial claim
ess rendering void the right of respondent to assess. , CTA Case No. 9314
establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be
lue as shown in the schedule of values of the Provincial and City Assessors. , CTA Case No. 9234
d input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-ratedsales may be allowed or granted:1. the taxpayer must be VAT-registered
t succeeding quarter(s) as provided under Section 110(8) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. However, the Court finds it improper for re
refunded by petitioner in line with the Destination Principle which provides that the destination of the goods determines its taxation
(Re: Resolution dated 20 March 2013) with Motion to Recall Witnesses was filed by petitioner on April 5, 2013, praying, among others
entire year and he shall have no other tax obligations payable to the Local Government of the City of Makati City during the year, his t
issioner may XXX XXX XXX (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund t
table thereto in the amount of P811,768.91. , CTA Case No. 9110
hould be disallowed for being not properly substantiated by VAT invoices or official receipts as prescribed under Sections 110(A) and 1
ent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that failure to prove receipt of the assessment raises no other conclusion that no assessme
remains outstanding or unpaid. This is due to the wording of Section 1 thereof, referring to "all liabilities for [RPT] ." , CTA Case No. E
issued , CTA Case No. EB 1473
es raised by petitioner. , CTA Case No. EB 1551
hat purpose. Thus, absent the necessary new LOA specifically naming the person to whom the case will be reassigned with the corresp
nicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and s
is unsatisfied with what has actually been submitted to properly determine the merits of the claim. The record shows that the Court i
m of falsity. The basic rule is that bare allegations which are not supported by any evidence, documentary or otherwise, sufficient to su
trolled corporation engaged in the supply, distribution and transmission of electric power, to qualify for the special classification, the
cle 228 of the NIRC and RR No. 12-99 would be rendered nugatory. The alleged "factual bases" in the advice, preliminary letter and "au
ve. And if said documents could not be located, the CIR should have, at the very least, submitted to the Court a certification issued by
observe the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30-day period, and has rendered the Court devoid of jurisdiction over the instant Petitio
nd or tax credit certificate shall then be allowed. It is not necessary that said excess tax payment/credit is actually applied against the ta
tributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of CY 2012 which are attributable to its zero-rated sales for the same period. , C
ssessment. Words must be carefully chosen in order to avoid any confusion that could adversely affect the rights and interestof the tax
ion 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as implemented by RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, the FAN, assessing pe
e entitled to a refund of erroneously or illegally collected tax, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) that the tax must be errone
quently, raspondents may not collect from petitioner the tax being contemplated under Section 135(a) of the LGC of 1991. , CTA Case
are zero-rated, would unduly enrich petitioner at the expense of the government.Under the law, no one shall unjustly enrich himself a
to the preceding phrase 'disputed assessments, refund of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation
t value of the property, whichever is higher". DST is levied on the exercise by persons of certain privileges conferred by law for the cre
ting for the resolution of the former in order to prevent the forfeiture of its claim through prescription. , CTA Case No. 9144
ntity liable to pay donor's tax is the donor, or the person or entity transferring the property to another. Moreover, if the donor is a no
miserably. , CTA Case No. EB 1583
s not found in the NIRC and is only for the purpose of notifying the taxpayer that adiscrepancy is found based on the BIR's RELIEF Syste
ence, the letter-request filed by petitioners in the present case is sufficient to comply with the requirement under the 1997 NIRC for
with tax collection without initially substantiating a valid assessment contravenes the principle in administrative investigations "that
eview before the Court En Bane. Due to the parties' failure to comply with this procedural requirement, the Court En Bane cannot val
ulations on the matter. The burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence its entitlement
kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority
ecision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word 'must' indicates that the filing of a prior m
d Cost of Locally Purchasing Commissary and Catering Supplies with local prices reflected in the Philippine Wine Merchants' Price List a
System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. In other words, strict compliance with the 120+30 d
r (i.e., CY 2009) in order to arrive at the Accumulated Earnings as of the end of the current year (i.e., CY 2010). The mere fact that Acc
gulations No. 12-99". There is also nothing in the RMC that states that an appeal of the FDDA should be made to the CIR's duly author
criptive period to appeal either to respondent or to this Court which ended on May 13, 2013. On account thereof, the assessment bec
n this case, petitioner was able to prove its entitlement to the claim for refund of its unutilized input VAT attributed to its zero-rated s
xemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Accordingly, it is a claimant's
dence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. In this case, AMPI was
r the whole process of exploration and development of renewable energy sources up to its conversion into power, including but not l
r subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. Absent a showing
System is compliance with the 120+30-day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day periods
s income tax, thus, prohibiting the taxpayer from applying for a refund for that same excess income tax in the next succeeding taxable
determination of the merit or the probative value of such Report is still within the province of the Court's discretion. The Court is free
anc finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1411
otten that the judiciary does not settle policy issues; the Court can only declare what the law is and not what the law should be. Unde
, and to institute the corresponding judicial action. Considering that petitioner's administrative claim for refund of or issuance of TCC f
system. The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, or every statute must be co
x "A" hereof" and "shall enroll with IRSIS and the orders for the NEW internal revenue stamps prescribed herein may be submitted for
er in full during the month of acquisition, or spread over a period of time, depending on the aggregate acquisition cost of the capital g
ame directly from its foreign supplier. Between the documents appended to petitioner Kingson's Import Entry and the authenticated d
nt of P50,000.00, the same should be cancelled. Under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-90, compromise penalties are only amoun
August 2012. Hence, for remitting only Php236,378.57 in August 2012, instead of Php577,147.73, petitioner rightfully paid the deficie
06,076.52, respectively.Anent the sixth requisite, although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its Quarterly VAT Re
ourse. A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpayer. Strict compliance with t
and it behooves the taxpayers to rebut such presumption. Thus, the deficiency DST assessment on the assignment of shares must be u
ayment has been made on the basis of such return before the discovery of the falsity. This Court reiterates that "[t]ax assessments by t
d by both parties in their respective Petitions for Review in CTA EB No. 1514 and CTA EB No. 1518 are mere rehash/reiteration of the a
mption of correctness of tax assessment does not negate the burden of the CIR to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the fraudu
pliance with due process requirement is necessary for a valid tax assessment. Having failed to prove that petitioner actually received th
able to prove an immediate need for the accumulation of its earnings or profits, or the direct correlation of anticipated needs to such a
entitling a taxpayer to an exemption is also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No. EB 1400
, but also the pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption is strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. ,
in or profit is realized or received, actually or constructively, and (3) it is not exempted by law or treaty from income tax.Absence of an
that it no longer wishes to submit any other additional documents to complete its claim. Hence, the 120-day period began after the e
(3) mailed or sent to the taxpayer by the Commissioner.It appears that said computation or schedule had none of the said requisites.
refundable pursuant to Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9065
ation of the period to appeal therefrom and no appeal was perfected. Therefore, the denial of the present Petition for Review is in ord
elf-serving statements of accused. Her declarations during her testimony reveal that she profited from her sale of gold to the BSP. Acc
238, as amended, and with RR No. 9-04. Hence, petitioner should not be held liable to pay final withholding of GRT on interest payme
rked the option "To be refunded". These, together with petitioner's submission of a letter-claim for refund with the respondent's offic
on 248(A)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Finally, since the sole authority to abate tax liability rests upon the sole discretion of
the questioned assessment is mandatory to vest LBAA with jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thus, the Court agrees with responde
mption from the taxes mentioned above. Thereafter, all LWDs became liable to the afore-mentioned taxes. As a water utility, the franch
bility in accordance with the parameters set forth in Section 204(8) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by RR No. 13-20
e exempt from all taxes, the said income of petitioner's FCDU shall be subject to the imposed GRT on banks, as well. Since petitioner d
eceived from them. The Court could not find fault on accused. It is reasonable and practical to hire an accountant who shall be respon
ies, it must establish the following: 1. It paid its corporate income tax covering the period when the subject importations were made; 2
of the assessment made is but a part of the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, the absence of w
rterly VAT Return for the third quarter of taxable year 2013. Consequently, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess inpu
y means of written agreement executed prior to the expiration of the period prescribed by law, and likewise by subsequent written ag
ty of a particular administrative rule or regulation by virtue of its certiorari powers, petitioner should have directly attacked RMC No. 9
iod of redemption under Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 is not applicable to the subject transaction. Rather, it is the one-year period of re
ering the parties' respective evidence, the Court is inclined to give credence to petitioner's claim that its non-payment of DST for taxab
following dates within which to assess petitioner for taxable year 2006: (a) 1st Quarter58 - April 26, 2009; (b) 2nd Quarter59 - July 26
as incurred or paid; that the input tax in the purchase of land be refunded only when it was sold or input tax thereon be apportioned t
tion is non-profit and (2)its gross income from unrelated trade, business or activity does not exceed 50% of its total gross income. In v
e, counting three years from petitioner's last day to file the ITR, the BIR had until October 14, 2010. However, petitioner received the
hout authority when he conducted the audit investigation of petitioner's books. Accordingly, the assessment arising therefrom is a nul
ssessment on July 14, 2010; and yet, the BIR issued the PAN only on January 9, 2013, after two and a half years. From the foregoing, it
s Court has no recourse but to dismiss the parties' respective Petitions for Review as the assailed Amended Decision has already attain
ry 14,2007 to file its protest, which it failed to do. Therefore, the assessments have attained finality and are now unappealable. , CTA
xamination of Petitioner CMI's records by Revenue Officer Mary Anne P. Cruz was made without authority, thus, the examinations and
franchise tax of petitioner was only for about twenty three (23) years starting 1973, the effectivity date of PD 198, till 1991. Thus, wh
VAT of P220,700.89 was not carried over to the succeeding quarters of 200957. In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlem
ted to the taxpayer to reply to the Prelimenary Assessment Notice (PAN) before a Final Assessment Notice( FAN) can be issued. Time
eturns for the fourth quarter of CY 201266 and first quarter of CY 2013. Therefore, the excess input VAT of P249,651,814.1968 as of th
id not err in denying the CIR's appeal on procedural grounds. Due to this procedural lapse. the Amended Decision has attained finality
nstrained to uphold respondent'sfindings subjecting the same to expanded withholdingtax. Moreover, the Court cannot give credence
nce of P10,159,773.44 should be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8854
erely mentioned the "Receipts subject to VAT per audit" without any explanation as to where the computation came from or the sourc
rehash of the arguments proffered by petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration in the Court in Division. There being no new mat
VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional periods. Thus, strict compliance with the 120+30 day pe
od, the 30-day period, therefore, shall be reckoned from September 11, 2013. Accordingly, petitioner had until October 11, 2013 to ap
n if the same was issued by respondent. As a consequence, the revenue officers had no authority to examine petitioner's financial boo
decide petitioner's claim. However, no decision was made for it was only on March 17,2015 when petitioner received a letter dated M
uyer. However, reporting and remittance of the VAT paid to the BIR remained to be the seller/supplier's obligation. Hence, the prope
he petitioner not entitled to claim a tax refund or credit. Verily, if the petitioner had paid the input VAT, the CTA was correct in holdin
ment for interest and compromise penalty shall likewise be deleted on the basis of good faith and honest belief on the part of petitio
uccessfully overcome this burden , CTA Case No. EB 1503
ent decides to pay. The notice, therefore, did not contain a definite and actual demand to pay. , CTA Case No. 8857
cts of sale or lease of goods, properties or services at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7716. , CTA Case No. 9145
not simply be included in the computation of tax liability, for to do otherwise would only be arrogating unto the Court a duty whichrigh
No. EB 1444
o warrant cancellation of the assessment. As such, the Court is constrained to uphold respondent's assessment on deficiency WTC. , C
his is not proper as the application of the said excess creditsin the subsequent taxable periods is beyond the scope of the presentasses
and executory. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-036
tax. In other words, it must be shown that accused was aware of his obligation to pay the tax, but he nevertheless voluntarily, knowi
ule 42 of the Rules of Court and the appeal should be filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the RTC's assailed decision or ruling.
ts were only transformed into another form of asset. The assets merely changed from land, building, machinery and equipment, etc.,
reditable withholding tax prescribed in Section 2.57.2(J) of RR No. 2-98 shall not apply to income payments made to the city governm
e is no reason for the Court to discuss the other issues raised by the CIR , CTA Case No. EB 1410
pliers of goods and services since its purchases of local goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction and i
taxpayer is VAT-registered; 3. that there must be zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sales;4. that input taxes were incurred or paid;5.
merit as it is clear that the Philippines had already enacted its own Tax Code at the time of the ratification of the ADB Charter imposing
year 2010, as correctly found by this Court's Third Division in the Assailed Amended Decision." , CTA Case No. EB 1406
to the prescribed periods. Correspondingly, asall presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments, 55 the Court En Ban
decision or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word 'must' indicates that the filing of a prior m
spondents from squarely confronting the issue and bars the Court En Banc from rendering a well-informed decision, especially conside
s, without a clear indication that the former is included in the latter. , CTA Case No. 8646
.Thus, the guilt of the accused for the crime charged has notbeen proven beyond reasonable doubt for failure of the prosecution'sto p
d tax constitutes anattempt at deprivation of property without due process oflaw. Section 3A.02(m) of the Revised Makati Revenue Cod
arged acts under Sections 3601 and 3602 in relation to Sections2503 and 2530 of the TCCP. In addition, the Court notes that theapprai
al levels, commences from the date of filing of the FinalAdjustment Return.45 It is only when the Final Adjustment Returncovering the
eto before respondent had the FLD/FAN received bypetitioner. Having said the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that it has no jurisdic
evenue Regulation 18-2013 clearly provides that "[n]o request for reconsideration or reinvestigation shall be granted on tax assessme
documents of its disallowed expenses to prove thatrespondent's assessment based on estimate is not in order. Thispetitioner failed to
February 2, 2015 withinwhich to file its claim both in the administrative and judicial levels. Clearly,petitioner's administrative claim62
case, petitionercannot enforce it except through a criminal action. 16Therefore, considering that record is bereft of anyevidence that s
ight to due process under earlier quoted Section228 of the NIRC, as implemented by RR No. 12-99. , CTA Case No. EB 1413
of respondent to collectthe subject deficiency taxes through the issuance of the FNBSdated September 2, 2013 produces no effect as p
ution failed to satisfactorily prove the negative allegation in the Information that accused did not possess the required Certificate of Pro
11 until the third quarter of 201263, is the same remained unutilized since it was deducted in the third Quarterly VAT Return of 2012,
ase of excise taxes, the goods subject to such tax cannotleave the place where it was manufactured without paying the correct amount
us computation per FLD. Hence, petitioner is liable only to theextent of that assessed by respondent in the amount of P424,026.41.
nt.65 Thus, for respondent's failure to prove the sending and receipt of the PAN, the assessment made by the CIR is void.Considering t
cting saidtaxes. This court is mindful of the well-entrenched principlethat the government is never estopped from collecting taxesbeca
shares of stock have been declared owned by the Government, therefore not subject to local business tax, petitioner is entitled to the
ales were made, apply for the issuance of tax credit certificate or refund unutilized input VAT.
2. the taxpayer must be engaged in sales, which are zerorated or effectively zero-rated;3. the claim must be filed within two (2) years
ith the Report of the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant, determined that the amount of~11 ,319,226.01, r
ely zero-rated sales were made. Therefore, the instant Petition for Review was timely filed on March 31, 2014.
nd defend its case before the BIR at the investigation stage. At the same time, by virtue of the waiver, respondent was able to postpon
two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. Evidently, petition
sumed, used or rendered within the ECOZONE and in connection with the registered activities of the PEZA entity. Conversely, if the sa
efund can justify the claim by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.41 The Court En Bane finds no
er of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional rights o
espondent had 120 days, or until July 18, 2014, to decide on the petitioner's claim. Considering that respondent did not act on the pe
he government's right to assess the taxpayer, therefore, prescribes in three (3) years, counted from the date of the last day of filing. H
overs other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the prov
wever, must be construed in the light of the explicit documentary requirements of Sections 11 O(A) and 113(A) and (B) ofthe 1997 NIR
provision of the Rules, public documents consist of written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
rements under Section 228 of the NIRC and RR No. 12-99 with regard to said official or employee. To be specific, the BIR must havesho
that it is indeed the Central Bank of the Government of Singapore.Having established that petitioner is a financial institution wholly o
rmal Power Company Inc., that the law does not require the taxpayer to submit the documents prescribed by RMO No. 53-98 as a rec
bject deficiency income tax, respondent's right to assess the same is only up to April 15, 2011, i.e., the end of the three-year period fr
delete the imposition of surcharges and interest. Applying the foregoing, the Court is convinced that petitioner acted in good faith wh
in Division found merit in Deutsche's argument that its judicial claim for refund of input tax was timely lodged with the Court in Divisi
entation of a withholding tax certificate complete in its relevant details and with a written statement that it was made under thepenal
dence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must beduly proven. In this case, responden
quired under the NIRC of 1997 to pay any tax, make a return keep any record, or supply correct and accurate information; and2. That t
aintiff's complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence.Based on the foregoing provisions, respondent has three (3) years from th
997, which mandates that a taxpayer should be informed, in writing, of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made;otherw
o longer valid and effective. Applying the law and jurisprudence on the matter, the assessed amounts for WTC, EWT, FBT, FWT, PT and
mmissioner of Internal Revenue, where it adopted the ruling in CIR vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc, the Supreme Court held tha
ution, the exception to the irrevocability rule is not available.
ner must establishthe following: 1. It paid its corporate income tax covering the period when the subject importations were made;2. T
e PAN.
5, as amended by RA Nos. 9282 and 9503. A fortiori the abatement of petitioner's tax liability falls within the coverage of the phrase "o
d, applies. "SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection ofTaxes.-(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent
2010. Moreover, the BIR ruling, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+ 30 day periods, is limited to pr
is irrelevant, since the instant case falls within the window period (December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010). Under such window perio
lding because the certificate of tax withheld at source (BIR Form No. 2307) is competent proof of the fact that taxes were withheld by
right to prosecute perceived transgressor of the law on one side, and the constitutional right of a citizen to due process of law and th
h argument, which may involved a question of fact, should be resolved at the first instance by the LBBA. Hence it must pursue and con
tds payments under the Rp-FranceTax Treaty, Petitoner shall not be precluded from enjoying the benefits of the preferential tax rate
axpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No. EB 1422
w, direct judicial action may prosper.72 That is, the taxpayer may appeal directly to the RTC, any appeal from the latter's decision sho
uch admission was made. , CTA Case No. EB 1495
uly discourages foreign investors. While the consequences sought to be prevented by RMO No. 1-2000 involve an administrative proce
unjust enrichment at the expense of another." In this case, there can be no unjust enrichment on the part of the Government or resp
thin three (3) years counted from the period fixed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of filing, whichever is later.
stitute binding precedents, forming part of the Philippine legal system , CTA Case No. 8939
paid, if any, on its purchases of raw materials and supplies. , CTA Case No. 9014
ded based on the evidence presented and formally offered by the party litigants during the trial. , CTA Case No. 9007
VAT Returns or monthly VAT Declaration, thus, preventing the carry-over or application of the claimed input VAT in the next taxable
ed as the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could
nd subsidiary purchase journal does not affect respondent's claim for refund, because it is not one of the requisites for respondent to
he dividends and interest from the money market placements arising from the SMC preferred shares be subject to LBT as the same be
m, the Court resolves to cancel the deficiency income tax assessment for lack of factual and legal bases. , CTA Case No. 8887
s to show that petitioner consented to the imposition of the same. In the absence of factual or legal basis, compromise penalties mus
it does not make projections. This positive testimony has not been controverted by respondents who opted to not present any evide
es from the date of filing of the Final Adjustment Return (or the Annual Income Tax Return)28. It is only when the Final Adjustment Re
December 29, 2014 until April 28, 2015. Upon the lapse of the 120-day period on April 28, 2015, petitioner had thirty (30) days or un
mine whether the assessment was validly issued, whether the assessment became final and executory upon petitioner's failure to tim
properly speaking, dismissed for being filed out of time x x x. It bears emphasis that Section 112 (D) (now renumbered as Section 112[
ade the following ruling: "... when the issue is whether or not the exemption from a tax imposed by law is applicable, the rule is that t
ery sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties while a VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties,
e application of this doctrine. In fine, the rescission of the Deeds of Conveyance and the Supplemental Deeds of Conveyance have the
on 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, vesting judicial power in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by
ual date of filing of such return, whichever comes later. Any assessment notice issued beyond this three (3)-year prescriptive period sh
by signaling the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remed
there exists sufficient basis to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by
cally the PAN and the FLD/FAN issued by respondent must be received by the taxpayer as decreed in Section 3 of RR No. 12-99, asamen
ar prescriptive period, unless there is proof that the return was made with design to mislead or deceive on the part of the taxpayer, or
ondent TRANSCO derives its gross receipts from its transmission of electricity to BATELEC II, a distribution utility, and not from the end
vidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. The burden in claimi
er as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment. It means cash or its equivalent. It is gain derived and severed from capit
ributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, to wit:1. That the claim for refund was timely filed within the prescriptive period
. In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of asses
t shall be void." The taxpayer should be informed of not only the law, but also of the facts on which an assessment would be made; ot
ed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax;2. It is shown on the return of the recipient that the m
exemptions• Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of its claim for tax refund, which it has failed to discharg
tive of respondent and not the Revenue District Officer. Furthermore, the Revenue District Officer could not have appeared before the
ys from submission of complete supporting documents to decide on the claim. In case of inaction by the CIR after 120 days from the d
ty of the imposition of the Php15,000.00 compromise penalty. The Court En Bane disagrees. As oft-repeated, compromise penalties, u
nd sold is a capital asset and that the lease rentals were the result of timing differences. Since the land sold is an ordinary asset, petiti
n the pleadings and supported by the evidence on record. Necessarily, any such relief may be granted only where a cause of action the
xing power, unless THI is a bank or other financial institution.Section 131(e) of the LGC defines the term "banks and other financial inst
t Corporation, wherein the taxpayer was entitled to tax refunds or credits based on the BIR's own issuances but later was suddenly sad
rmined above. It bears stressing that the amounts reflected in the certifications are in lump sum. As these amounts were not itemized
the FDDA, more than nine (9) months have already lapsed from petitioner' s receipt of the respondent's final decision before it raised
f payment. As applied to this case, the amount of tax liability due from the petitioner remains indefinite in the subject FLD, thus rende
efund or tax credit. Hence, respondent may not be legally faulted in seeking a cash refund in lieu of a tax credit on the LBT erroneously
parol evidence is allowed. Nonetheless, petitioners' counsel still failed to offer as evidence the copies of the administrative claims for
of criminal cases against accused may proceed even without an assessment. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-065
Frankfort failed in this regard. In the absence of evidence that Frankfort maintained its books of accounts, official receipts, and registe
nd cases filed in the Court of Tax Appeals are litigated de novo. Now that it obtained an unfavorable decision, Petitioner again prays tha
laiming the refund. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must b
m for refund. Rather, the burden of establishing the factual basis of a claim for a refund rests on the taxpayer.And while the petitiOner
D and FAN. In case respondent or the BIR fails or effectively fails to observe, inter alia, the said requirement, it shall have the effect of
. Compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxp
longer valid and effective. , CTA Case No. 9118
aid source documents leads this Court to uphold the imposition of 10% EWT amounting to Php28,815.54 on the professional fees of P
nfronting the issue and bars the Court En Bane from rendering a well-informed decision, especially considering that the case involves v
civil action against it pursuant to Section 253(e) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is deemed instituted in this case. , CTA Case No. O-
fossil fuels to minimize the burden that Filipinos, as consumers of energy, constantly assume when exposed to price fluctuations of fue
CTA Case No. 9000
e CT A must also be respected. , CTA Case No. EB 1926
No. EB 1906
n is doing business outside the Philippines, or is a non-resident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the
o show that either of the two circumstances is present in this case, this Court cannot order the payment of interest on the taxes sough
der the unsubstantiated testimony of the said RO, We find that there is still a violation of the due process rights of Petitioner. , CTA C
emand for payment within a prescribed period. The requirement to indicate a fixed and definite period within which a taxpayer must
pt status of said business establishments or enterprises operating within the ECOZONE includes exemption from the imposition of VAT
itioner's non-compliance with the said requirement under Section 252(a) of the LGC of 1991 deprived respondent CBAA with jurisdict
alls within the purview of Section 133 (a) of the 1991 LGC which prohibits the levy of income tax on businesses not functioning as bank
he law and the facts on which the assessment is made, otherwise, the assessment shall be void.Since an entirely new assessment item
ond June 30, 2014, there was nothing more to extend. A fortiori, the fourth and fifth waivers did not legally operate to lengthen petit
hority to conduct the continuation of the investigation or audit. , CTA Case No. 9280
miner's authority to conduct audit is necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case for the absence of a LOA will violate a taxp
to present supporting documents that categorically show the formulation of its finished product to clearly establish how much raw alco
whether under the applicable tax treaty, the assets of a corporation consist principally of real property interests, RR No. 4-8656 dated
ord of command. Consequently, absent a valid demand, as in this case, makes the assessment void, the FAN/FLD bears no fruit and mu
und or credit, in this case input VAT, by submitting evidence that he has complied with the requirements laid down in the tax code an
e common burden of taxation.A claim of refund or exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and be based on language in
ubmitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of its prayer lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the Court. , CTA
ustain the burden placed upon it by presenting proof that its excess input VAT was not applied against any output VAT liability, the last
Case No. EB 1925
he protest or the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period to decide the protest. The LBAA has 120 days to decide the appeal. If the taxpayer i
legal requisites to be entitled to its refund claim for excess and unutilized CWT. Thus, even if the said rule is applied in this case, Univa
e articles, materials or supplies imported should be for its use in its transport and non-transport operations and other activities inciden
ndeed such certification was not the basis for the grant of respondent's claim for refund but Article 14 and Article 1, Reservation Claus
acquire any right from his void act. A right cannot spring in favor of a person from his own void or illegal act. Consequently, responde
3,998,107.17 as of the end of the 3rd quarter of FY 2015 to be carried over/ applied to the succeeding quarters. To end, petitioner w
ming the refund.The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption, are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be d
iction can be imputed in admitting the evidence of private respondent because this was done in compliance with the relevant rules an
is for respondents' argument that if petitioner's claim is found meritorious, it may be granted only in the fonn of tax credit." , CTA Ca
to the civil liability of the accused, considering that the assessment was based merely on a presumption, such assessment becomes inv
onsidered void. With the Court's conclusion that the assessment is void, there is no need for the Court to discuss the other issues rais
period to appeal, the CTA was deprived of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. Thus, the Court cannot decide the case on the me
o appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perf
her matters raised by petitioner shall no longer be addressed. , CTA Case No. 8923
penalties are onlyamounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability and may not beimposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the even
hen an act is official, a presumption of regularity exists because of the assumption that the law tells the official what his duties are and
al and unappealable, there is now no reason why the BIR should not enforce its authority to collect the deficiency tax as stated in the a
sessment process. This clearly constitutes denial of due process as Petitioner was not given the opportunity to dispute and present ev
esent evidence which would show the breakdown or enable the Court to determine the advances for the period of January 1, 20 11 to
gh the disputed notice provides for a computation of petitioner's tax liability, the amount thereof remains indefinite, since the said tax
would allow the taxpayer to present his or her case and produce evidence for substantiation. Correspondingly, since the subject deficie
ct compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. This is the reason why a claimant must positively show com
celeration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law where Section 249 of the 1997 NIRC was amended and such amendment was implemented unde
BIR Ruling No. DA-245-2005, is not supported by evidence. Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him who ass
of P78,384,643.51 and the Assessment No. VT116-LOA-00021-10-13-192 for deficiency Value Added Tax in the amount of P35,891,738
2010 signed by Mr. Gerry O. Dumayas, the Revenue District Officer. Specifically, there is no showing that the authority of RO Luzvimind
erse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded evidence.
quently, no valid authority to examine petitioner exists when the subject FAN was issued against, and received by, petitioner. Not hav
mercial operations of the concerned generation facility. The new generation company is allowed to conduct test and commissioning f
ce to be refunded in cash and would indirectly amend the LGC to which this Court cannot give its assent. , CTA Case No. EB 1957
urt En Bane finds no reversible error to disturb the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1829
ed. , CTA Case No. EB 1846
n a taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Clearly, the compromise penalty implies a mutual agreement betwe
due process requirement is that the taxpayer be allowed to submit comments or arguments with supporting documents at each stage
ined the said documents since it is considered as a ''supplier of locally-produced RE equipment'~ Relative thereto, it is noted that as st
ion to act on the Petition for Review. , CTA Case No. 9610
in this case, the lack of an LOA as well as a solid investigation of the taxpayer's tax records rendered the assessment void. , CTA Case N
e considered as a sum which was wrongfully collected. Thus, it must be emphasized that acts executed against the provisions of mand
al Courts, have original jurisdiction to take cognizance of actions assailing the decision or inaction of the local treasurer on local tax pro
s cannot be overreaching in their efforts, but must perform their duties in accordance with law, with their own rules of procedure, an
oner's possible tax liabilities for taxable year 2007. , CTA Case No. 9029
ed has been VAT-registered taxpayer since 2000 and has filed VAT returns for several years prior and subsequent to the periods in que
ibed minimum, the compromise must be subject to the Evaluation Board's approval.The First Division observed correctly that petition
Thus, Exhibit "P-4" became part of the evidence of the case a quo. Consequently, petitioner is bound by the outcome of the Court in D
018 within which to file a petition for certiorari with this Court. Accordingly, by filing the instant petition on May 18, 2018, the same w
tion on the part of respondent in an attempt to extend the prescriptive period. Incidentally, fraud is a question of fact that should be a
hority on the part of the revenue officer who conducted the examination of defendant's books of accounts and other accounting reco
ue. Based on the foregoing, a revenue officer must be authorized, through an LOA, in order that the said officer may validly examine th
e Philippines; while proof of registration abroad only proves that said entity is incorporated/ organized abroad, but does not establish
om its zero-rated sales for CY 2013. Considering that Citco complied with the requirements provided for under NIRC, the grant of refun
VAT refund or credit. After the expiration of the said 120-day period on April 21, 2016, petitioner should have filed its judicial claim be
was served with a Warrant of Arrest. Hence, it cannot be concluded that accused voluntarily, intentionally violated her known legal du
nd from which such claim is made does not involve a tax refund but rather an ordinary claim of solutio indebiti. , CTA Case No. EB 200
o petitioner's claim of input VAT refund imputable to zero-rated sales anchored on Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC, as amended. On a fin
scriptive period to assess. , CTA Case No. EB 1979
and is not fatal to any litigant's cause. One thing is clear, it is petitioner that is dutybound to comply with the rules of procedure and ob
or general co-partnerships in addition to the penalty imposed on its responsible corporate officers, partners and employees. Further, c
me Court has ruled that if an amended complaint does not introduce new issues, causes of actions, or demands, the suit is deemed to
estopped from denying receipt of the PAN and the FAN because petitioner allegedly admitted in the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issu
R No. 2-2005, as amended by RR No. 112005, are not exclusive. Thus, if a particular cost or expense is directly related to the PEZA-reg
ntention to deprive the government of the taxes due it. As to the civil aspects of the instant consolidated cases, which were deemed in
claim for refund of excess CWT and its Petition for Review were seasonably filed with the BIR and before this Court on October 18, 20
nd recommendation after audit, is void ab initio. , CTA Case No. 9476
R. Such document cannot be considered as tax clearance as it does not clearly state that the petitioner has no pending tax liabilities, b
or credited. Also, the present claim was already deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in petitioner's amended Quarterly VAT Retur
vided under international agreements. Such being the case, the filing of a prior TTRA with the HIR before petitioner can apply the pref
the context of the law. This procedural lapse, or the absence of a new LOA, rendered the Assessment Notices issued pursuant thereto
force be cancelled and set aside. , CTA Case No. 9715
cility in checking its own records to verify the significance of the Certification of BIR L TDPQAD. Besides, the Certifications issued by BP
he books of accounts and other accounting records of petitioner. Not having a valid authority to examine the latter in the first place, th
xecutory as stated in the Certificate of Finality dated December 2, 2016. A case is said to be moot or academic when it ceases to prese
ehooves upon Deutsche to show the Court En Banc the jurisprudential circumstances that warrant the grant thereof. To end, both part
C No. 75-2018 upholding the pronouncement in the Medicard case, the subject tax assessments, including the subject deficiency inco
charter in Mendoza v. Commission on Audit. On the other hand, respondent CIR represents the BIR, another government agency. Cle
n for Review in CTA Case No. 9272 was filed within the reglementary period and the issues it raised could be properly taken cognizanc
nt on March 17, 2017 as provided under Sections 204(C) 1os and 229 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. Hence, petitioner is entitled to th
requirements provided for under the NIRC in order to successfully pursue one's claim." However, once the taxpayer sufficiently prove
e was a final determination of the taxes due in this case, this Court finds that there is no basis to impose any civil liability upon the pe
gal. In other words, for taxes to be refunded, it must be shown to have been erroneously or illegally collected. However, as earlier disc
f the claimed input VAT in the succeeding taxable quarters. , CTA Case No. 9432
xamination. That said, the truth or falsity of a statement is not a proper ground for objection. The entirety of the stipulations and evide
hat a taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process as non-observ
the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. There is nothing in the records which would show that petitioner consente
tual nature of the assessed expenses and the taxability of the same. Thus, the Court is constrained to uphold the assessment on this i
o sale, exchange or gross receipt is involved. As correctly ruled upon by the former Second Division, VAT is imposed when one sells, no
e of action to take would be to refer the case to the appropriate body to which jurisdiction has been subsequently vested. Thus, this C
oid and bears no valid fruit. In view of the finding that the subject deficiency tax assessment is invalid, the Court shall no longer discus
y, either by words, conduct, or silence. More importantly, under 3.1.5 of RR No. 12-99, as amended, taxpayers are allowed to pay the u
ed on a premise which, in itself, requires proof and it is petitioner's duty to discharge such burden of proof that the assessed deficienc
acquisition cost of the capital goods in the calendar month. If the aggregate acquisition cost exceeds P1Million, the claim for input tax
on to reverse the assailed Decision and Resolution. , CTA Case No. EB 1898
vince us that said amended BIR Form 2550-Q for TY 2015 should be considered as part of respondent's evidence because clearly, it fo
. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. EB 1801
Court a quo. , CTA Case No. EB 1744
ayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. It is a well-settled rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpaye
as a "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed." Consequently, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of P2,127,740.8887 a
well-beingof its citizens, not simply to deprive them of their fundamental rights. Finding that the assessment for CY 2008 is void for be
y one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts and everyone else should take their bearings. , CTA Case No. EB 1874
its right to a tax credit or refund. , CTA Case No. EB 1889
process.Considering that the examination and assessments were issued pursuant to a Letter Notice, the subject assessments against p
September 4, 2015, which is twenty-one (21) days from the expiration of the period to reply to PAN.Considering that no FAN was issue
titioner fortaxable year 2006.Relative thereto, it must be emphasized that a void assessmentbears no valid fruit. Correspondingly, in vi
RMRC, so as to justify the collection of LBT by respondents on the dividends which were earned by respondent. Such being the case, th
trictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Exemption from taxation is never presumed. For tax exem
er in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. It is well settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay
an exemption is also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. Hence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must
hat registration or incorporation as a foreign corporation does not automatically prove that it is not engaged in business in the Philipp
nce, there is no compelling reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the Court in Division as it is supported by the evidence on
s of any claim that it is erroneous. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is pe
ior transactions is not sanctioned by law hence said payments are considered erroneous and must be refunded. The wisdom of the Su
ollected from them for CY 2012. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of th
ct to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. A
as amended, must be applied to them. Such being the case, petitioners' claim for refund must perforce fail. , CTA Case No. 9321
bject Assessment Notices would reveal that the respective "DUE DATE" portion thereof are all left blank. , CTA Case No. 9241
uch failure therefore shows that there was no proper service made through registered mail. , CTA Case No. 9367
ependendy or during trial, that it gave notice to the BIR to produce these documents, in accordance with the relevant sections discusse
s a pima facie evidence of fraud.The Court in Division held that the shipment consisting of "2,406 steel products" was intentionally und
A be issued with the corresponding notation thereto. , CTA Case No. EB 1847
nt Petition is in order. , CTA Case No. 9478
nts of Php1,443,688,705.63 for 2013, and P2,006,367,198.61 for 2014, are the true amounts of the subject PPA fees. , CTA Case No. A
ment Notice No. RR-16-099-082-2016 is likewise void. As such, the grant of the instant Petition is in order. , CTA Case No. 9540
y procedure for issuing deficiency tax assessments. The service of FLO prior to the service of the PAN certainly violates petitioner's righ
amination and assessment of the petitioner. , CTA Case No. 9269
ears no valid fruit." Consequently, the said assessments and the FDDA should be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 9490
uthorized must not go beyond the authority given. In the absence of such an authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity. , CT
al VAT return, the assessment for the period January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 is in compliance with Section 1149 of the National Intern
the said claim, petitioner had thirty (30) days after the 120-day period, or until August 14, 2017, within which to appeal respondent's
issued within the 120-day period, or upon the expiration of the 120-day period, the taxpayer should file its petition for review with th
s 4.110-1, 4.110-8, and 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-05, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9480
2018. Stated otherwise, there being no final and valid assessment to begin with, WDL No. RR52AMS-DA-06-21-18-1258(024) dated Ju
Accordingly, considering that such document is not a formal assessment and does not constitute competent and sufficient evidence in
at the Memorandum of Assignment98 was issued by Revenue District Officer Honorata S. Aguilar. Hence, the deficiency tax assessmen
we must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in particular cas
e twenty five percent (25%) surcharge against it since there was no "willful neglect" on its part which would supposedly trigger the imp
bed in Section 203 for the assessment of the tax.Obviously, the foregoing exhibits are prima facie evidence that establishes a positive
d on the cases of Filinvest Development Corporation, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Internal Revenu
ayer's dual need to prosecute its business while at the same rime responding to the BIR exercise of its statutory powers. The balance b
resumptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. Consequently, the presumption of correctness of the asse
-200323 as well as theSupreme Court case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. ToshibaInformation Equipment (Phils.). Ine. The CIR
ales and taxable income for 2007 by excluding the aggregate amount of P225,711,203.23, evidenced by Official Receipt Nos. 776080
eracity and without the corroborating certifications or confirmations from related third-party sources to support its credibility and inte
amended, income derived by a depository bank under the expanded foreign currency deposit system from foreign currency transactio
e HSBC Savings Account that was declared in the Amended Estate Tax Return filed by petitioner on even date. Thus, the reckoning perio
N were received by the receptionist of the company while the FAN was received by the security guard. The BIR failed to establish that
roperty without due process of law. In balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute p
s nothing in the cases cited by petitioner that supports his view. It may not be amiss to point out that the Court En Bane had already r
vant supporting documents that would render the assessment final because when respondent submitted its protest, respondent attac
cess the claim for refund as well as its conclusion that respondent Mindanao II, in CTA EB No. 1768, was not the proper party to file th
hether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation."39 The transfer of MAPL shares is not a transfer of real prop
er paid and remitted to the BIR the assessed VAT on its importation of diesel fuel on August 28, 2013. Counting two (2) years from the
de inter alia that the taxpayer shall be informed of the facts and law upon which the PAN and the FAN was predicated, lest the assess
not indicate the quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; some of its invoices/receipts h
is case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. The pieces of evide
ty Centavos (P552,545, 164.60) for TY 2009. Petitioner had 30 days from receipt of the FLD with the FAN or until July 6, 2014, / within
petitioner failed to file a protest to TOP 2 dated January 18, 2017. Thus, for failure to file a protest, the assessment has become conclu
d, or (2) within thirty (30) days from the expiration of the 120-day period if the CIR does not act within the 120-day period.23 In other
end to the levy of income tax, 32 except when levied on banks and other financial institutions under Section 143(t) of the 1991 LGC.3
Medicard, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of an LOA and the authority of ROs who conducted the audit and examinati
y or validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting an assessment or claiming a r
6, it was denied admission. Moreover, the said BIR Certificate of Registration was never testified to by any of petitioner's witnesses. Th
efund, in both instances, however, the claim must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty. Thus, S
o prove its entitlement to the refund.14 Although ICPA is a commissioned officer of the court to examine voluminous documents in cla
al border of the taxing authority. Relative thereto, pursuant to Sections 12 and 15 of RA No. 7227, as amended by RA No. 9400, Subic B
ens would have a feeling of security against unscrupulous tax agents who will always find an excuse to inspect the books of taxpayers,
ed, which is a special law, the same should accordingly prevail over the prescriptive period provided under the New Civil Code of the Ph
the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistak
n the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all ac
ments offered by the CIR in his Motion for Reconsideration before the Court in Division, in the instant Petition for Review and in his Mem
gument that respondent may only apply for tax credit. To end, petitioner failed to present any valid reason to warrant the reversal of
s case. Section 76 of the said Code describes a merger as follows: "Two or more corporations may merge into a single corporation w
act on it, it will be treated as a denial of the refund, and the Court of Tax Appeals is the only entity that may review this ruling. Moreov
pursuant to Section 23(A), 24, 31(A)(l) of the NIRC of 199711, all of a resident citizen's income is subject to tax (derived for each taxabl
a citizen's right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while taxes are the lifeblood of the government, t
d or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of com
bad faith on the part of the proponent/ offeror. Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute
court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of th
d for the purpose of tax evasionAs to the issue that there was undeclared or under-declaration of purchases, such does not result in th
he specific period in the FLD and Assessment Notices negates the CIR's demand for payment and makes the assessment void. , CTA Ca
s been ruled to include, but not limited to: prescription of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR")'s right to collect taxes,23 det
e interfered with by the Court En Bane. In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that there was grave abuse of discretion on the p
f his findings: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: (a) When the finding for a
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 44 where the Supreme Court denied a VAT claim for refund an
rrowing, whichever comes first, is specious. The limit of thirty (30) years pertains to the taxes, , CTA Case No. 9376
id revenue officers are deemed to have no authority at all to carry out the examination of the books of accounts and other accounting
the subject liability, there is no refund to speak of. , CTA Case No. 8858
other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. An LOA is premised on the fact that the
ut VAT allegedly attributable thereto cannot be refunded. , CTA Case No. 9457
ew. , CTA Case No. 9563
assessment, the same cannot be considered final, executory, and demandable. Therefore, respondent's right to collect thereon has n
at expressly subject alkylate to PO.OO excise tax when used as a raw material. , CTA Case No. EB 1835
same was issued and served to petitioner by registered mail under Registry Receipt No. 913607 on January 5, 2015 but was "returned
ance. , CTA Case No. 9766
t issues related to or dependent on an assigned error may be passed upon by the appellate court. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-044
input VAT of Php80,430,008.8281 as of the end of the 1" quarter of CY 2015 that was to be carried over/applied to the succeeding qu
e subject of DST anew. More importantly, since the assessment is on OAC's 2013 alleged deficiency DST, the tax liability on reinstated
new LIA or LOA be issued with the corresponding notation thereto. , CTA Case No. EB 1802
ilippines, pursuant to the RP-US Tax Treaty." , CTA Case No. EB 1775
oth RMO No. 32- 2005 and jurisprudence. This means that the investigation/audit on respondent commanded by ROs Ali and Dohinog
rendered by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with reference to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund or credit, the taxpa
utation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, thereby signaling the time when penalties and inte
nsation income earned at the ADB from Philippine taxes. Basic is the rule that tax exemption represents a loss of revenue to the gover
petitioner's tax liabilities for TY 2011 had already prescribed. , CTA Case No. 9387
ion should be deleted. , CTA Case No. 8141

ision may be based. On a final note, the present consolidated cases do not require mathematical or accounting proficiency. However, t
aning, there is no prescriptive period); and (2) to apply for a cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate within the prescribed pe
rave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by
r assessment. Otherwise, the said examination or assessment is void.Considering that the assessment, particularly the FAN, was issue
cts was made. Therefore, the BIR has no basis to impose additional excise taxes under Annex A-I of RMC No. 90-2012.Evidently, the int
orfeited in favor of the government for failure of the Claimant to discharge the burden that its importation was grossly undervalued.It
arly, the BIR made an assessment based merely on a presumption vis-à-vis respondent's payment setup by its customers. Basic is the r
f Tourism, created and organized by RA No. 9593, and herein represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel. Applyin
ial Treatment was only reinstated on July 24, 2014.The inevitable conclusion then is that between July 1 , 2012 until July 24, 2014, wh
m petitioner's security notes, which are low-cost or socialized housing-related ABS and guaranteed by HGC, are exempt from income t
y, the rule is that from the date an administrative claim for excess unutilized VAT is filed, a taxpayer has thirty (30) days within which
the final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. In other words, there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts
den of proving that he is entitled to the refund or credit, in this case input VAT, by submitting evidence that he has complied with the
the FDDA, more than nine (9) months have already lapsed from petitioner' s receipt of the respondent's final decision before it raised
dvice or drawings to prove that the credit facility has been availed of by the borrower. A credit facility is merely a facility or a line for m
etation; there is only room for application. Accordingly, petitioner's argument that it is exempt from corporate income tax pursuant t
ice. Such being the case, pursuant to PD No. 242 (now Chapter 14, Book IV of EO No. 292) in relation to the doctrinal pronouncement
under Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. As to the civil aspect of these consolidated cases, the same is deemed simultane
with law, with their own rules of procedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process. 1 This principle deeply engrain
e final decision of the CIR on his protest. The act of filing a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City contradicts his claim of
cannot attain finality. For being void, the same bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. EB 1796
e shall unjusdy enriched (sic) himself at the expense of another. 'Niguno non deue enriquecerse tortizamente condano de otr' (Ong Yo
of the two power plants. There is no question that original jurisdiction is with the CIR, who issues the preliminary and the final tax ass
w payment to hotels and resorts, the input VAT paid thereon, is creditable against its output VAT. , CTA Case No. EB 1791
ll not be disturbed. All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments. Indeed, any objection against the assessment
he credible evidence.' It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition t
mere consequence of the felonious acts charged in the information, nor is it a mere civil liability derived from crime that would be wip
merely a formal, requirement. To proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a valid assessment is evidently viola
and coverage of a validly issued LOA merely through a Memorandum of Assignment. Verily, any subsequent modification of the LOA, w
eing "unjustly" assessed of a tax and sustaining "continuous heavy losses" regardless of the duration thereof. Furthermore, petitioner
nts made to the city government. Hence, pursuant to Section 2.57.5(A) of RR No 2-98, implementing Section 57 (B) of the NIRC of 1997
re, the payment made under protest by petitioner could only mean that there was no agreement between the parties. In the case of D
PD No. 1590; 2. The articles, materials or supplies imported should be for its use in its transport and nontransport operations and oth
e claim for refund was filed within the prescriptive periods; 3. there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 4. input taxes w
overed by the BSP Manual akin to functions pertaining to a financial institution. Neither can petitioner be classified as an operator of
s of language too plain to be mistaken.Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of t
n HK-ROHQ failed to do so, it has consequently lost its right to appeal. The Court in Division did not acquire jurisdiction. , CTA Case No
t the Revenue Officers who conducted the examination in this case were not validly authorized to do so, the assessment issued agains
TA Case No. EB 1755

Tax Appeals on appeal or entering into a compromise settlement, among others, which all entail financial costs to the taxpayer. Hence
must be free of VAT; while, those destined for use or consumption within the Philippines shall be imposed with ten percent (10%) VA
satisfactorily apparent on the record: either in the averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence , C
e the subject of set-off or compensation. Hence, the denial of petitioner's present claim for refund is in order , CTA Case No. EB 1758
d , CTA Case No. 9320
ectively zero-rated sales; 4. that input taxes were incurred or paid; 5. that such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectivel
e taxpayer. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.161 Hence, absent the cons
with the procedures and rules governing appeals; otherwise, the right of appeal may be lost or squandered. 26 To repeat, the 120+30 d
en has the right to demand the return of payment made by mistake, and .the person who has no right to receive such payment becom
implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of p
of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction in both cases , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-042
he taxpayer. Absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imp
heir part not to pay the taxes due. , CTA Case No. Q-627
therefore statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the government. , CTA C
t of a part or portion thereof, cannot operate to start the commencement of the statute of limitations. , CTA Case No. 8783
ce; and c) the revenue officer effecting the constructive service must make a written report of such matter, which shall form part of the
ted in the address given by him in the return filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected. JURISPRUDENCE: "The Court, likew
o the taxpayer-claimant's zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. , CTA Case No. EB 1765
t it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. EB 1771
to prove entitlement for the refund. Otherwise, the mere filing of an application without any supporting document woul
gation. Hence, the properparty to seek the tax refund or credit should be the suppliers, not thepetitioner , CTA Case No. 9617
ntity claiming the refund. 81 The piecesof evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemptionare also strictissimi scrutinized and
ed in settlement ofcriminal liability, and may not therefore be imposed or exacted on thetaxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses
tter to determine his remediestherefor. Due process requires that it must be served on andreceived by the taxpayer." , CTA Case No.
ed againstaccused-appellant as the facts upon which such liability may arise donot exist. As oft-repeated, no valid assessment appears
tioner's judicial claim was belatedly filed , CTA Case No. 9287
nd the law on which theassessments are based conforms with the constitutionalmandate that no person shall be deprived of his or he
axpayer to anexemption is strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. Theburden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly c
site in obtaining acredit/refund of input VAT, i.e., that the latter is attributable to zero rated or effectively zero-rated sales. In addition,
of taxation being a high prerogative of sovereignty, its relinquishment is never presumed.remembered that tax refunds are construed s
appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. After careful consideration
rwise, the assessment is void for lack of valid authority. , CTA Case No. 9291
, CTA Case No. 9305
initeness of plans coupled with actions taken towards its consummation are essentiaP5 The fact that it was only in 2013 when the ret
conclusion that respondent did not receive the PAN. , CTA Case No. EB 1693
innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rel
oration/partnership issued by the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and certificate/articles of foreign incorporation
er fails to file a return, in which case a deficiency tax may be assessed within ten years after the discovery of the omission. , CTA Case
efore the CTA within 30 days from the decision or inaction. Both 120-and 30-day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.16 , CTA Ca
unreported. If this is the case, the undeclared income would be effectively offset with the consideration of the related expenses , CTA
c law), the former prevails, because the rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Based on th
refund. , CTA Case No. 9017
he nullification or setting aside of an assessment or refund of a local tax or other remedy under the pertinent provisions of the Local G
ersely affected thereby. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money not b
rn receipts do not prove themselves; they must be properly authenticated in order to serve as proof of receipt of the letters.69 Respon
es. In the case, it was stated that as a result of the exchange, Dakudao gained 75% control of the MSDPC. This Court then held that a p
esented entitling taxpayers to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. Hence, an applicant for a claim
or deficiency income tax, EWT and WTC, there is no erroneous paid tax that maybe refunded to petitioner" , CTA Case No. 9213
ities as it principally performs its core business operations, such entity is not an NBFI. However, when an entity solely receives income
0-day period, and then bring the case to court within 30 days from either the decision or inaction of the local treasurer, pursuant to Se
ment in their AOI as a requirement for registration. , CTA Case No. EB-1589
oney that does not belong to it at the expense of its citizens. , CTA Case No. EB-1681
o longer valid and effective. , CTA Case No. 8984
he gross income; and 3) the fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee s
ENCE : Consequently, respondent's allegation that the FAN already attained finality for failure to protest the same is devoid of merit
n respect to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the
party or otherwise. , CTA Case No. EB 1682

he BIR, as appearing in the PAN is remain valid , CTA Case No. O-287
nder "Consultancy Services" in its GLs for CYs 2012, 2013, and 2014. The total amount of revenues from consultancy services per petit
ed from such 'related services. Based on the foregoing, it well-settled that PAGCOR and its contractees and licensees are liable to the
to prove compliance with the requisites for the grant of the refund being sought. , CTA Case No. 9148
ployee thereof responsible for the withholding and remittance of the tax shall be personally liable for the additions to the tax prescrib
se No. 9134
ank financial intermediary or is engaged in such activities, the local business tax assessment has no factual basis. , CTA Case No. EB 17
rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Once the plaintiff has established his c
T Return for the first37 quarter of CY 2016. Apparently, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of P18,240.65
ed, in relation to Sections 4.110-1, 4.110-8 and 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-05. , CTA Case No. 9539
y proven.26 In this case, Sonoma was able to prove that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its unutilized
ue officer cannot be validly made. , CTA Case No. 8961
e Minutes of the March 8, 2006 meeting. Any delay in the payments caused by the Government itself cannot be attributed to petitione
fund must perforce fail. , CTA Case No. 9299
erwise would be to render nugatory the procedure in assailing the tax deficiency assessment. The tax evasion case filed by the govern
rave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by
payer must be able to generate a report showing the reading of daily sales and the accumulated grand total recorded therein. Howeve
maining stipulated issue and the other arguments raised by the parties in this case. , CTA Case No. 9301
f 1991 defines "banks and other financial institutions" to include "non-bank financial intermediaries, lending investors, finance and inv
ANSCO received the denial of its protest, [2] and had thirty (30) days, or until April 1, 2005, within which to file an appeal before a com
r awaits the final decision of petitioner, and files the petition for review within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the said final decisi
rocess in the administrative level. In this case, Prime Steel was able to prepare and file its protest letter against the PAN, as can be see
mises cannot substitute for the facts. There being no solid proof that respondent is a NBFI, it may not be held answerable for any I-BT
e No. EB 1703
x, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." , CT
ce. The inaction of respondent on petitioner's refund claim during the 120-day period is deemed a denial of its claim. Petitioner had 3
tioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for CY 2009 were duly authorized pursuant to a valid LOA, the deficiency tax a
120-day waiting period, or (2) file the judicial claim within 30 days from the expiration of the 120day period, if respondent does not a
oid assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-045
ection 27 (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Thus, respondent's findings of deficiency income tax in the appealed Final Decision sha
be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Clearly, the compromise penalty implies
aim within the allowable period of 120 days. Thus, petitioner had 30 days or until May 27, 2016 to appeal such inaction to the Court. E
a copy of such decision or ruling, or expirationof the period fixed by law for the CIR to act on the disputed assessments.In the instant
of taxation being a high prerogative of sovereignty, its relinquishment is never presumed. , CTA Case No. EB 1674
must be established:1. An attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any taximposed under the NIRC or the payment thereof; and2. S
ay period to file anappeal should commence (1) when a decision is issued by the BIRCommissioner before the lapse of the 120-day per
d January 5, 2015 filed by petitioner onFebruary 5, 2015 was within the prescriptive period.On April 5, 2016, petitioner received the FD
eir common child.It is beyond doubt that the said transfer of property by way of gift wasmade during the lifetime of the petitioners. Th
017 within which to file its administrative claim.Considering that petitioner filed with the BIR itsadministrative claim on September 30,
rmount the holding of the Court a quo reversing theruling of the petitioner Secretary of Finance dated November 15, 2011 andBIR Ru
market placements does notper se make it a non-bank financial intermediary. To insistotherwise would be absurd as any ordinary pers
ner; which petitioner seeks to present only after obtaining an unfavorable decision; cannot be allowed. It is a forgotten evidence. Prese
t-evidence obtainable, inventory-taking, or surveillance among others has nothing to do with the LOA. These are simply methods of ex
RO Elma V. Delluta and Group Supervisor(GS) Radel Buenaobra, who were replaced by RO May F.Quiambao and GS Arnel B. Magbag, a
sions of the LGC of 1991 and pertinent laws. In other words, except when the power to sue is explicitly granted or designated to a part
e a return, in which case a deficiency tax may be assessed within ten years after the discovery of the omission. , CTA Case No. 9288
t the necessary investigation/ audit. It is an express grant of authority. Thus, in the absence of a valid LOA, the assessment or examinat
t the necessary investigation/ audit. It is an express grant of authority. Thus, in the absence of a valid LOA, the assessment or examinat
ransactions do not constitute sales. Hence, the deficiency VAT assessment should likewise be cancelled. , CTA Case No. EB 1713
functions, , CTA Case No. EB 1440
ternal Revenue with reference to a disputed assessment or a claim for refund or credit, the taxpayer may appeal the same within thirt
ify the government that such taxes have been questioned, and the notice should then be borne in mind in estimating the revenue ava
r of the Large Taxpayer Service. In fine, there is no denying that no new LOA was issued to RO Vito by the Assistant Commissioner of t
010 (July 25, 2010 being a Sunday). Upon confirmation, July 26, 2010 was not declared a holiday despite this being former President B
e Code (NIRC) or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (SIR)." Thus, based on the foregoing jurisprudence, the
he SIR's negligence in the performance of its duties was so gross that it amounted to malice and bad faith. Moreover, the Bl R was so la
rterly VAT Returns, the same is not sufficient to cover the total output VAT during the year amounting to P863,068.94. Hence, preventi
eover, the signatory in the Waivers was FPUC's Treasurer. Consequently, the Court ruled that petitioner should not be allowed to benef
ather than facilitate, the ends of justice. The relaxation of these rules, however, is contingent upon a showing of compelling and persu
as timely flied. Since the Petition for Review was filed on time, this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same pursuant to S
vely show compliance with the statutory requirements provided for under the NIRC in order to successfully pursue one's claim. , CTA
cused a "willful failure to pay" the tax, it must be shown that such failure or omission by accused was done knowingly, intentionally and
dit has been filed with the local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be entertained in any court after the expiration of two (2) years
to seizure, detention and forfeiture. By way of exception, forfeiture shall not be effected if it is established that the owner of the mea
TA, the specialized body handling tax cases, also had similar rulings. Hence, petitioner cannot be faulted if it relied in good faith on the
enting the carry-over or application of the claimed input VAT in the next taxable periods36. In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven it
trine, except for the period from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003 to 6 October 2010 when the Aichi do
As a result, petitioner's judicial claim for refund or tax credit filed before this Court on March 18, 2016 was filed out of time. As earlier
ertificate with respect to the amount of P470,408.82 representing the input VAT paid to the BOC on importations, which were exclude
y addressed with postage prepaid and that it was mailed. If the receipt of the PAN was denied, respondent must prove that the mailed
ed. Accordingly, petitioner is liable to pay the basic deficiency EWT ofP357,795.39 for taxable year 2010 , CTA Case No. 9224
ctissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, for Respondent was able to successfully overcome this b
r sale of property, petitioner may not be held liable for local business tax on its gross receipts derived from sale of its foreign and dome
actual basis of its claim.75 Failure to present sufficient evidence to justify the claim for refund is fatal.76 Consistent with the foregoing
No. EB 1629
e definition was to properly tax brands that were presumed to be riding on the popularity of previously registered brands by being mar
thing in the Court in Division's Decision which would cause this Court to deviate from its ruling. As already stated, Section 222 mandat
nila was bereft of authority to resolve respondent's Petition for Refund, the only power left with it was to dismiss respondent's claim fo
tutes expressly and clearly import. As burdens, taxes should not be unduly exacted nor assumed beyond the plain meaning of the tax l
spondent's records for taxable year 2008 was made only pursuant to TVN No. 2003 00123321 dated November 11, 2009, signed by Re
urther, the tax law, regulation, or administrative issuance that may be the subject of such question relative to its constitutionality pert
ory. Moreover, even if this Court would disregard such finding and looked into the validity of the VCRC's valuation, the Court holds tha
e Code. St. Luke's has good reasons to rely on the letter dated 6 June 1990 by the BIR, which opined that St. Luke's is "a corporation for
1997, as amended. Herein applies the legal principle that a claim for tax refund is in the nature of tax exemption. Laws granting tax exe
valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to prese
t.41 Considering the clear and explicit provision of Section 229 that refunds must be claimed within two years after the date of payme
er cannot be validly made.38 Considering that only the above officials are given the power to authorize examination of taxpayers for as
ords of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both ca
rom taxes has the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.11 To
tied up, whether singularly or cumulatively, with the amounts indicated in the sales invoices. As such, the Court cannot ascertain whe
of NPC's assets, is within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Justice. Therefore, the Court is bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance of
er in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Clearly, the compromise penalty implies a mutual agreement between the par
d. It cannot be taken to mean as a bar to avail the remedy of appeal because the rules also say that if the taxpayer opts to await the fi
shareholders instead of cash or corporate stock. (b) Clearly from all the foregoing, Petitioner's declaration and distribution of propert
cceptance indicated on the waivers; and (3) the fact of receipt by respondent of its file copy was not indicated in the original copies of
. Evidently, petitioners' administrative claim filed on March 17, 2016 and judicial claim filed on July 8, 2018, were both seasonably filed
er fails to respond to the PAN, the corresponding assessment will be issued. (b) Applying the above Supreme Court ruling in the case a
theless voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally failed to pay it. And although "willfullness" is a state of mind that may be inferred from
ax until the issuance/publication of RMC No. 31-2013, the principles of fair play and substantial justice dictate that its provisions shou
dismissal thereof. (b) Consequently, the right to appeal is forfeited by the litigant who does not comply with the manner prescribed b
e abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate only if the petitioner can establish that the Third Division issued the Resolutions w
alleged zero-rated sales were made, and not the period when the input tax was paid. Thus, the 1st quarterof 2010, covering the mon
ded under RMC No. 90-2012 and those under Section 143 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended by RA No. 10531. The Petition for Review wa
preferential tax treaty rate of 25% under Article 13(20(b) of the Philippines-Thailand Tax Treaty. Consequently, the deficiency tax asse
ature of the supposed decision appealable to this Court. Neither issue could garner the same primacy in the eyes of this Court than the
of imposition of the interests. The deficiency interest on deficiency tax is assessed "from the date prescribed for its payment until full
nt of others," in order to be within the ambit of the term "Financial intermediaries/non bank financial intermediaries" as defined simil
intentional violation of a known legal duty. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-047
DB, the rule then is that resident citizens employed by foreign governments and/ or international organizations, such as ADB, are subje
sactions. , CTA Case No. 8941
sactions. , CTA Case No. 8941
grits. Specifically, in reversing the District Collector's order which lifted the WSD and released the three (3) dump trucks, respondent C
t similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional pres
Court En Bane may only review decisions, resolutions, or orders of the former in a case that has been resolved with finality and in eff
said refund; and third, the supposed inaction of respondent to the said refund claim which may be construed as a violation of the righ
waivers until it was assessed taxes and penalties by the BIR. (b) We agree with the Court in Division's finding that nowhere in RMO No.
erties and considering that the same properties have already been the subject of an auction sale, the circumstances call for the protec
ly. The burden of proof is upon the complaining party to show clearly that the assessment is erroneous. Failure to present proof of err
become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the finality of judgment
dent should have secured another LOA after LN No. 050-RLF-07-00-00077 served its purpose before proceeding with the further exam
of Justice or the Solicitor General under Sections 6 7 and 68, Chapter 14, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
dicates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory. The same is true in the case of an amended decision. S
ntary evidence. Thus, it has lost its right to contest the assessment before the Court. On its part, the Court has no jurisdiction over an
stituent rural banks had already enjoyed the full period of exemption, they no longer possessed that privilege at the time of consolida
d instrumentalities, and local government units. Thus, respondent City of Davao should not have collected the amount of P723,531.50
ng a reasonable protest. To immediately ensue with tax collection without initially substantiating a valid assessment contravenes the p
re prematurely filed. In Team Energy Corporation (former!J MPC), v. CIR, the Court again emphasized the rule stating that 'the 120-da
financial intermediaries" under Section 4101Q.1 of Manual of Regulations for Non Bank Financial Institutions issued by the Banko Sen
vering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer would know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjuste
ds is due to some other causes, such as the use of undistributed earnings and profits for the reasonable needs of the business, particu
ents" for purposes of the aforequoted Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997. (b) The principle is well entrenched that statutes, including ad
efrom are also owned by the government. Thus, the same is not within the power of the City of Davao to tax. , CTA Case No. EB 163
to confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to the relief, and not for the granting of the relief being sought. Moreover, the Philippines-
is deemed null and void. , CTA Case No. EB 1632
to support his application, or expiration of the period given, the CIR has 120 days within which to decide the claim for tax credit or re
oner. (b) Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it
y of the records reveals that the subject Memorandum dated 2 February 2001 was neither identified nor offered in evidence by respon
ence that petitioner employ dancers to dance with its customer. Clearly, respondent failed to present evidence that petitioner's estab
rnment units. And while the Income Tax Holiday may be extended under Article 39(a)(1 ), the same cannot be done on the tax incent
d RMC No. 31-13 and sought to enforce its provisions subjecting compensation income of resident citizens employed by ADB to the g
ive and judicial claims for refund of said taxes. However, based on records, petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund or issuan
ctober 10, 2011. In his capacity as OIC-Chief of LTS-RLTAD II, Mr. Edwin T. Guzman is bereft of any power to authorize the examination
nt void and without any effect. Conjoined with the issue of the validity of the WDL, we also find the WDL without any effect as it stem
of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presente
s receipts also from year 2008. Any alleged deficiency tax derived by BCC from the carry-over of the adjusted amounts redounds to th
tion to Section 16 of PD No. 972. (b) Based on the records of the case, petitioner paid and remitted to the BIR the assessed VAT on its
tled is, in legal contemplation, void. (b) While the foregoing pronouncement is confined to "loans or forbearance of money", the amou
reof is deemed illegal or erroneous. , CTA Case No. 9104
erefore, both the administrative and the judicial claims for refund were timely filed. (b) In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenu
vidence however show that the business activities of petitioner do not fall within the scope or coverage of cabarets and/or night or da
ge of amusement tax. Thereafter, the provision imposing amusement tax on cabarets, night and day clubs under the 1977 Tax Code w
sis because petitioner failed to refute said factual findings which should be accorded not only respect but with finality under the given
's deficiency income tax on the alleged additional taxable income of P5,297,980.94 should be cancelled. (b) Moreover, there being no
mpromise, but she failed to pursue this direction.All said, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of appellant beyond moral cer
nt may no longer be questioned on appeal. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. , CTA Case
rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication. (b) Applying th
nd (i.e., first quarter of CY 2013).45 Within the one hundred and twenty (120)-day period, respondent issued the letter denying petitio
ning to a financial intermediary. Based on the foregoing, we so hold that petitioner cannot be considered an investment company, nor
es not deprive it of entitlement to treaty relief. (b) Therefore, considering that petitioner, a resident of the Netherlands, is a company
cember 2007 (Exhibit "R-9''), the same were denied admission by the Court for respondent's failure to present the originals thereof fo
hout rational basis. In order to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption
ness tax imposed by respondent City of Davao. Thus, petitioner is entitled to the tax refund being sought. (b) In the said case, petition
-registered. Upon examination of said certificates, this Court finds petitioner to have aptly proven its right to claim for a VAT refund. W
he present case. Further, the parties cannot be considered in pari delicto as the defects in the present case can only be attributable to
he Court in Division docketed as CTA Case No. 8544 to be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Supreme Court further directed Cou
e, the Court finds that prescription has not set in for respondent's assessments for deficiency VAT for the first, second, and third quar
y proven. In this case, Taganito was able to prove that it is ¢ntitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its unutilized am
t any rate, even if the said amount of interest expense is added to respondent's taxable income, petitioner is still not liable for any de
nnotation per RMO No. 43-90, there is no authority to conduct the investigation/ audit. Moreover, even if the Memorandum of Referr
or deficiency income tax and VAT for taxable year 2011 are void. , CTA Case No. 9181
ry course of trade or business, hence, is deemed a passive income that is not subject to local business tax. From what this Court can g
ings of his subordinates. (b) Considering that the Court in Division made specific factual findings upon the evidence presented in CTA C
kin to that of an investment company, or a bank or other financial institution. (b) Clearly, it is erroneous on the part of respondents to
Respondent's service of training the crew member of the non-resident foreign corporation does not make such crew member a party
usion to deny petitioner's request and he had the clear resolve to collect the subject taxes. (b) Considering that the January 11, 2012 B
buying rice, imposing a certain amount as mark up, and then selling rice at a price lower than that of the market price to cater to the
titioner as the proper party to file the claim for refund. However, the Court in Division denied anew the petition because the alleged e
of the correct amount of tax must occur after the tax return is filed. Such being the case, there can be no valid basis for respondent's c
ndent failed to make any allegation nor present any evidence that the returns filed by petitioner were false or fraudulent. Responden
In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessm
date of their respective offices are distinct from one another. , CTA Case No. EB 1498
ility in reasonable quantity, quality and price of the subject Jet A-1 Aviation fuel. , CTA Case No. EB 1545
e 120-day period to decide is intended to benefit the taxpayer toensure that its claim is decided judiciously and expeditiously. To prolo
n that respondent APC has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of a TCC in the amount of Php94,689,00 1.50 rep
risdiction over the case. 10 The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and ma
ed from interest and dividends at the rate of 0.55o/o, subject to the limitations laid down under Section 133. , CTA Case No. EB 1568
person or entityclaiming the exemption. The burden in proving the claim forrefund necessarily falls on the taxpayer. In a claim for taxr
TA Case No. 9256
and counter-arguments . , CTA Case No. 9036
t can reasonably beassumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as isdeemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of su
is burden with regard to the claimed amount of P2,491 ,809.00. , CTA Case No. 8752
in court. The theory on which they are allowed to a plaintiff is that the default of defendant made it necessary to sye, him, and to a d
to December 31, 2001 ". Said term embraces VAT as well. It is not surprising therefore that a deficiency VAT assessment was included
y claiming the exemption.3 , CTA Case No. 8971
1) year later thereby making the "denial" appealable to the CTA. The mischievous consequence - - including irregular practices of unsc
cluding VAT, so long as its sales within the Customs Territory do not exceed the aforesaid 30% threshold. , CTA Case No. 9286
th Sections 30 and 31 of Republic Act No. 9267 otherwise known as The Securitization Act of 2004 , CTA Case No. EB 1630
s "Other Taxable Income not Subjected to Final Tax".20 Accordingly, respondent had subjected the said gain to 30% regular corporate
accordance with Section 16 of the present NIRC. , CTA Case No. EB 1615
on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen's right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constit
omplied with all the statutory and administrative requirements for the grant of refund as well as to establish the factual basis therefor
nding the period to assess must,therefore, be strictly construed. , CTA Case No. 8970
t." , CTA Case No. 9252
cted. I , CTA Case No. 8765
evenue vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation31 , if the State expects taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, it mu
ocedural rules exist to be followed, not to be trifled with, and thus, may be relaxed only for the most persuasive reasons.3 , CTA Case
s and for the development of the coconut industry. it cannot be clearer that SMOCI and San Miguel shares it holds are beyond the sco
ty or c) price. , CTA Case No. EB 1484
ody to which jurisdiction has been subsequently vested. , CTA Case No. 9292
ciation, Interests, Royalties, Prizes, and OtherWinnings. - ... royalties (in any form) ... shall be subjectto an income tax of twenty percen
tatement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. , CTA Case No. 9
is never presumed nor be allowed solely on the ground of equity. These exemptions, therefore, must not rest on vague, uncertain or
alid between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in fact transpired. Th
of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed w
CTA Case No. 8936
essed of deficiency excise tax. , CTA Case No. 9090
nted by Sections 4.110-1, 4.110- 2, 4.110-8, and 4.113-1(A) and (B) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-05. , CTA Case No. 9022
be duly proven. , CTA Case No. 8995
the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory. , CTA Case No. EB 1549
he fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only to the CIR hims
TA Case No. EB 1610
ffirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied. , CTA Case No. EB 1449
from the date of submission of complete documents. , CTA Case No. EB 1508
ot mere assumptions or presumptions. , CTA Case No. O-247
f petitioner's documentary evidence were denied either due to failure to submit the duly marked exhibits or failure to submit the orig
mpromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and u
e need to submit additional documents in the administrative level. Otherwise stated, FRC's failure to submit all the requirements liste
y registered with different authorities. Also, the incentive was granted pursuant to different laws. , CTA Case No. 8977
hus, it refers to a formal assessment. , CTA Case No. O-522
No. EB 1515
of property subject of the tax-free exchange, and not as a precondition for availment of a tax exemption. , CTA Case No. EB 1522
ar 2010. , CTA Case No. 9337
charge its burden to present substantial proof that the subject importation of soya milk powder was wrongfully seized and forfeited.
at before a protest may be entertained, the tax should have first been paid and such payment shall be held in trust by the treasurer c
of money to purchase goods or properties. Simply put, the VAT is imposed when one sells, not when one purchases. , CTA Case No. E
d is beyond the taxing power of the petitioners City of Davao, et al. Any local tax imposed on respondent is imposed on the national go
act on the claim, the burden of proof of establishing the propriety of the claim for refund has been sufficiently discharged. Hence, the
-day prescribed period is deemed a denial of the claim. Accordingly, petitioner should have filed an appeal within thirty (30) days from
or the filing of the returns, to be used as bases for the three (3)-year prescriptive period, vary accordingly. , CTA Case No. EB 1542
d, does not deny or reduce a taxpayer's right to refund. What is essential under Section 229 is that the taxpayer complied with or obse
EWT, WTC, VAT, and Final Withholding VAT. , CTA Case No. EB 1486
nclude even evidence in the nature of forgotten evidence, which is not excusable. , CTA Case No. 8678
taxes for calendar year 2007. To be sure, the said Tax Verification Notice is not the valid LOA contemplated under the law. Thus, cons
ent, Evercrest/Mega Heights was granted possession, full control and enjoyment of the subject properties. On account thereof, realty
or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. EB 1465
xcess credit. However, once the carry-over option is taken actually or constructively, it becomes irrevocable for that taxable period. T
taxpayer may not any more raise defenses which go into the merits of the assessment, i.e., prescription of the Commissioner's right t
hereto. The BIR must not impose additional requirements that would negate the availment of the reliefs provided for under internatio
RO San Pedro and GS Maniego to continue the audit of petitioner for the period January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010 rendered the asse
ting of a refund in cash, but the conversion of a tax credit already "granted" into a cash refund. Considering therefore petitioners' failur
ccordingly, the assessment for deficiency taxes in said TYs is likewise void. The Court En Bane agrees. , CTA Case No. EB 1558
t it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed." , CTA Case No. 9205
alings and manifest Amadeus IT Group S.A.'s intention to pursue its business in the Philippines. Since petitioner's sales of services to A
input VAT in the next taxable quarters. In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of TCC in the re
se No. 9056
assessment issued by respondent against petitioner arising from the disallowed exempt sales in the instant case must be cancelled. , C
y petitioner. , CTA Case No. 8853
y relied on BIR Ruling [DA (C-035) 127-08] dated August 8, 2008, which states that inter-company loans and advances covered by inte
rongfully collected; and 2. the claim for refund or credit has been filed within two (2) years from t
1997 NIRC, in relation to Sections 4.110-2, 4.110- 3, 4.110-8 and 4.113-1 of R. R. No. 16-05. This just shows that the Court has exhaus
e with the 120+30day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper , CTA Case No. EB 1479
s) duly accounted for in accordance with BSP regulations. Petitioner must clearly prove these facts by substantial evidence in order to e
y not complete is substantial compliance with the law. Such compliance renders the action of the respondent in observance of the ex
e shall unjustly enriched himself at the expense of another , CTA Case No. 9127
ny surcharge or interest thereon, is assessed commencing "on the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the Commissioner
fund should already be elevated to the courts. It is unfortunate that petitioner ignored the judicial remedy when the time was ripe an
le year 2008 were duly authorized pursuant to a valid LOA, the deficiency tax assessment issued against petitioner, arising from the a
nd FAN shall be issued. Petitioner CIR's failure to strictly comply with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a denial o
oner did not provide documents to prove that PT Chevron Oil Products Indonesia is a non-resident foreign corporation doing business
efense of prescription. It is an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR that the period to issue an assessment and collect the ta
ese exhibits were denied admission. Section 205 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that "the judgment in the criminal case sh
h would have been appealable before this Court. It must be reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Tax Court is to review by appeal deci
ecause its reported unutilized input taxes for the same taxable quarter were already deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the Q
o present his or her case and produce evidence for substantiation. 21 The use of the word "shall" in these legal provisions indicates th
the aggregate amount ofP1810001000.00 for its DST due for TY 2013. , CTA Case No. 9169
n of profits when a corporation allows its earnings to accumulate in excess of 100°/o of the paid-up capital, not otherwise intended fo
nd factual bases of the same. This again renders the assessments made against petitioner void. , CTA Case No. EB 1490
the end of the first quarter of 2015, which was carried-over to the succeeding second quarter of 2015, no longer included the subjec
on with respect to the alleged findings of deficiencies or discrepancies. This stems from the basic constitutional principle that no perso
prima facie case of liability on the part of taxpayer is made. If a taxpayer files a petition for review in the CTA and assails the assessmen
99. Consequently, considering that there is no valid assessment to begin with, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy issued by respond
s being valued (Relationship Test); (2) paid by the buyer, directly or indirectly, to the seller (Payment Test); and (3) the payment is a co
g the assessment is null and void. Accordingly, respondent is not liable for the deficiency VAT assessment for TY 2006 covered by the i
tion 3.1.4of RR No. 12-99. This goes without saying that petitioner only had thirty (30) days from receipt of the Final Assessment Notic
1n derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed in strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming it. , CTA Case No.
hich theState discharges its functions for the welfare of its constituents. As between the parties, it would be more be suitable if petitio
or service. Accordingly, petitioner's act of lending money at interest- even if, as the petitioner asserts, the income merely plows back i
ictly construed. Corollary to this rule is the principle that when a taxpayer claims a deduction, he must point to some specific provisio
required where reasonableness or correctness of the amount assessed is being impugned. Hence, if a taxpayer disputes the reasonab
n of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption. Hence, assessment should
he caseon the merits. Therefore, appeals filed with this Court assailing a Decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original ju
are not presumed. Only those expressly determinedin this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the prece
y law to act thereon. A Divisi n of the CTA shall hear the appeal: Prov·ded, however, That with respect to decisio s or rulings of the Cen
s duly authorized representative will conduct such an examination and an Letter Notice (LN) does not suffice, simply because an LN is
deficiency interest shall be imposed only on "any deficiency in the tax due as the term is defined in [the National Internal Revenue] C
of whether such refund claimant is still liable for taxes other than that paid. If this Court finds that such a tax liability exists on the part
e latter to determine his remedies therefor. Due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.Taxes are the
liable for the duty and internal revenue tax due on such importation;
d on the ground that Ja dine Lloyd failed to prove that it complied with the third requisite, i.e., the fncome payments upon which the
he strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. In this case, prosecution's evidence failed to overc
e city or municipality having jurisdiction of said principal office. Considering that the Makati City office does not possess the munimen
the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such claim to prosper. Accordingly, herein petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim or fai
to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding erroneous exactions a
ero-rated sales. The word 'zero-rated', although rubber stamped, in petitioner's sales invoices serves the purpose of preventing its bu
senting 15°/o FWT withheld and remitted by petitioner on the said transaction is erroneous, thus, refundable under Sections 204(C) a
cated in the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision of March 15, 2016.In addition, petitioner admits that the Court in Division ext
urt held that Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, states that judicial claims for refund must be filed within two (2) years fro
arise by mere implication, much less by an implied re-enactment of a repealed tax exemption clause.In recapitulation, the trial court d
lpability of Ugnayang Magbubukid ng San Isidro, Inc. for the crime of smuggling. Being a juridical person created by legal fiction, the is
esent their case and adduce supporting evidence." In this case, petitioner was not properly informed of the basis of its tax liabilities. A
ment was issued, Petitioner and the San Miguel shares it holds were already declared owned by government. Hence, Public Responde
yer lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the Court." Based on the evidence presented, respondent was able to meet all th
ssing of the claim, additional documents are required for the proper determination of the legitimate amount of claim, the taxpayer-cla
llowed to file the judicial claim even without waiting for the resolution of the administrative claim in order to prevent the forfeiture of
tions: that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence.Therefore, regardless of whether petitioner
xpayer must be VAT-registered;2. the taxpayer must be engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;3. the input tax due or paid
e Court finds it improper for respondent to disallow the said excess input tax because any tax benefit derived by petitioner from the c
goods determines its taxation or exemption from tax. 43 Ergo, petitioner's purchases of goods and services from SMCC, which were c
, 2013, praying, among others, to recall the ICPA, Ms. Myra Celeste 0. Dabalos, to "correct the identification of Exhibits 'WW-2-1' to 'W
akati City during the year, his tax credit, if any, shall be applied in full during the first quarter of the next calendar year or the tax due f
ed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in
d under Sections 110(A) and 113(A) and (B) of the Tax Code, in relation to Sections 4.110-1, 4.110-8, and 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-05, as a
r conclusion that no assessment was issued. , CTA Case No. 8829
s for [RPT] ." , CTA Case No. EB 1381
be reassigned with the corresponding annotation per RMO No. 43-90, there is no authority to conduct the investigation/audit. Conseq
ure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than
record shows that the Court in Division made a very detailed determination of respondent's entitlement to the claim for refund as we
y or otherwise, sufficient to support a claim, fall short to satisfy the degree of proof needed. 28 Thus, the Court will not disturb its pre
the special classification, the properties must be "owned and used" by NIA. , CTA Case No. EB 1380
vice, preliminary letter and "audit working papers" did not suffice. There was no going around the mandate of the law that the legal a
Court a certification issued by the Bureau of Posts and any other pertinent document executed with its intervention. The Court does n
diction over the instant Petition for Review. , CTA Case No. 8834
actually applied against the tax due for the succeeding taxable year. As long as the taxpayer had elected to carry over said amount to
d sales for the same period. , CTA Case No. 8879
he rights and interestof the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 8824
18-2013, the FAN, assessing petitioner for deficiency income tax, interest and compromise penalty, has become final, executory and d
1) that the tax must be erroneously or illegally collected, or the penalty must be collected without authority, and/or any sum must be
of the LGC of 1991. , CTA Case No. AC-173
shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. Said ruling is equally true in the field of taxation, particularly in cases involving
penalties imposed in relation thereto' and must therefore not be taken in isolation to invoke the jurisdiction of the CTA. Inother words
es conferred by law for the creation, revision, or termination of specific legal relationships through the execution of specific instrumen
, CTA Case No. 9144
Moreover, if the donor is a non-resident, there is no mention that the donor's return and tax shall be filed and paid by the donee. Ins
based on the BIR's RELIEF System. Second, an LOA is valid only for 30 days from date of issue while an LN has no such limitation. Third,
ment under the 1997 NIRC for the filing of a written claim for refund. , CTA Case No. 9088
nistrative investigations "that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. , CTA Case No. EB 144
the Court En Bane cannot validly acquire jurisdiction over their appeals. Thus, the Assailed Amended Decision has already attained fin
etent evidence its entitlement to a refund , CTA Case No. EB 1466
rovincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including butnot limited to the following:XXX XXX XXX(2) A
ates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory. , CTA Case No. EB 1376
e Wine Merchants' Price List andjor Duty Free Philippines Retail Prices, together with the testimony of petitioner's fitness, were deem
compliance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. 3 , CTA Case No. 8917
2010). The mere fact that Accumulated Earnings was booked under the Head Office Account does not automatically mean that said a
made to the CIR's duly authorizedrepresentative. Hence, in cases of appeal of the FDDA, petitioner should have followed the procedur
t thereof, the assessment became final, executory and demandable pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as impl
T attributed to its zero-rated sales for FY ending March 31, 2011 in the reduced amount of P457 ,445.55. , CTA Case No. 8574
t. Accordingly, it is a claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit. Further, case law dictates that in a c
roven. In this case, AMPI was not able to prove that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its unutilized inpu
nto power, including but not limited to the services performed by subcontractors or contractors, are subject to zero percent (0%) VAT
he taxpayer. Absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imp
e with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. Correspondingly, petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim
n the next succeeding taxable years. The unutilized excess tax credits will remain in the taxpayer's account and will be carried over and
s discretion. The Court is free to adopt or disregard, completely or partially, the findings of the ICPA. It can even make its own audit an
what the law should be. Under Our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of governmen
refund of or issuance of TCC for the excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2012 was filed with the BIR LTEAD II on December 9, 2013, and
di, or every statute must be construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. A constructi
d herein may be submitted for approval by the BIR not later than fifteen (15) days before the effectivity of these Regulations." In this c
acquisition cost of the capital goods in the calendar month. If the aggregate acquisition cost exceeds P1Million, the claim for input tax
Entry and the authenticated documents from the People's Republic of China, more credence is given to the latter. In the absence of an
mise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not therefore be imposed or exacted on the taxp
ioner rightfully paid the deficiency; and is not entitled to the refund sought. , CTA Case No. 9146
titioner in its Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2013 until the second quarter of 2014, the same remained unutilized since i
payer. Strict compliance with the 120+ 30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. Such non-compliance with the said man
ssignment of shares must be upheld. , CTA Case No. 8825
es that "[t]ax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, and all presumptions are in favor of the cor
ere rehash/reiteration of the arguments in their respective Motion for Reconsideration/Partial Reconsideration.The CTA En Banc finds n
nvincing evidence, the fraudulent intent required for the imposition of the 50% surcharge on the ground of willful neglect to file retur
petitioner actually received the PAN, petitioner has been denied of its right to due process.Accordingly, the deficiency tax assessment
of anticipated needs to such accumulation of profits. The non-utilization of petitioner's appropriated earnings only proves that there
No. EB 1400
d and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No. EB 1472
rom income tax.Absence of any of the afore-mentioned elements, no income tax may be imposed upon petitioner. It is settled that the
0-day period began after the expiration of the 30-day period within which petitioner was allowed to submit its supporting documents.
d none of the said requisites. It even had no signature of the CIR. Hence, such document is not a formal assessment and not an eviden
nt Petition for Review is in order. In view of the finality of the Assailed Decision, the Court En Banc no longer deems it proper to discus
her sale of gold to the BSP. Accused cannot be permitted to invoke an excuse that she did not earn profit to exculpate her from crimin
ding of GRT on interest payments to banks.Parenthetically, it is axiomatic that the constitutionality of a law, regulation, ordinance or ac
nd with the respondent's office on April 13, 2012, supplemental letter-claim for refund and Application for Tax Credits/Refunds with t
sts upon the sole discretion of respondent, this Court may not dip its finger into it in observance of the principle of separation powers
he Court agrees with respondent LBAA's Resolution of February 28, 2013, saying that it has no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's app
s. As a water utility, the franchise tax imposed under Section 119 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is clearly applicable to petitioner. T
implemented by RR No. 13-2001. , CTA Case No. 8895
nks, as well. Since petitioner did not provide proof as basis to determine the maturities of the instruments related to the assessed ser
countant who shall be responsible in accounting all matters concerning one's finances. Likewise, accused has the right to assume that
ect importations were made; 2. The articles, supplies or materials are imported for PAL's use in its transport and non-transport operati
assessment, the absence of which renders nugatory any assessment made by tax authorities. It is but natural to establish first that Re
ormed part of the excess input VAT of P2,566,71 as of the end of the third quarter of 2013, which was carried over/ applied to the su
wise by subsequent written agreements executed before the lapse of the period previously agreed upon. , CTA Case No. 8900
ve directly attacked RMC No. 90-2012 via a Petition for Certiorari at the earliest opportunity, rather than through a collateral attack v
it is the one-year period of redemption under Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, which must be applied thereto
non-payment of DST for taxable year 2009 was due to an honest belief that it was not subject to DST. Petitioner's immediate willingne
9; (b) 2nd Quarter59 - July 26, 2009; (c) 3rd Quarter60 - October 26, 2009; and (d) 4th Quarter61 - January 26, 2010. Nonetheless, in t
t tax thereon be apportioned to the period of lease. Neither does the law nor the implementing regulations provide that the option to
% of its total gross income. In view thereof, petitioner is not entitled to avail of either the 40% standard deduction under Section 34(L) o
wever, petitioner received the FAN/FLD only on April 11, 2014, which is clearly beyond the prescriptive period given to assess. Conside
ment arising therefrom is a nullity. A void assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. 8738
lf years. From the foregoing, it cannot be said that Hoya's mistake in the declaration of its FWT payment on dividends caused such del
ded Decision has already attained finality , CTA Case No. EB-1543
are now unappealable. , CTA Case No. O-267
ty, thus, the examinations and the assessments thereon are void. Having discussed that the examinations and the assessments are vo
of PD 198, till 1991. Thus, when the LOA was served upon the petitioner by respondent on October 3, 2005, 4 5 covering taxable yea
sufficiently proven its entitlement to the refund or issuance of a TCC, representing unutilized input VAT paid on its domestic purchases
ice( FAN) can be issued. Time is quite essential in this entire procedure of administrative protest because any escalation in the levels o
of P249,651,814.1968 as of the end of the fourth quarter of 2012, which was carried over to the succeeding first quarter of 2013, no lo
d Decision has attained finality insofar as the CIR is concerned. The CIR. therefore. may no longer question the merits of the case befor
he Court cannot give credence to petitioner'sclaim that the correct amount of remittance should be P233,534.79 as reflected in BIR Fo
tation came from or the source of such computation. CIR would want IPCCO to presume that since it had already submitted such analy
on. There being no new matters or issue raised in the instant Petition for Review, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse and se
iance with the 120+30 day periods is necessary for such a claim to prosper. , CTA Case No. 8877
d until October 11, 2013 to appeal respondent's denial of its administrative claim before the CTA. Therefore, petitioner's judicial claim
mine petitioner's financial books and records. Even if respondent or the revenue officers did not examine the accounting books and re
oner received a letter dated March 9, 2015 from RDO Virtucio, with a statement that the processing of the claim could not be pursued
s obligation. Hence, the proper party to seek the tax refund or credit should be the suppliers, not the petitioner , CTA Case No. 8871
the CTA was correct in holding that the petitioner's proper recourse was not against the Government but against the seller who had
st belief on the part of petitioner that it is not subject to tax. , CTA Case No. 8912
se No. 8857
6. , CTA Case No. 9145
nto the Court a duty whichrightfully belongs to the BIR. , CTA Case No. 9261
ssment on deficiency WTC. , CTA Case No. 8490

the scope of the presentassessment. The same can only be the subject of assessment on thetaxable year when they are offset from th
evertheless voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally failed to pay it. , CTA Case No. O-104
C's assailed decision or ruling. , CTA Case No. AC-175
achinery and equipment, etc., to one of an intangible asset - shares of stocks. Consequently, this should not be subjected to VAT , CTA
ents made to the city government. Hence, pursuant to Section 2.57.5(A) of RR No. 2-98, implementing Section 57(8) of the NIRC of 199
velopment, construction and installation of the plant facilities as well as its purchases of goods, properties and services for the whole
axes were incurred or paid;5. that such input taxes are attributable to zero-ratedor effectively zero-rated sales; and6. that the input tax
n of the ADB Charter imposing the types and rates of tax of citizens of the Philippines. The word ""reservation"" in the aforequoted rat
se No. EB 1406
essments, 55 the Court En Bane shall treat all of the subject taxassessments as referring to the unprescribed portions. , CTA Case No.
cates that the filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory. , CTA Case No. EB 1315
ed decision, especially considering that the case involves voluminous and receipts. , CTA Case No. EB 1547
ailure of the prosecution'sto prove the element of willfulness of the accused not to pay the taxdeficiency. , CTA Case No. O-394
e Revised Makati Revenue Code isan ultra vires exercise of local taxing power, being inviolation of Section 146 of the Local Governmen
he Court notes that theappraised value of the unlawfully imported onions, including dutiesand taxes, clearly exceeds Php150,000.00.
djustment Returncovering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer would know whethera tax is still due or a refund can be claimed ba
eby finds that it has no jurisdiction over the case as no protest was filed within theprescriptive period, thus, rendering the assessment
all be granted on tax assessments that have already become final, executory and demandable." Put simply, Petitioner could not have g
order. Thispetitioner failed to do; thus, the Court is constrained to uphold theassessment. , CTA Case No. 8880
oner's administrative claim62 filed on December 9, 2014 and the subsequent appeal before this Court on January 7, 2015 were well w
s bereft of anyevidence that shows that the parties have mutually agreedon the imposition of compromise penalty, the Court cannots
A Case No. EB 1413
, 2013 produces no effect as prescription had already set in barring respondent from collecting the remaining deficiency taxes.In view
the required Certificate of Product Registration. The absence of such certificate or legal authority to import the subject shipment is an
Quarterly VAT Return of 2012, as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed'164 from the total available input tax of 174,303,476.48 • Thus, the claim
out paying the correct amount of tax. , CTA Case No. 8748
he amount of P424,026.41. , CTA Case No. 8947
by the CIR is void.Considering the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to discuss the remaining issues, for it is well-settled that a void a
ped from collecting taxesbecause of mistakes or errors on the part of its agents. However, this rule admits of exceptions in the interest
ax, petitioner is entitled to the refund of the 0.55°/o local business taxes erroneously collected from it for the first and second quarters
Thus, it is of no moment that respondent failed to produce or submit: (1) evidence or proof of a
t be filed within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; and
e amount of~11 ,319,226.01, representing unutilized input VAT for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2004, has been fully substantiated
1, 2014. 'The VAT zero-rating contemplated under Section 108(8)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as am
pondent was able to postpone the payment of subject taxes assessed against it. And yet, after enjoying such benefits, respondent rea
were made. Evidently, petitioner's administrative claim was ftled well within the two (2)-year prescriptive period.
ZA entity. Conversely, if the sales of goods, properties or services are consumed, used or rendered within the Customs Territory, i.e., o
41 The Court En Bane finds no reason to reverse the findings of the Court in Division, which merely considered the evidence presented
and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in
pondent did not act on the petitioner's claim on or before July 18, 2014, the latter had until August 18, 2014, the last day of the 30-day
date of the last day of filing. However, if the return is filed by the taxpayer after such date, the three-year period is reckoned from the
enue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy
113(A) and (B) ofthe 1997 NIRC in relation to Section 4.110-8 and 4.113-1 ofRR 16-2005. For failing to comply with the statutory requi
he sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country, among othe
specific, the BIR must haveshown at the very least that it had issued a Letter of Authority, sent notice of informal conference, issued a
a financial institution wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Singapore, it is therefore exempt from payment of income ta
ed by RMO No. 53-98 as a recondition to the claim for refund.
end of the three-year period from the filing of petitioner's Income Tax Return for fiscal year 2007 on April15, 2008. Considering that pe
titioner acted in good faith when it believed that intercompany advances are not subject to DST prior to the 2011 Filinvest case. After
odged with the Court in Division on September 30, 2010 or before the lapse of the 120-day period under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1
t it was made under thepenalties of perjury, the burden of evidence then shifts to the CIR to prove that (1) the certificate is not compl
roven. In this case, respondent Ong Beng Gui was able to prove that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for th
rate information; and2. That the corporate taxpayer failed to pay the required tax, make a return or keep the required record, or suppl
ent has three (3) years from the date of actual filing of the tax return to assess petitioner's documentary stamp tax. When respondent
e assessment is made;otherwise, such assessment shall be void.
r WTC, EWT, FBT, FWT, PT and DST can no longer be validly collected by petitioner from respondent for the period covering January to
c, the Supreme Court held that the 120-day period provided in Section 112(C) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Resort to the courts pr
The First Division correctly held that the Certificate of Tax Clearance from the BIR is insufficient to
t importations were made;2. The articles, supplies or materials are imported for PAL's use in its transport and non-transport operation
A void assessment bears no fruit and cannot give rise to an obligation to pay
the coverage of the phrase "other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws dministered by the Bureau
he case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in
30 day periods, is limited to premature filing and does not extend to late filing of a judicial claim. Accordingly, petitioner's belated filin
10). Under such window period , judicialclaims that did not comply with the mandatory 120-day period, but still within the 2 year pres
ct that taxes were withheld by thewithholding agent, who by law is obliged to remit the amount withheld to the BIR. In other words, i
n to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizens right is
Hence it must pursue and continue the LBAA case and follow the procedure laid down by Section 252,226,229 and 231 LGC, istead of
ts of the preferential tax rate of 10% simply because a prior application for a tax treaty relief was not made or, if made, was denied be
l from the latter's decision should be made before the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1390
volve an administrative procedure, these may be remedied through other system management processes, e.g., the imposition of a fin
art of the Government or respondent at the expense of petitioner because the imposition of the subject excise tax is in accordance w
e of filing, whichever is later. This mandate governs the question of prescription of the government's right to assess internal revenue
Case No. 9007

input VAT in the next taxable periods. , CTA Case No. 8482
xercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption
e requisites for respondent to be entitled thereto. Nonetheless, noncompliance with the foregoing may be the subject of a separate a
subject to LBT as the same belongs to the government following the Supreme Court's pronouncements in COCOFED v. Republic. Acco
, CTA Case No. 8887
sis, compromise penalties must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8483
pted to not present any evidence during trial. The DOE Certification, therefore, cannot be a prediction of future availability of local su
when the Final Adjustment Return covering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer would know whether a tax is still due or a refund
oner had thirty (30) days or until May 28, 2015 within which to file its Petition for Review before this Court. In view of respondent's ina
upon petitioner's failure to timely file its protest, and whether payment of the alleged deficiency tax, as proposed by petitioner, is corr
w renumbered as Section 112[C]) of RA 8424, which is explicit on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30-day period, w
is applicable, the rule is that the exempting provision is to be construed liberally in favor of the taxing authority and strictly against ex
y lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. With regard to refund of the input VAT from the pay
Deeds of Conveyance have the effect of abrogating the same in all parts from their respective inception, and petitioners would then be
urts as may be established by law, to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch
3)-year prescriptive period shall not be valid considering that no proceeding in court shall be begun after the expiration of such period
latter to determine his remedies therefor. Due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. , CTA Case No
sue to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed assessment, showing in detai
tion 3 of RR No. 12-99, asamended. , CTA Case No. 8737
on the part of the taxpayer, or at the very least, show culpable negligence. Hence, this Court ruled that the general rule of 3-year presc
n utility, and not from the end-users. Correspondingly, the gross receipts of respondent TRANSCO cannot be treated as the same as th
y proven. The burden in claiming tax refund rests upon the taxpayer. In this case, petitioner failed to discharge the necessary burden o
erived and severed from capital, from labor or from both combined.Simply put, for income tax to be imposed, what must be establish
within the prescriptive period;2. That there must be zero-rated or effectively zerorated sales;3. That input taxes were incurred or paid
mption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption.The law requires that
ssessment would be made; otherwise, the assessment itself would be invalid. , CTA Case No. EB 1386
urn of the recipient that the mcome payment received was declared as part of the gross income; and3. The fact of withholding is estab
which it has failed to discharge in this case , CTA Case No. EB 1360
not have appeared before the notary public because the acceptance of the BIR, as a matter of procedure, cannot be had unless and u
CIR after 120 days from the date of submission of the application with complete documents, Section 112(C) of the 1997 NIRC, in rela
ated, compromise penalties, under Revenue Memorandum Order ("RMO") No. 1-90, are only suggested in settlement of criminal liab
old is an ordinary asset, petitioner clearly did not report the sale in its VAT returns. Also, the discrepancy in the lease rentals, which ar
nly where a cause of action therefor exists, based on the complaint, the pleadings, and the evidence on record.Here, while respondent
"banks and other financial institutions", as follows:"Banks and other financial institutions" include non-bank financial intermediaries, le
ces but later was suddenly saddled with deficiency taxes due to its subsequent ruling changing the category of the taxpayer's transacti
se amounts were not itemized, there is no way for the Court to determine whether the payment for the zero-rated sales of P537,611
s final decision before it raised its case on appeal before this Court. Given the amount of time that had passed, this Court's lack of juri
in the subject FLD, thus rendering the subject tax assessment void and of no effect. , CTA Case No. 8918
credit on the LBT erroneously or illegally collected from it by petitioners.The second paragraph of the provision however states that o
f the administrative claims for refund in petitioners' Formal Offer of Evidence. Hence, the same cannot be considered by this Court in r
s, official receipts, and registered all its POS machines, and with the presumption of regularity in favor of the factual findings of the CI
ion, Petitioner again prays that it be allowed to present additional evidence to justify its claim.This is too much. A liberal application of
tissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. , CTA Case No. EB 1984
payer.And while the petitiOner has the power to make an examination of the returns and to assess the correct amount of tax, his failur
ent, it shall have the effect of rendering the subject deficiency tax assessment void, and of no force and effect, since such failure viola
mposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event of refusal to pay the suggested amount. Considering that there is no indication that pe
4 on the professional fees of Php 288, 155.As a general rule, assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good fai
dering that the case involves voluminous invoices and receipts. , CTA Case No. EB 2147
n this case. , CTA Case No. O-407

sed to price fluctuations of fuel in the international market. While the Philippines is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, th
utside the Philippines when the services were performed; 2. The payment for such services should be in acceptable foreign currency ac
of interest on the taxes sought to be refunded. , CTA Case No. 9498
s rights of Petitioner. , CTA Case No. 9466
within which a taxpayer must pay the tax deficiencies is vital to the validity of the assessment.Hence, the absence of the specific perio
on from the imposition of VAT. Simply put, while an ECOZONE is geographically within the Philippines, it is deemed a separate customs
espondent CBAA with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. , CTA Case No. EB 1963
nesses not functioning as banks or other financial institutions. In view hereof, the Court En Banc rules that respondent is en tided to it
entirely new assessment item in the form of "realized forex gain not subjected to tax" was included in the FDDA, petitioner was not gi
gally operate to lengthen petitioner's prescriptive period to assess until December 31, 2015. Hence, at the precise moment petitioner
nce of a LOA will violate a taxpayer's right to due process and render the assessment thereon void. , CTA Case No. 9712
y establish how much raw alcohol material is used for each class or type of product, per size or container. Petitioner should be able to
interests, RR No. 4-8656 dated April 2, 1986 was issued. It provided the guidelines for determining the composition of the company's a
FAN/FLD bears no fruit and must be slain at sight.Time and again, it has been ruled that the prima facie correctness of a tax assessmen
s laid down in the tax code and the BIR's revenue regulations under which such privilege of credit or refund is accorded. In other word
and be based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Since taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the right of taxation ca
judgment of the Court. , CTA Case No. EB 1862
ny output VAT liability, the last requisite for the entitlement of the refund/issuance of TCC was not met. Consequently, the instant claim
de the appeal. If the taxpayer is unsatisfied with the Local Board's decision, the taxpayer may appeal before the CBAA within thirty (30)
le is applied in this case, Univation has successfully proven its entitlement to its refund claim and We find no compelling reason to dis
ns and other activities incidental thereto; and3. The articles, materials or supplies should not be locally available in reasonable quantit
nd Article 1, Reservation Clause of the RP-US Tax Treaty. Thus, petitioner's argument has no legal leg to stand on. , CTA Case No. EB 19
al act. Consequently, respondent Commissioner may no longer collect the balance of the same VAT assessment. , CTA Case No. 9704
quarters. To end, petitioner was able to partially show the Court its entitlement to the present refund claim. Hence, the partial grant
simi scrutinized and must be duly proven.86 Hence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitleme
ance with the relevant rules and pursuant to the duty of a party to a case to present evidence necessary to establish his claim or defen
e fonn of tax credit." , CTA Case No. EB 1934
such assessment becomes invalid as well as the notices issued subsequent to the conduct of the alleged audit investigation because a
o discuss the other issues raised by the parties , CTA Case No. 8922
not decide the case on the merits as the only power left with it is to dismiss the case. It is well-settled that perfection of appeal in the
les. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they ar
ed on the taxpayer in the event of refusal to pay thesuggested amount. Considering that there is no indication thatpetitioner consente
official what his duties are and that he discharged these duties accordingly. , CTA Case No. 9545
eficiency tax as stated in the assessment notices. , CTA Case No. EB 1902
unity to dispute and present evidence against the PAN, before the final assessment was issued. Correspondingly, since the subject defi
e period of January 1, 20 11 to July 18, 2011. The Court cannot determine the amount of DST that shall be refunded. Thus, on this insta
ns indefinite, since the said tax assessment is still subject to modification or adjustment, depending on the date of payment by petition
ingly, since the subject deficiency tax assessments were issued in violation of petitioner's right to due process, the same are null and v
mant must positively show compliance with the statutory requirements provided for under the NIRC in order to successfully pursue on
dment was implemented under Revenue Regulations No. 21-2018 dated September 14, 2018, this Court shall modify the computation
of proof lies upon him who asserts it, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce an
in the amount of P35,891,738.32 was undated and does not contain a demand for payment within a prescribed period.The significan
the authority of RO Luzviminda G. Sabile to examine petitioner was derived from an LOA. Considering that the revenue officer who co
ion of the excluded evidence. Conversely, where documentary evidence was rejected by the lower court and the offeror did not mov
ceived by, petitioner. Not having authority to examine petitioner in the first place, the assessment issued by RR No. 8 -Makati is inesc
duct test and commissioning for a maximum period of two (2) months even without the required COC, and the sale of the generated o
. , CTA Case No. EB 1957
on. , CTA Case No. EB 1829
es a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter which is so compromised. The imposition of the
rting documents at each stage in the assessment process. In case respondent or the BIR fails to observe due process, it shall have the
e thereto, it is noted that as stated in the Service and Energy Based Availability Agreement dated March 1, 2013 between petitioner an
assessment void. , CTA Case No. 9553

gainst the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. Relative thereto, since the pertinent provisions of RMO No. 19-2
local treasurer on local tax protests, depending on the amount; and the appeal be brought and taken cognizance by the Regional Trial
eir own rules of procedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process." This Court, thus, agrees with the CTA Division t
bsequent to the periods in question. He appeared to have known this duty required by law, yet he missed out in the subject taxable ye
bserved correctly that petitioner's basic tax liability (as stated in the FLD) amounts to P173,638.69, making the compromise amount of
the outcome of the Court in Division's assessment of Exhibit "P-4". In other words, for the subject DST to be refunded, it must be sho
n on May 18, 2018, the same was timely flied. , CTA Case No. AC-203
estion of fact that should be alleged and duly proven. The willful neglect to file the required tax return or the fraudulent intent to evad
unts and other accounting records. , CTA Case No. OC-021
officer may validly examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of a taxpayer. In the absence of an LOA, the tax asse
broad, but does not establish that such entity is not doing business in the Philippines. One without the other is not sufficient. In the ca
under NIRC, the grant of refund is proper. , CTA Case No. EB 2015
d have filed its judicial claim before this Court covering the said period, within thirty (30) days after such expiration, i.e., on or before M
ly violated her known legal duty to pay the assessed taxes, without need of showing bad faith or bad purpose in doing so.
debiti. , CTA Case No. EB 2002
he NIRC, as amended. On a final note, a claim for unutilized input value-added tax is in the nature of a tax exemption. Thus, strict adhe
the rules of procedure and observe court, processes; in its failure to be prompt in attending to said duty, it must bear the consequen
ers and employees. Further, considering that it was only the accused-petitioner who was charged in the MeTC, the penalty should not
emands, the suit is deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed, not on the date of the filing of the amen
nt Stipulation of Facts and Issues that it received the Collection Letter dated December 15, 2016. In this Court's view, such statement is
irectly related to the PEZA-registered activity, it should be treated as a direct cost and includible in the allowable deductions from the
d cases, which were deemed instituted with the criminal prosecution, it is unfortunate that the prosecution failed to present any evide
e this Court on October 18, 2016 and April 17, 2017, respectively, in compliance with Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as
as no pending tax liabilities, but merely verifies and checks the status of the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9445
amended Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of taxable year 2013. Hence, the subject claim no longer formed part of the exc
e petitioner can apply the preferential tax rates under the pertinent tax treaties is no longer necessary. , CTA Case No. 9069
otices issued pursuant thereto void. Being void assessments, they bear no fruit and must be slain at sight. , CTA Case No. 9710
the Certifications issued by BPI and Metrobank vis-a-vis the Monthly Remittance Return of Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Ta
e the latter in the first place, the subject deficiency tax assessments for taxable year 2008 issued by respondent against petitioner is in
demic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a ruling would be of no practical use
rant thereof. To end, both parties failed to present meritorious arguments to justify the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolutio
ng the subject deficiency income tax assessment, are inescapably void.Apropos, it is well-settled that a void assessment bears no valid
other government agency. Clearly, this is a dispute between two government entities, and as such, following the ruling in the PSALM c
d be properly taken cognizance by the CTA; (2) jurisdiction was duly acquired over petitioner after it was served with summons; (3) pe
nce, petitioner is entitled to the refund of the deficiency EWT assessment it paid under protest in the amount of P1 ,042,579.35In ligh
he taxpayer sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund, it is incumbent upon the government to refund what the taxpayer is entitl
e any civil liability upon the petitioners in these consolidated cases. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-054
ected. However, as earlier discussed, the Court finds no erroneously or illegally collected income tax from petitioner. Tax refunds, being
ty of the stipulations and evidence (true or false) admitted at trial form parts of the factum probans, the reliability of which may or ma
ral due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and the judicial claims would resu
show that petitioner consented to the compromise penalties.Consequently, the compromise penalties should not be imposed and mu
phold the assessment on this item in line with the rule that tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good
is imposed when one sells, not when one purchases. The under-declaration of purchase on the part of PPMDI is also of no consequenc
bsequently vested. Thus, this Court, having had ample opportunity to abide by the ruling in the PSALM case, has no jurisdiction over th
he Court shall no longer discuss the correctness of the itemized list of tax deficiencies and the amounts indicated therein. , CTA Case N
ayers are allowed to pay the uncontested issues in the assessment, while protesting the issues it does not agree with. In fact, before a
oof that the assessed deficiency taxes fall under the circumstances which are either excluded or deductible. Failure to do so, the Court
Million, the claim for input tax should be spread over 60 months or the estimated useful life of the capital goods, whichever is shorter.
evidence because clearly, it forms part of the ICPA report which was indeed formally offered in evidence and admitted by this Court, h
ase No. EB 1801
urisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between th
put VAT of P2,127,740.8887 as of the end of the pt Quarter of CY 2016 which can be carried over or applied to the succeeding quarter
ment for CY 2008 is void for being issued in violation of petitioner's right to due process, the Court finds it no longer necessary to discus
s. , CTA Case No. EB 1874
subject assessments against petitioner for deficiency income tax, VAT and compromise penalty are void for lack of authority. , CTA Cas
sidering that no FAN was issued, the payment was not based on an assessment which became final and executory. Further, the payme
lid fruit. Correspondingly, in view of the nullity of thesubject tax assessments, the aggregate amount of P8,906, 107.84should not have
ndent. Such being the case, the total amount of Php 4,128, 132.38, being refunded by petitioner, must be granted. , CTA Case No. AC
never presumed. For tax exemption to be recognized, the grant must be clear and express; it cannot be made to rest on doubtful imp
on to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the partie
r tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary r
aged in business in the Philippines. , CTA Case No. 9631
upported by the evidence on record and it is consistent with prevailing law and jurisprudence , CTA Case No. EB 1863
is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is atte
funded. The wisdom of the Supreme Court, in its ruling in the case of CIR vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, is apropos.Having settled th
ayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, and the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing the factual basis of his claim for a
ctly belongs to the taxpayer. Absent a showing that petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, the imposition of compromise p
fail. , CTA Case No. 9321
k. , CTA Case No. 9241
No. 9367
the relevant sections discussed. Furthermore, as the Court in Division observed, Zuellig's ITRs are insufficient to prove petitioner's pri
roducts" was intentionally undervalued and misdeclared to evade payment of the correct duties and taxes. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-04
ect PPA fees. , CTA Case No. AC-199

. , CTA Case No. 9540
tainly violates petitioner's right to be informed of the facts and the law on which the assessment was made, as required by Section 22
or examination is a nullity. , CTA Case No. EB 1843
on 1149 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, which requires VAT registered persons to pay VAT on monthly basis and
which to appeal respondent's inaction to this Court. Considering that petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review32 on August 11,
e its petition for review with this Court within thirty (30) days. , CTA Case No. 9448
-06-21-18-1258(024) dated June 21, 2018 is void and must perforce be cancelled and set aside. , CTA Case No. 9880
tent and sufficient evidence in determining the civil liability of the accused as provided under Section 205 of the NIRC of 1997, as ame
, the deficiency tax assessment issued by the respondent against the petitioner is void for lack of authority. Considering that the asses
when applied in particular case because of its peculiar circumstances. Accordingly, it is the duty of this Court to find a balance betwee
uld supposedly trigger the imposition of fifty percent (50%) surcharge. , CTA Case No. 9638
nce that establishes a positive act that petitioner indeed filed its tax returns. In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessme
mmissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Filinvest Development Corporation, et al. Although only the decisions of the Supreme Court establ
atutory powers. The balance between these is achieved by ensuring that any examination of the taxpayer by the BIR's revenue officer
ption of correctness of the assessment does not apply in the present case considering that respondent's conclusion, i.e., the undeclare
quipment (Phils.). Ine. The CIR also takes exception to CoralBay's contention that the latter's domestic purchases of services attributab
Official Receipt Nos. 776080 and 776181 issued by Enviroaire to the PNP Finance Center, in order to conceal its true income which re
support its credibility and integrity. Tax assessments by tax examiners are prima facie presumed correct and made in good faith. The ta
m foreign currency transactions with nonresidents, offshore banking units in the Philippines, local commercial banks including branch
date. Thus, the reckoning period to be considered from which the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund shall be counted i
he BIR failed to establish that the persons who received the notices were authorized persons to receive such and or even connected t
s inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of
e Court En Bane had already resolved a similar issue in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lawl Pte. Ltd., , CTA Case No.
d its protest, respondent attached the GIS and Balance Sheet. The term 'relevant supporting documents' should be understood as tho
not the proper party to file the claim for tax refund or credit, the Court in Division found that such arguments were only raised by pet
s is not a transfer of real property ownership under Section 135 of the LGC. Clearly, MAPL shares are equities and, by definition, not re
ounting two (2) years from the said date, petitioner had until August 28, 2015, within which to file its claim both in the administrative
was predicated, lest the assessment shall be declared void. Jurisprudence tells us that valid assessment is one which sufficiently inform
ome of its invoices/receipts had no TIN and address or that there were some input taxes included that were not directly attributable t
e taxpayer. The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly pro
N or until July 6, 2014, / within which to file its administrative protest. Hence, petitioner seasonably instituted its Protest25 to FAN on J
ssessment has become conclusive and unappealable pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC. , CTA Case No. AC-214
he 120-day period.23 In other words, when the 120day period of inaction lapses, taxpayers should no longer wait for the CIR to come u
ction 143(t) of the 1991 LGC.33 The dividends and interests35 of Respondent in this case, which are considered part of its passive inco
ucted the audit and examination of the taxpayer. It went on further to declare as void the subject disputed assessment for lack of an L
an assessment or claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful exercise of its power to pass upon all matters brought before it, as sanction
ny of petitioner's witnesses. The Judicial Affidavits of Attorney J. Carlito M. Montenegro, Richard A. Baliola, and ICP A Glenn Ian D. Villa
t of the tax or penalty. Thus, Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall b
voluminous documents in claims for refund, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to coordinate with ICPA and ensure that ICPA's rep
ended by RA No. 9400, Subic Bay Freeport (SBF), operating within the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone (SSEFZ), is operated a
spect the books of taxpayers, not to determine the latter's real liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to molest peacefu
er the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Even though the Tax Code recognizes a taxpayer's right to claim the refund of excess or errone
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made , CTA Case No. EB 1781
e implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client
tion for Review and in his Memorandum. , CTA Case No. EB 1798
son to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision or Resolution. Hence, the denial of the instant Petition is in order. , CTA Case No.
rge into a single corporation which shall be one of the constituent corporations or may consolidate into a new single corporation which
may review this ruling. Moreover, the Court can act on a judicial claim for refund of erroneously or illegally collected internal revenue t
to tax (derived for each taxable year from all sources within and without the Philippines). , CTA Case No. EB 1717
lifeblood of the government, the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude".All told, considering that there was no LOA au
the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof. , CTA Ca
sequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence. Applying the rules laid down in Pilipinas Total Gas
even by express consent of the parties.59 If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss
ases, such does not result in the automatic imposition of income tax and VAT as held in the case of Commissionerof Internal Revenue v
the assessment void. , CTA Case No. EB 1880
's right to collect taxes,23 determination of the validity of a warrant of distraint and levy issued by the CIR and the validity of a waiver
e abuse of discretion on the part of the Court in Division. We therefore see no reason to reverse the said ruling thereof. , CTA Case No
es: (a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the fa
nied a VAT claim for refund and reiterated the same guiding principle , CTA Case No. EB 1834
se No. 9376
accounts and other accounting records of petitioner for all internal revenue taxes for the period covering the year 2011. , CTA Case N
premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who has already filed his tax returns is a power that statutorily belongs only
right to collect thereon has no basis. , CTA Case No. 8648
uary 5, 2015 but was "returned to sender" for failure of petitioner to claim the same despite three notices.55 Respondent also presen
Case No. EB CRIM-044
r/applied to the succeeding quarters. ,\s such, it eliminates the possibility that the present claim would be applied to future output VA
, the tax liability on reinstated policies, which should accrue in 2012, cannot be the subject of the assailed assessment. , CTA Case No
anded by ROs Ali and Dohinog from which the subject assessments were predicated has no prior legal authorization from the CIR or p
for refund or credit, the taxpayer may appeal the same within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. , CTA Case No. 9038
e time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies therefor. D
a loss of revenue to the government and must, therefore, not rest on vague inference. , CTA Case No. EB NO. 1878
ounting proficiency. However, time and again, this Court held that claims for refunds herein are tried de novo requiring accurate and ve
icate within the prescribed period. 24.However, once the carry-over option is taken actually or constructively, it becomes irrevocable
the documents presented by the parties." Moreover, "[i]t is established that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their te
particularly the FAN, was issued pursuant to an examination conducted by revenue officers who were not authorized to conduct such e
No. 90-2012.Evidently, the intent of our legislature in enacting RA No. 10351 is to simplify our taxation system, so that fermented liqu
on was grossly undervalued.It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally respected and even a
by its customers. Basic is the rule that 'in order to stand judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on facts. The presumption of
ent Corporate Counsel. Applying the aforementioned jurisprudential pronouncements, it is evident that the instant case should be gove
1 , 2012 until July 24, 2014, when no Special Treatment for rice was in place under treaty, there was no need to secure import permits
GC, are exempt from income tax and consequently, from final withholding tax. Thus, petitioner is entitled to a refund in the amount of
thirty (30) days within which to submit the documentary requirements sufficient to support his claim, unless given further extension
hose decisions all other courts and everyone else should take their bearings. 56 In this case, petitioner has failed to highlight any set of
hat he has complied with the requirements laid down in the Tax Code and the BIR's revenue regulations under which such privilege of
s final decision before it raised its case on appeal before this Court. Given the amount of time that had passed, this Court's lack of juri
merely a facility or a line for making a specific amount available for the use of the borrower. It is not tantamount to the delivery of th
rporate income tax pursuant to Section 13 of PD. No. 1869, insofar as its income from its junket gaming operations under the Junket A
the doctrinal pronouncement of the High Court in the PSALM case, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant claim for r
he same is deemed simultaneously instituted and jointly determined with the instant criminal cases pursuant to Section 7(b)(1) of Rep
1 This principle deeply engrained in the law and jurisprudence is the essence of the ruling of the Court in the case at bar. , CTA Case N
o City contradicts his claim of awaiting the final decision of the CIR. Again, it only shows that petitioner erroneously resorted to a wro
mente condano de otr' (Ong Yong, et. al. vs. David 5. Tiu, et. aL, 3 75 SCRA 640). Said ruling is equally true in the field of taxation, parti
eliminary and the final tax assessments. However, if the government entity disputes the tax assessment, the dispute is already betwe
Case No. EB 1791
ection against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue paved in Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC on protests on a
which is offered in opposition thereto. It must be emphasized that once the requirements laid down by law have been met, a claimant
d from crime that would be wiped out by the judicial declaration that the criminal acts charged did not exist. , CTA Case No. O-415
d assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative investigations: that taxpayers should be able to present th
ent modification of the LOA, which was signed by the Regional Director, cannot be done merely through a Memorandum of Assignme
reof. Furthermore, petitioner failed to prove that compared to other taxpayers, it was not accorded the same treatment as that of oth
tion 57 (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, income payments made to the City Government of Iligan is exempt from the payment of
een the parties. In the case of De San Agustin vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Supreme Court held that: The Court of Tax Ap
ntransport operations and other activities incidental thereto; and 3. The articles, materials or supplies should not be locally available in
ro-rated sales; 4. input taxes were incurred or paid; 5. such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; a
e classified as an operator of business establishments offering, inter alia, "business management services". , CTA Case No. AC-197
, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government. , CTA Case No. EB 1804
ire jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. EB 1736
the assessment issued against CPI is void. It follows the time-honored principle that "a void assessment bears no valid fruit". In view
al costs to the taxpayer. Hence, the period granted to assail the PAN is integral to the right of due process granted by law to the taxpa
ed with ten percent (10%) VAT , CTA Case No. 9454
stablished by the evidence , CTA Case No. EB 1873

order , CTA Case No. EB 1758
ble to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and 6. that the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability. Petition
d.161 Hence, absent the consent of herein petitioner to the compromise penalty, its imposition should not be allowed. , CTA Case No
ed. 26 To repeat, the 120+30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Nonadherence therewith, as occurred in the instant case, r
o receive such payment becomes obligated to return the same. The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti harks back to the ancient princip
mpromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. 76 Absent a showing that herein petitioner con
on should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized , CTA Case No. E
r of the government. , CTA Case No. 9239

, CTA Case No. 8783
er, which shall form part of the docket of the case. , CTA Case No. EB 1728
PRUDENCE: "The Court, likewise notes that no other written communication was sent by respondent to petitioner, other than the as
y supporting document would be as good as filing a mere scrap of paper. , CTA Case No. EB 1689
r , CTA Case No. 9617
so strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven.Hence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax creditmust not only prove entit
event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggestedcompromise penalty. Considering petitioner did not pay thecompromise penalty im
he taxpayer." , CTA Case No. EB 1852
, no valid assessment appears to have beenestablished by the prosecution. , CTA Case No. 9152
shall be deprived of his or herproperty without due process of law. Between the power ofthe State to tax and an individual's right to d
r to show that he has strictly complied withthe conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. " , CTA Case No. 9322
y zero-rated sales. In addition, the fourth requisite,i.e., the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-ratedsales, is likewise n
hat tax refunds are construed strictly against the , CTA Case No. EB 1700
e. After careful consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the Court finds that plaintiff fa
was only in 2013 when the retained earnings were reverted and declared as dividends would already negate the immediacy test and w
s own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence
articles of foreign incorporation/association, and that there is no other indication that the recipient of the services is doing business in
ry of the omission. , CTA Case No. 8735

and jurisdictional.16 , CTA Case No. EB 1733
of the related expenses , CTA Case No. 9199
s of the basic law. Based on the foregoing, between July 1, 2012 until July 24, 2014, when no Special Treatment of rice was in place un
nent provisions of the Local Government Code on local taxes. Clearly, the instant case is not a local tax case, hence, not within the jur
ernment to keep money not belonging to it, if any is proven, and thereby enrich itself at the expense of the taxpayers. If the State expe
eceipt of the letters.69 Respondent also failed to present a certification of the postmaster that the notice was duly issued and delivere
. This Court then held that a prior confirmatory ruling from the BIR under RR 18-2001 is not a condition sine qua non for the property-
ence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all th
er" , CTA Case No. 9213
n entity solely receives income from its NBFI activities, or when there is a showing that it performs no other business activity other tha
local treasurer, pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC of 1991 , CTA Case No. AC-191
ed by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld. , CTA Case No. EB-1738
st the same is devoid of merit since petitioner cannot be expected to protest the FAN without first being properly informed of the bas
ng it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. Absent a showing that petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should
consultancy services per petitioner's GLs for CYs 2012, 2013, and 2014 were the same amounts reported by petitioner in its ITRs for t
and licensees are liable to the corporate income tax only in their "other related services". Such income tax liability does not extend to
he additions to the tax prescribed herein." , CTA Case No. EB 1581
al basis. , CTA Case No. EB 1708

e plaintiff has established his case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in turn, has the burden to establish his defens
xcess input VAT of P18,240.651.06 as of the end of the first quarter of CY 2016 that was to be carried over or applied to the succeedin
dit certificate for its unutilized and excess creditable withholding taxes for calendar year 2012. , CTA Case No. EB 1691
nnot be attributed to petitioner. That would be plainly unjust and inequitable. Consequently, the increments for late payment of incom
asion case filed by the government against the erring taxpayer has, for its purpose, the imposition of criminal liability on the latter. , C
the documents presented by the parties." , CTA Case No. EB 1667
otal recorded therein. However, nowhere in the said rules and regulations does it explicitly mention that such report refers to a backe
ding investors, finance and investment companies, pawnshops, money shops, insurance companies, stock markets, stock brokers and
to file an appeal before a competent court. Correspondingly, the appeal filed by respondent TRANSCO with the RTC — Branch 217 on
receipt of the said final decision. , CTA Case No. EB 1714
against the PAN, as can be seen from its well-prepared protest letter dated January 21, 2009 and received by the BIR on January 22, 2
held answerable for any I-BT imposed upon the dividends realized on its SMC preferred shares, and interest from its money market p
e been erroneously paid." , CTA Case No. 8914

al of its claim. Petitioner had 30 days from the expiration of the 120day period to file its judicial claim with this Court. Its failure to do
valid LOA, the deficiency tax assessment issued against petitioner, arising from the audit they conducted, is void ab initio. , CTA Case
riod, if respondent does not act within that period. , CTA Case No. 9356
he appealed Final Decision shall prevail. , CTA Case No. 9166

e compromise penalty implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect of the thing or subject matter which is so comprom
al such inaction to the Court. Evidently, petitioner's judicial claim for refund on May 27, 2016 was timely filed. , CTA Case No. 9369
ed assessments.In the instant case, petitioner received the FDDA on July 13, 2016. Counting thirty (30) days therefrom, petitioner had
o. EB 1674
the payment thereof; and2. Such attempt to evade or defeat tax or the paymentthereof is willful.To sustain a conviction for failure to m
e the lapse of the 120-day period and (2)when no decision is made after the 120-day period. Since theexpiration of the 120-day period
016, petitioner received the FDDA issued onApril 4, 2016. Counting 30 days from April 5, 2016, petitionerhad until May 5, 2016 within
lifetime of the petitioners. The transfer is fullyconsummated as the title over the subject property was already issuedunder the name
rative claim on September 30, 201533, the same wastimely filed. , CTA Case No. 9276
November 15, 2011 andBIR Ruling No. ITAD 210-11 dated August 15,2011. , CTA Case No. EB 1668
be absurd as any ordinary person whoinvests funds in money market or shares of stock will beconsidered as a non-bank financial inter
is a forgotten evidence. Presentation of forgotten evidence is disallowed because it results in a piecemeal presentation of evidence, a
hese are simply methods of examining the taxpayer in order to arrive at the correct amount of taxes. Hence, unless undertaken by the
bao and GS Arnel B. Magbag, and eventually reassigned to Janet Q. Soretta under the supervision of GS AdolfM. Viacrusis, were not au
ranted or designated to a particular city official under the law, a prior resolution from the Sangguniang Panglungsod is necessary for an
ssion. , CTA Case No. 9288
A, the assessment or examination is a nullity. Let it be stressed that a LOA is the proof that the person/s named therein is/are authorize
A, the assessment or examination is a nullity. Let it be stressed that a LOA is the proof that the person/s named therein is/are authorize
y appeal the same within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. Thus, the Cruzes had 30 days to appeal the CIR's denial of its protest to
in estimating the revenue available for expenditure." , CTA Case No. 9364
e Assistant Commissioner of the Large Taxpayer Service in relation to her investigation of petitioner's tax liability for taxable year 2010
e this being former President Benigno Aquino Ill's first State of the Nation Address (SONA). Therefore, LOA No. LOA-2009- 00025791 da
foregoing jurisprudence, the issuance of a mere LN and not of a LOA in the conduct of said examination or investigation renders such
h. Moreover, the Bl R was so lax such that it seemed that it consented to the mistakes in the Waivers. Such a situation is dangerous and
P863,068.94. Hence, preventing the carry over or application of the input VAT for the next taxable period. , CTA Case No. 9180
hould not be allowed to benefit from its wrongdoing and tPr:-DECISION CfA Case No. 8993 Page 13 of 28 should be deemed estopped
owing of compelling and persuasive reasons to justify the same, which is certainly not obtaining in the present case. On a final note, pr
nce of the same pursuant to Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by Section 7 of RA No. 9282.43 Based on the a
ully pursue one's claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1603
ne knowingly, intentionally and with the specific intent not pay the tax. In other words, it must be shown that accused was aware of hi
the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refu
ed that the owner of the means of conveyance used as aforesaid, is engaged as common carrier and not chartered or leased, or that t
if it relied in good faith on these rulings." Based on the above-cited case, and considering petitioner's good faith in relying on previous
oner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of TCC in the amount of P844, 194.90. representing its unutilized e
ctober 2010 when the Aichi doctrine was adopted, which again reinstated the 120+30-day periods as mandatory and jurisdictional." (E
was filed out of time. As earlier stated, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal of the denial of the claim or inaction on the par
ortations, which were excluded in the authority to issue VAT credit/refund but were excluded in the tax credit certificate issued, as wel
ent must prove that the mailed letter (proved to be containing the PAN) was indeed received by the addressee or its authorized repres
, CTA Case No. 9224
to successfully overcome this burden. , CTA Case No. EB 1740
m sale of its foreign and domestic stocks, interest income, dividend income, foreign exchange gains and gain on sale of investments. In
Consistent with the foregoing principles, the Court En Bane holds that SMC failed to sufficiently prove its assertions. The Court En Bane
egistered brands by being marketed under an almost identical name with a prefix, suffix, or a variant. It seeks to address price differen
dy stated, Section 222 mandatorily provides that a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or failure to file a return, the tax m
o dismiss respondent's claim for lack of jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. AC-198
the plain meaning of the tax laws.40 All told, We see no reason to justify the imposition of the capital gains tax on the transfer by BBC
vember 11, 2009, signed by Revenue District Officer Rey Asterio L. Tambis, which authorized Revenue Officer (RO) Clea Marie P. Piment
ve to its constitutionality pertains to the issuances of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, with the exception of local taxes. In the instant c
valuation, the Court holds that the upgraded valuation of the subject shipments is null and void for (1) disregarding import clearance p
St. Luke's is "a corporation for purely charitable and social welfare purposes" and thus exempt from income tax. In this case, there is n
emption. Laws granting tax exemption are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.
payers should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence ... " , CTA Case No. 8863
o years after the date of payment, regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after such payment, relaxing the rule on the ma
examination of taxpayers for assessment purposes through the issuance of an LOA, logically speaking, it is only them who can effect an
hstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge.40 While there are exceptions to
ical to be misinterpreted.11 To be sure, the Court En Bane adheres to the timehonored principle that tax laws are strictly construed ag
he Court cannot ascertain whether or not these remittances pertain to the same sales transactions included in the Schedule of Export S
sdiction to take cognizance of the present case. On a final note, jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamen
al agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter which is so compromised.96 The imposition of the same wi
e taxpayer opts to await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment, the taxpayer can appeal such final decisi
ion and distribution of property dividends to its shareholders in the form of TAPC shares of stock is not within the ambit of the term "
cated in the original copies of the waivers. , CTA Case No. 9262
18, were both seasonably filed. (b) In fact, on April 12, 2013, respondent issued RMC No. 31-2013, wherein he clarified that only the o
eme Court ruling in the case at bar, this Court finds that the evidence of the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove that GECC or any of it
mind that may be inferred from the circumstances of the case and proof of willfulness may be, and usually is, shown by circumstantial
ictate that its provisions should apply to claims starting only from 2013 and onwards. , CTA Case No. 9083
with the manner prescribed by the Rules. The perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisd
ision issued the Resolutions without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would no
terof 2010, covering the months of January to March 2010, clearly came before the issuance of the COCs on May 24, 20 10 and Augus
31. The Petition for Review was filed based on the theory that the aforesaid revenue issuance is invalid and unconstitutional. Petitione
uently, the deficiency tax assessment on royalty payments for taxable year 2009 arising from the royalty payments made by petitione
the eyes of this Court than the failure on the part of the petitioner to establish the fact of issuance and receipt of the PAN by respond
ribed for its payment until full payment thereof;" while the delinquency interest, which is imposed for failure to pay a deficiency tax o
termediaries" as defined similarly in (i) Section 2(D)(c) of R.A. 337, or the General Banking Act, as amended, (ii) Section 2.3 of Revenue
zations, such as ADB, are subject to the graduated income tax rates under Section 24(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. However, c
(3) dump trucks, respondent COC relied solely upon the provision in Section 1113(a) that the "mere carrying or holding on board of sm
dly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. Should the prosecution fail to discha
esolved with finality and in effect already finally disposed of. Without doubt therefore, petitioner availed of the remedy under Section
trued as a violation of the right of petitioner to the said refund. (b) Although the claimed input VAT was carried over by petitioner in i
ing that nowhere in RMO No. 69-2010 is it stated that the conduct of the audit pursuant to the previously-issued manual LOA will be
cumstances call for the protection of petitioner's right. Furthermore, to allow respondent Mandaluyong City to illegally appropriate th
Failure to present proof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial affirmance of said assessment. , CTA Case No. 9259
, that the finality of judgment becomes an established fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal. , CTA Case No. 9151
ceeding with the further examination and assessment of Petitioner's tax case for TY 2007. This, Respondent failed to do, and as a cons
. 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 198 7". And such interpretation must be respected by all courts. (b) In the ins
ase of an amended decision. Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended decision as '[a]ny action modifying or reversing
urt has no jurisdiction over an assessment which has become final and unappealable. (b) In the instant case, there is no disputed asses
vilege at the time of consolidation. Instead, they have become liable for taxes, which are assumed by the consolidated rural bank. (b)
ed the amount of P723,531.50 from petitioner, being considered Government property. (b) Well settled is the rule that in the absence
assessment contravenes the principle in administrative investigations "that taxpayers should be able to present their case and adduce
e rule stating that 'the 120-day period is crucial in filing an appeal with the CTA.' '[T]he 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional
utions issued by the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) nor in the definition of "banks and other financial institutions" as contemplated b
claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures. , CTA Case No. 9249
needs of the business, particularly compliance with the covenants of the syndicated loan agreement in this case, such purpose would
hed that statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively only, unless the legislative intent to the contra
o tax. , CTA Case No. EB 1639
ht. Moreover, the Philippines-Japan Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-requisites for the availment of the benefits provided ther
e the claim for tax credit or refund. Should the taxpayer, on the date of his filing, manifest that he no longer wishes to submit any oth
eep money not belonging to it and thereby enrich itself at the expense of its law-abiding citizens. If the State expects its taxpayers to o
r offered in evidence by respondent during the entire proceedings before the CTA in Division. Consequently, this is fatal to respondent'
vidence that petitioner's establishment also functions as a night club. Records are bereft of evidence that petitioner's establishment w
not be done on the tax incentive given under Section 133(g). , CTA Case No. AC-183
ens employed by ADB to the graduated income tax rates immediately, Petitioner was constrained to file his Income Tax Return for cale
ative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate only on December 11, 201429, while the judicial claim was subsequently filed
r to authorize the examination of taxpayers or to effect any modification or amendment to a previously issued LOA because, as menti
L without any effect as it stems from a void assessment. Respondent is then mistaken in his notion that the determination of the valid
alyze the documents presented by the parties. , CTA Case No. EB 1573
usted amounts redounds to the succeeding year 2009. Since the alleged tax deficiency will be in the succeeding year, at most, BCC ma
e BIR the assessed VAT on its partial shipment of diesel on September 3, 2013. Counting two (2) years from the said date, petitioner
bearance of money", the amount of tax refund which the taxpayer is entitled to, and which the government is obliged to pay on the b
mmissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., the Supreme Court held that in orde
of cabarets and/or night or day clubs, since there is no indication that its customers frequent its establishment to dance, either with t
bs under the 1977 Tax Code was further carried over to Section 125 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9279
ut with finality under the given circumstances. (b) We also agree with the petitioner that there is no legal or factual basis for requiring
(b) Moreover, there being no mutual agreement between the parties, the imposition of compromise penalty in the amount of P40,00
of appellant beyond moral certainty of violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 253( d) and 256 of the NIRC, as amended. , CTA
present petition. , CTA Case No. EB 1566
by implication. (b) Applying the ratio of the Supreme Court, the fact that JBFLI consistently insisted in its statement in the Certificate a
sued the letter denying petitioner's claim for refund, which letter was received by petitioner on June 22,2015.46 Within thirty (30) day
d an investment company, nor a bank or other financial institution, hence not subject to the rate of tax imposed in Section 3A.02 (h) o
the Netherlands, is a company the capital of which is wholly divided into shares and holds directly 51.21% of TDHC, then the dividend
present the originals thereof for comparison. Without the returns, the Court cannot determine whether respondent's right to assess p
actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumptio
t. (b) In the said case, petitioner is one of the "CIIF companies" being referred to. Thus, since petitioner is considered as Government
ht to claim for a VAT refund. With said certificates, its sales to the PEZA-registered entities are thus deemed zero-rated. , CTA Case N
ase can only be attributable to respondent. Specifically, the Court notes that there are infirmities in the Waiver executed. First, petitio
me Court further directed Court in Division to resolve the case with dispatch. , CTA Case No. EB 1499
e first, second, and third quarters of 2011, and for deficiency EWT and WTC for the months of January to October 2011. , CTA Case N
certificate for its unutilized amortized input taxes on importation and domestic purchases of capital goods with aggregate acquisition
ner is still not liable for any deficiency income, as shown above. (b) In the instant case, there is no showing that respondent has substa
if the Memorandum of Referral will be taken into consideration, it will still not be valid since it was signed not by the Revenue Region
ax. From what this Court can gather with this contention, petitioner is of the view that if a person or entity is classified as a holding co
e evidence presented in CTA Case No. 8855, and which became the basis of the Court in Division's ruling to partially grant respondent
on the part of respondents to impose LBT on petitioner's dividend and interest income, considering that the basis for the imposition t
ke such crew member a party to the service agreement between respondent and the non-resident foreign corporation. Consequently,
ng that the January 11, 2012 BIR letter constitutes the final decision of respondent, petitioner had thirty (30) days from March 16, 201
e market price to cater to the majority of the Filipino buyers. (b) While this Court is ever-mindful that the local government unit's pow
petition because the alleged erroneous input VAT payments were not sufficient to cover its output VAT liabilities arising from the said
o valid basis for respondent's contention that considering that there is an indication, in petitioner's ITR and audited financial statemen
alse or fraudulent. Respondent also failed to justify the application of the ten ( 10)-year prescriptive period, thus, only the ordinary th
be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawful where it does not appear to have been arrived a
sly and expeditiously. To prolong theprocessing of the application of refund would be prejudicial to its iqterest. , CTA Case No. 8926
ount of Php94,689,00 1.50 representing excise taxes paid on importations for Jet A-1 fuel for the period March to November 2006. , C
y a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. , CTA Case No. EB
133. , CTA Case No. EB 1568
he taxpayer. In a claim for taxrefund or tax credit, the applicant must prove not onlyentitlement to the grant of the claim under substa
not indispensable, in aid of such appellatejurisdiction. In the same vein, the following principle, as enunciated in TheCity of Manila cas
cessary to sye, him, and to a defendant, that plaintiff sued him without cause , CTA Case No. AC-187
y VAT assessment was included in the First PAN7 \ the First FLD75 and the First FDDA , CTA Case No. 9123
ing irregular practices of unscrupulous publicofficials, cannot be discounted. , CTA Case No. 9115
d. , CTA Case No. 9286
A Case No. EB 1630
gain to 30% regular corporate income tax. 21 Having already paid corporate income tax for the gains it derived from its receipt of liqu
Bill of Rights under the Constitution." 111 Thus, while taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the power to tax has its limits, in spit
blish the factual basis therefor. The testimonies of petitioner's witnesses are not sufficient to convince this Court that petitioner is ent
esty in paying their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding erroneous exactions and payment of such taxes. It
suasive reasons.3 , CTA Case No. EB 1539
res it holds are beyond the scope of the Davao City's taxing power. , CTA Case No. EB 1628
n income tax of twenty percent (20°/o) on the totalamount thereof: Provided, however, That royalties onbooks as well as other literar
d therefrom. , CTA Case No. 9335
ot rest on vague, uncertain or indefinite inference, but should be granted only by a clear and unequivocal provision of law on the basis
ction has in fact transpired. These documents are not mere scraps of paper bereft of probative value, but vital pieces of evidence of c
t by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law
05. , CTA Case No. 9022
y belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives , CTA Case No. EB 1575
ts or failure to submit the originals for comparison , CTA Case No. 8397
of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. 8915
bmit all the requirements listed under RMO No. 53-98 is not fatal to its claim for tax credit or refund of excess unutilized excess VAT. ,
Case No. 8977
. , CTA Case No. EB 1522
ongfully seized and forfeited. , CTA Case No. 9488

held in trust by the treasurer concerned. , CTA Case No. EB 1459
e purchases. , CTA Case No. EB 1572
t is imposed on the national government. To insist taxing the respondent would clearly be in contravention of Section 133(o) of the LG
ciently discharged. Hence, the grant of refund is proper. , CTA Case No. EB 1540
eal within thirty (30) days from the lapse of the 120-day period. , CTA Case No. 9080
y. , CTA Case No. EB 1542
xpayer complied with or observed the mandatory and prescriptive periods, aside from the taxpayer's duty to exhaust available admini
ted under the law. Thus, considering that the revenue officer who conducted the examination was not validly authorized to do so, the
es. On account thereof, realty tax assessments were issued against Evercrest/Mega Heights which were taxable entities. The said actio
able for that taxable period. The phrase "for that taxable period" merely identifies the excess income tax, subject of the option, by ref
of the Commissioner's right to assess the tax. , CTA Case No. EB 1513
provided for under international agreements. More so, when the RP-Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-requisite for t
st 31, 2010 rendered the assessment issued against petitioner void. , CTA Case No. 9046
ng therefore petitioners' failure to refute, or validly argue against, the finding of the RTC-Branch 146, as affirmed by the Court in Divisi
CTA Case No. EB 1558
titioner's sales of services to Amadeus IT Group S.A. for the year 2013 do not qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of th
nd or issuance of TCC in the reduced amount of P20,250,968.78, representing petitioner's unutilized excess input VAT attributable to it
ant case must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8904

and advances covered by inter-office memoranda are not subject to DST. Hence, petitioner's reliance on the said BIR Ruling justifies t
ed within two (2) years from the date of payment of tax, or penalty, regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment
ows that the Court has exhaustively examined each and every evidence submitted before it." (Italics in the Original.) With no other po
bstantial evidence in order to establish its claim for refund. , CTA Case No. EB 1599
ndent in observance of the exhaustion of administrative remedy requirement under the law and with such observance, the filing of th
demand of the Commissioner ... until the amount is fully paid". , CTA Case No. EB 1412
edy when the time was ripe and blindly relied on respondent's actions even after the lapse of time prescribed by the law. The letter da
petitioner, arising from the audit they conducted, is void ab initio. Finding that the assessment for taxable year 2008 is void for being
w and its own rules is a denial of the taxpayers right to due process. 11 Thus, the Court in Division aptly held in the Amended Decision t
gn corporation doing business outside the Philippines, the related sales/receipts thereto in the amount of $367.40 (P15,700.85) shall
assessment and collect the taxes due is extended to a date certain. The waiver does not mean that the taxpayer relinquishes the right
dgment in the criminal case shall not only impose the penalty but shall also order payment of the taxes subject of the criminal case as
urt is to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments. The Tax Court is a court of spe
Refund/TCC Claimed" in the Quarterly VAT Returns for the next taxable quarter/s. Finding no reversible error, We AFFIRM the assailed
se legal provisions indicates the mandatory nature of the requirements laid down therein. With the FLD having been issued in violatio
tal, not otherwise intended for the reasonable needs of its business, which is also indicative of the purpose to avoid income tax upon s
ase No. EB 1490
no longer included the subject claim. , CTA Case No. 9079
utional principle that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. , CTA Case No. 9108
CTA and assails the assessment, the prima facie presumption is that the assessment made by the BIR is correct, and that in preparing t
and/or Levy issued by respondent to petitioner, in so far as it seeks to collect from petitioner the aforesaid delinquent income tax and
st); and (3) the payment is a condition for the sale of the goods (Condition Test). All tests must be satisfied separately and the absence
t for TY 2006 covered by the invalid LOA. , CTA Case No. EB 1535
of the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) to file a valid protest thereto. Due to the lapse of the prescribed period without a proper protes
ty claiming it. , CTA Case No. 8921
d be more be suitable if petitioner's lapses were allowed to pass andconsequently uphold the waivers in order to support this principle
he income merely plows back into its general funds to be used once again in social welfare activities - is subject to the imposition of VA
point to some specific provision of the statute in which that deduction is authorized and must be al to prove that he is entitled to the d
axpayer disputes the reasonableness of an increase in a real property tax assessment, he/she/it is required to 'first pay the tax' under
on. Hence, assessment should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. ,
n the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be brought before the Court in Division by way of a Petition for Review under a procedur
shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; xxx." In the absence of any evidence showing that respondent ha
decisio s or rulings of the Central Board of Asses ment Appeals and the Regional Trial C urt in the exercise of its appellate jurisdic ion a
ffice, simply because an LN is entirely different and serves a different purpose than an LOA. Without such an LOA, the resulting assessm
e National Internal Revenue] Code." Had it been the intention to impose deficiency interest on all deficiency tax liabilities, this specific
a tax liability exists on the part of the refund claimant, the same must be computed and deducted from the refundable amount, if any;
by the taxpayer.Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. But even as we
To implement the provisions of RA No. 10351, the BIR issued RR No. 17-
me payments upon which the claimed unutilized cwr were withheld werf declared as part of its gross income. , CTA Case No. EB 1177
tion's evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, thus, the accused are entitled to an acquittal. , CTA Case No. O-37
oes not possess the muniments of a branch, i.e. performing the same business operation as that of the principal office, then all sales a
filing of its judicial claim or failure to observe the mandatory 120+30 day periods is fatal to its claim and rendered the Cou devoid of ju
funding erroneous exactions and payment of such taxes. It thus behooves thegovernment to refund what it erroneously collected. , CT
e purpose of preventing its buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases' when no VAT was actually paid. It also helps s
dable under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.To borrow from Commisst ner of Internal Revenue vs. FortuneT
that the Court in Division extensively and resolutely discussed in the body of the assailed Decision the basis and rationale of its exem
e filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty, providing further that the same may not be maintained un
recapitulation, the trial court did not err in ruling that respondent is not exempt from taxation based on R.A.No. 9284. Moreover, the p
created by legal fiction, the issue of whether the commission of the offense charged was willful or knowingly made by the Corporation
the basis of its tax liabilities. And inasmuch as no valid notice of assessment was sent to petitioner, the Warrant of Distraint and/ or Le
ment. Hence, Public Respondents no longer had any authority to issue the said Business Tax Order of Payment based on Section 143 o
ondent was able to meet all the requirements that will entitle it to a refund/tax credit albeit, partially.In the instant case, as petitioner
ount of claim, the taxpayer-claimants shall submit such documents within thirty (30) days from request of the investigating/processin
er to prevent the forfeiture of the taxpayer's claim throughprescription. , CTA Case No. 9073
gardless of whether petitioner timely filed its protest or whether there was proper service of the FAN, respondent cannot collect the a
es;3. the input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input VAT, to the extent that such input VAT h
rived by petitioner from the carry-over of the said amount redounds to the succeeding quarter(s). Since the tax benefit will be in the s
ces from SMCC, which were consumed outside the PEZA zone, do not qualify for VAT zero-rating, and accordingly, are subject to 12°/
tion of Exhibits 'WW-2-1' to 'WW-2-260', 'WW-3-375' to 'WW3-384', 'ZZ-2', 'ZZ-B' and 'ZZ-1 0'. The said Motion was granted by the Co
calendar year or the tax due from him for the same business of said calendar year. A reading of the foregoing shows that taxpayers ha
ition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund thei
d 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-05, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9015
he investigation/audit. Consequently, the subject assessment is null and void, and as such it bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. 8844
dvised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice
t to the claim for refund as well as the substantiation of the precise amount to be refunded. In contrast, petitioner made a mere swee
e Court will not disturb its previous findings absent any compelling evidence to the contrary. , CTA Case No. EB 1441
ate of the law that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in writing in the formal letter of demand accompanying the
intervention. The Court does not put much credence to the self-serving documentations made by the SIR personnel, especially if they
to carry over said amount to the succeeding taxable year that choice is irrevocable for that taxable period. The excess amount shall be
become final, executory and demandable. , CTA Case No. 8903

ority, and/or any sum must be excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected; and (2) that the claim for refund or credit must be file
, particularly in cases involving claims for refunds , CTA Case No. 9092
tion of the CTA. Inother words, the subject phrase should be used only in reference to cases that are, to begin with, subject to the excl
xecution of specific instruments. DST is by nature, an excise tax since it is levied on the exercise by persons of privileges conferred by
ed and paid by the donee. Instead, it is provided that the return must be filed with the Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the country
has no such limitation. Third, an LOA gives the revenue officeronly a period of 120 days from receipt of LOA to conduct his examinatio
dence. , CTA Case No. EB 1446

ecision has already attained finality, and can no longer be questioned by the parties. , CTA Case No. EB 1403
he following:XXX XXX XXX(2) All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importationsby the gr
petitioner's fitness, were deemed sufficient to rule that the cost of importing commissary and catering supplies is lower than purchasin
utomatically mean that said accumulated earnings were already applied or earmarked for re1ni ttance to the head office. Responden
ld have followed the procedure laid down in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by RR No. 12-99. , CTA Ca
of 1997, as amended, as implemented by RR No. 12-99. , CTA Case No. 8793
er, case law dictates that in a claim for tax refund or tax credit, the applicant must prove not only entitlement to the claim but also com
ertificate for its unutilized input VAT paid for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2011. There being no new matters or issues raised i
bject to zero percent (0%) VAT under RA No. 9513, petitioner's recourse is not a claim for refund from the BIR but to seek reimbursem
on should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No.
ated filing of its judicial claim for failure to observe the mandatory 120+30-day periods is fatal to its claim and has rendered the Court
nt and will be carried over and applied against the taxpayer's income tax liabilities in the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized. A
an even make its own audit and evaluation of the documents pertinent to the case presented during the trial in order to intelligently r
olitical branches of government and of the people themselves as the repository of all state power. And, since We adhere to the cardin
D II on December 9, 2013, and the subsequent appeal was filed before this Court on April 10, 2015, clearly, both the administrative an
of jurisprudence. A construction of a statute which creates an inconsistency should be avoided when a reasonable interpretation can
of these Regulations." In this case, petitioner failed to show that it has complied with those requirements. The categorical statements
Million, the claim for input tax should be spread over 60 months or the estimated useful life of the capital goods, whichever is shorter.
the latter. In the absence of any other evidence to prove an honest mistake or good faith on the part of petitioner Kingson, there can b
mposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested compromise penalties. It is well-settled th
me remained unutilized since it was deducted in the second amended Quarterly VAT Return of 2012 as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed" from
compliance with the said mandatory period of 120+30 days is fatal to Petitioner's claim of refund on the ground of prescription, result
mptions are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment unless proven otherwise." , CTA Case No. EB 1454
ration.The CTA En Banc finds no new matters which have not yet been considered, passed upon and exhaustively discussed by the CTA
d of willful neglect to file return. It is well settled that in order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on a
the deficiency tax assessment against petitioner must be declared null and void for having been issued in violation of the due process
rnings only proves that there was no immediate need for such appropriation/accumulation. While the laws and regulations in prescrib
petitioner. It is settled that the determining factor for the imposition of income tax is whether any gain or profit was derived from a tra
mit its supporting documents. , CTA Case No. 8849
assessment and not an evidence competent and sufficient enough to be included in the final judgment of the instant case as provided
nger deems it proper to discuss the remaining issue as to the validity of petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized CWTs for CY 2010. ,
t to exculpate her from criminal liability. The transactions in this case involve millions of pesos. It is highly improbable that accused did
aw, regulation, ordinance or act will not be resolved by courts if the controversy can be, as in this case, settled on other grounds. As a
for Tax Credits/Refunds with the SIR's Large Taxpayers Service on February 28, 2014 and April 1, 2014, respectively, and the fact that
principle of separation powers among the three branches of the government. , CTA Case No. EB 1468
n to entertain petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement under the LGC. , CTA Case No. EB 1392
early applicable to petitioner. Therefore, its payment of franchise tax was correct. As a result, the claim for refund cannot be granted ,
nts related to the assessed service fees and commissions, respondent's imposition of 5% GRT shall not be disturbed, in line with the ru
d has the right to assume that the BIR Forms No. 2316 and 2307, showing his total income for TYs 2008 and 2009, are accurate and we
port and non-transport operations and other activities incidental thereto; and 3. The imported articles, supplies or materials are not lo
atural to establish first that Respondent was able to receive a PAN, rather than proving that Respondent is liable for deficiency tax if d
arried over/ applied to the succeeding fourth quarter of 2013. , CTA Case No. 8874
n. , CTA Case No. 8900
n through a collateral attack via judicial claim for refund, which indirectly but surely questions the validity of RMC No. 90-2012. Collat
which must be applied thereto. Consequently, considering that it is undisputed that the subject Certificate of Sale was registered on De
titioner's immediate willingness to settle its deficiency DST assessment after the Filinvest case has confirmed the taxability of intercom
ary 26, 2010. Nonetheless, in the present case, respondent admitted that the BIR sent to petitioner the PAN on December 28, 2010 an
ons provide that the option to carry over to the succeeding quarters any unutilized input tax precludes the option to file a claim for re
eduction under Section 34(L) of the 1997 NIRC or of the 10% preferential income tax rate being given to proprietary educational institu
eriod given to assess. Considering that the assessment was made beyond the prescriptive period, the assessment is void. , CTA Case N
t on dividends caused such delay in the BIR's issuance of its assessment so as to justify the ten-year period. , CTA Case No. EB-1524
ns and the assessments are void, the Court will not belabor on the other issues raised for it is well-settled that a void assessment bear
2005, 4 5 covering taxable year 2003, the former no longer enjoys the exemption from franchise tax. Thus, petitioner is now liable und
aid on its domestic purchases of goods and services for the four quarters of 2008 which is attributable to its zero-rated sales for the sa
e any escalation in the levels of the protest, i.e. Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice, leaves the taxpayer with fewer op
ding first quarter of 2013, no longer included the subject first quarter claim and the input VAT of P147,996,613.2769 as of the end of th
n the merits of the case before this Court. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Court to discuss the other issues raised by the CIR. ,
3,534.79 as reflected in BIR Form No. 1604-E75 and not P214,185.00 as found by respondent. A revisit of petitioner'sBIR Form No. 160
d already submitted such analysis, it would become the basis of its assessment without seeking further clarification or explanation from
gent reason to reverse and set aside the Assailed Decision dated February 2, 2015 and Assailed Resolution dated August 20, 2015 of th
fore, petitioner's judicial claim for refund filed before this Court on February 19, 2014 was filed out of time. To reiterate, the 30-day p
e the accounting books and records of petitioner, they still had no authority to examine or investigate petitioner in relation to its taxe
he claim could not be pursued in light of the issuance of RMC No. 54-2014.82 Therefore, petitioner should not have awaited the decisi
titioner , CTA Case No. 8871
ut against the seller who had shifted to it the output VAT , CTA Case No. 8990
r when they are offset from the output tax due. , CTA Case No. 8678
not be subjected to VAT , CTA Case No. 8897
ection 57(8) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, income payments made to the City Government of !ligan is exempt from the payment o
es and services for the whole process of exploration and development of renewable energy sources up to its conversion into power, i
sales; and6. that the input taxes were not applied against anyFirst Requisite:output VAT liability.2. that the claim for refund was filed w
ation"" in the aforequoted ratification therefore is to be construed as an excepting clause to the tax exemptions found in the treaty es
bed portions. , CTA Case No. EB 1335
y. , CTA Case No. O-394

n 146 of the Local Government Code, andtherefore null and void and cannot be given any effect. , CTA Case No. EB 1428
early exceeds Php150,000.00. , CTA Case No. O-282
or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted andaudited figures. records show that petitioner electronicallyfiled its CY 2011 Annu
us, rendering the assessment final, executory,and demandable. , CTA Case No. 8836
ly, Petitioner could not have granted Respondent's request for re-investigation if it failed to submit all relevant supporting documents
o. 8880
n January 7, 2015 were well within the two-year period prescribed by law.In recapitulation, the Court finds that petltloner has sufficie
ise penalty, the Court cannotsustain the same. As held in the assailed Decision andResolution, the Final Assessment Notice and Final D
aining deficiency taxes.In view of the foregoing disquisition, a discussion on the remaining issues is deemed unwarranted. , CTA Case N
port the subject shipment is an essential ingredient of the offense charged against the accused, which the prosecution failed to establis
4,303,476.48 • Thus, the claimed input taxes for the fourth quarter of CY 2010 could not have been carried-over/utilized in the succee
or it is well-settled that a void assessment bears no fruit. , CTA Case No. 8884
ts of exceptions in the interest of justice and fair play. In the instant case, the acts of the respondent to set up kiosks in the lobby of AD
r the first and second quarters of 2011 on the dividends arising from its SMC preferred shares and interests on its money marketplace
mit: (1) evidence or proof of actual receipt of the goods, (2) the statement showing the amount and description of the goods delivered
4. the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales
, has been fully substantiated pursuant to Sections 4.104-5 and 4.108-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95.For his part, petitioner CIR, fa
(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended (in relation to Section 8 of RA No. 7916, as amended) and Section 4.106-5 of RR No. 16-05, as am
such benefits, respondent readily challenged the validity of the waiver when the effects thereof were not in its favor. Verily, responden
e period. There is no d
n the Customs Territory, i.e., outside the Ecozone, such sales by a VAT-registered entity to a PEZAregistered entity shall be subject to t
dered the evidence presented by respondent in arriving at its Decision. In fact, due to the rule that refunds are construed strictly agai
e other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen's right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitutio
014, the last day of the 30-day period, within which to file its judicial claim.However, petitioner filed its Petition for Review before this
ar period is reckoned from the date of actual filing. At this juncture, the Co
e warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly .
omply with the statutory requirements in support of its claim, Toledo, therefore, has no factual and legal basis for the reversal of the C
a foreign country, among others. These documents may be evidenced by (1) official publication thereof, or (2) copy attested by the off
informal conference, issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice, and issued the Final Assessment Notice as well as Formal Letter of Dem
pt from payment of income tax and FWT on income derived from its investments in Philippine loans, stocks, bonds or other domestic
More importa
il15, 2008. Considering that petitioner received the FLO No. 39-808-0 dated March 11, 201352 only on March 12, 201353, the subject
the 2011 Filinvest case. After all, it was based on numerous rulings of the BIR that intercompany advances are not subject to DST. Mo
r Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, since such filing was made after the issuance of the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated D
(1) the certificate is not complete; (2) it is false; or (3) it was not issued regularly.36 In the case at bar, petitioner failed to dispute the e
of a tax credit certificate for the paidwithholding tax on compensation for calendar year 2009, but in the reduced amount of P17 4,460
p the required record, or supply the correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes with
stamp tax. When respondent has validly issued an assessment within the three-year period, he has another five (5) years within whic
In Commissioner o
he period covering January to September 2008.The law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of the income tax is benefi
tional. Resort to the courts prior to the expiration of the 120-day period is a patent violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administ
from the BIR is insufficient to prove that petitioner had already been dissolved.It is not within the authority of the BIR to determine w
t and non-transport operations and other activities incidental thereto; and3. The imported articles, supplies or materials are not locally
ve rise to an obligation to pay deficiency taxes. In view of the violation of respondent's right to procedural due process pursuant to Se
ws dministered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue" pursuant to Section 7 (a) (1) of R.A. No. 1125, as amended, and Section 3(a)(1) of R
e assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (1 0) years a
ingly, petitioner's belated filing of its judicial claim or failure to observe the mandatory 120+30 day periods is fatal to itsclaim and ren
but still within the 2 year prescriptive period, shall be entertained. , CTA Case No. EB 1491
d to the BIR. In other words, it is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld at
ndividual, for a citizens right is amply protected by the bill of rights under the Constitution. - for CIR v. Metro Suprema case
26,229 and 231 LGC, istead of filing a complaint with the RTC. The Court En Banc finds the RTC instead of taking cognizance of the case
ade or, if made, was denied because of a requirement that was legislated beyond the statutory authority given under the law. Toallow
es, e.g., the imposition of a fine or penalty. But we cannot totally deprive those who are entitled to the benefit of a treaty for failure to
t excise tax is in accordance with law. In other words, there is no erroneous payment of excise tax to speak of in this case , CTA Case N
ght to assess internal revenue taxes, primarily to safeguard the interests of taxpayers from unreasonable investigation. , CTA Case No
me, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. , CTA Case No. 9359
be the subject of a separate and independent cause of action by petitioner , CTA Case No. EB 1371
in COCOFED v. Republic. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the refund or credit of the erroneously or illegally collected LBT in the fi
f future availability of local supply or a projection of future levels of supply and demand, but instead, certifies to a fact that was existin
her a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures. , CTA Case No. 9026
urt. In view of respondent's inaction on its claim, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review before this Court on May 27, 2015, w
proposed by petitioner, is correct which will render the amount assessed moot and academic. "The Court may not limit itself to the is
e of the 120+30-day period, was already effective on January 1, 1998.37 Considering that the nature of the 120+30 day period was fir
uthority and strictly against exemption from tax liability, the result being that statutory provisions for the refund of taxes are strictly c
of the input VAT from the payments made to non-residents, the above-quoted provision of RR No. 16-2005 requires that it must be su
and petitioners would then be restored to their previous positions prior to the subject transactions, as if they never entered into the s
ion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government, in relation to Section 5(5), Article VIII thereof, vesting upon it the
r the expiration of such period. The law is likewise clear on the exception to theprescriptive period of assessment. Pursuant to Section
by the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. EB 1447
assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is ba
he general rule of 3-year prescriptive period to assess applies. The false or fraudulent return as an exception to the period of limitation
ot be treated as the same as the gross receipts of BA TELEC II. The former were realized by respondent TRANSCO in transmitting electr
harge the necessary burden of proof. , CTA Case No. EB 1394
posed, what must be established is that there was a flow of wealth on the part of respondent PEATC, or a return in money from respon
ut taxes were incurred or paid;4. That such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and5. That the inp
umption.The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in the formal letter of demand and assessment
he fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the
e, cannot be had unless and until the same has been earlier notarized as manifested in Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 05-01
12(C) of the 1997 NIRC, in relation to RR No. 16-2005, grants the taxpayer 30 days to file a judicial claim with the CTA. Records disclose
d in settlement of criminal liability, and may not be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuses the same.
y in the lease rentals, which arose from lower lease rental revenue being recognized in the VAT returns, clearly show that some reven
ecord.Here, while respondent's 3% CWT already paid to the BIR is related to his relief prayed for in his Petition before the Court in Divi
ank financial intermediaries, lending investors, finance and investment companies, pawnshops, money shops, insurance companies, st
ory of the taxpayer's transactions for the purpose of paying its VAT, this Court ruled that applying such ruling retroactively would be pr
e zero-rated sales of P537,611,641.02 were indeed "accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP' , (CTA Cas
passed, this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition for Review becomes indisputable. , CTA Case No. 9147
rovision however states that once the tax credit is granted, the taxpayer may no longer opt for a refund as the amount shall be applied
e considered by this Court in ruling the Petition.The taxpayer has the burden to prove its entitlement to a tax refund. "Tax refunds part
f the factual findings of the CIR's representatives, this Court is led to believe that there is, indeed, truth behind the factual findings in t
o much. A liberal application of the rules of procedure to suit Petitioner's purpose would clearly pave the way for injustice as it would b
orrect amount of tax, his failure to exercise such powers does not create a presumption in favor of the correctness of the returns. The
effect, since such failure violates the due process rights of the concerned taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9433
at there is no indication that petitioner consented to the subject compromise penalty, the said amount cannot be sustained. , CTA Ca
d correct and made in good faith and all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the assessments. The taxpayer bears the burde
ndance of natural resources, the flip side of that coin makes this archipelago likewise subject to Mother Nature's fits of temperament,
acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules;3. The services fall under any of the categories under Section 1
e absence of the specific period in the FLD and Assessment Notices negates the CIR's demand for payment and makes the assessment
is deemed a separate customs territory and is regarded in law as foreign soil. Sales by suppliers from outside the borders of the ECOZO
at respondent is en tided to its refund claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1944

he FDDA, petitioner was not given the chance to refute within the administrative level the said assessment. It should therefore be canc
he precise moment petitioner issued the FAN/FLD on September 10, 2015, prescription had already set in and implementation thereo
A Case No. 9712
r. Petitioner should be able to show how it computes for the usage of raw alcohol in the process of converting it into finished products
omposition of the company's assets. Under the said Revenue Regulation, the term "Real Property Interest" shall be understood to inclu
orrectness of a tax assessment does not apply upon proof that an assessment is utterly without foundation, meaning it is arbitrary and
und is accorded. In other words, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but
nment, the right of taxation cannot easily be surrendered; statutes granting tax exemptions are considered as a derogation of the sove
Consequently, the instant claim for refund/issuance of TCC must necessarily fail.A claim for refund of excess or unutilized input VAT is i
ore the CBAA within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Local Board's decision. The decision of the CBAA is appealable before the Cour
nd no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1892
available in reasonable quantity, quality or price. , CTA Case No. EB 1901
tand on. , CTA Case No. EB 1921
essment. , CTA Case No. 9704

laim. Hence, the partial grant of the same is in order. , CTA Case No. 9557
must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. , CTA Case
to establish his claim or defense by the arrlount of evidence required by law. , CTA Case No. EB 1811
d audit investigation because an invalid or void assessment bears no valid fruit , CTA Case No. O-266
hat perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure
be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal in t
cation thatpetitioner consented to the subject compromise penalty, the said amount cannot be sustained. , CTA Case No. 9609
ndingly, since the subject deficiency tax assessments were issued in violation of Petitioner's due process rights, the same are null and
e refunded. Thus, on this instance, the claim for refund of the basic deficiency DST must be denied. The Court finds that petitioner sho
he date of payment by petitioner. Furthermore, the said undated FLD does not contain any due date for the payment of the assessed
ocess, the same are null and void. A void assessment bears no valid fruit,and must not be given any effect, including all the subsequen
rder to successfully pursue one's claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1840
shall modify the computation of interest. , CTA Case No. EB 1853
enies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.46 Mere allegation is not evidence, and the person who alleges has the burden of proving h
escribed period.The significance of due date and demand for payment within a prescribed period in the Formal Letter of demand (FLD
hat the revenue officer who conducted the examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for taxable yea
rt and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate court, as do
d by RR No. 8 -Makati is inescapably void. , CTA Case No. 9428
and the sale of the generated output during the said commissioning shall not be considered as transactions made during commercial o
omised. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.Since there is nothing in the rec
due process, it shall have the effect of rendering the deficiency tax assessment as void, and of no force and effect. , CTA Case No. 940
1, 2013 between petitioner and EDC,petitioner has agreed, inter alia, to provide certain services and spare parts in connection with ED
nt provisions of RMO No. 19-2007 were not strictly observed by respondent or the BIR in this case, the payment of compromise penalt
gnizance by the Regional Trial Court, the Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, whose territorial jurisdiction enc
agrees with the CTA Division that, "Failure on the part of [CIR] to establish that the FAN/FLD was actually received by [YLCI] is fatal an
d out in the subject taxable years. It is his known legal duty and he did fail voluntarily to file the tax returns. The failure to file the inco
ng the compromise amount of Php43,773·71 below the 40% minimum that the law requires. Given petitioner's basic tax liability, the m
o be refunded, it must be shown to have been paid or collected, and such payment or collection is erroneous or illegal. Parentheticall
r the fraudulent intent to evade the payment of taxes, considering that the same is accompanied by legal consequences, cannot be pre
bsence of an LOA, the tax assessments issued by the BIR against such taxpayer shall be void. , CTA Case No. 8814
other is not sufficient. In the case at bar, Petitioner did not present the SEC Certification of NonRegistration of Kerson Investment Limite
expiration, i.e., on or before May 21, 2016. Since the instant Petition for Review was filed only on May 25, 2016, the portion of the re
rpose in doing so. , CTA Case No. O-659
ax exemption. Thus, strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by the law is required of the taxpayer. And petitioner utterly failed in
y, it must bear the consequences. As stated previously, the Rules provide that the absence of the plaintiff in the pre-trial is a ground fo
MeTC, the penalty should not have been imposed on SITC as such would violate its right to due process. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-049
e date of the filing of the amended complaint. In short, for purposes of determining the commencement of a suit, the original compla
Court's view, such statement is simply illogical. It is non sequitur. , CTA Case No. 9574
allowable deductions from the gross income. , CTA Case No. EB 1809
on failed to present any evidence that an assessment has been issued by the BIR against accused. The presentation of the computation
d 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9578
longer formed part of the excess input VAT of P11,496,102.74 as of the end of the fourth quarter of TY 2013, which means, it is alrea
CTA Case No. 9069
t. , CTA Case No. 9710
d Tax and Other Percentage Taxes Withheld (BIR Form No. 1600) bearing Reference No. 171500012823245 filed on October 9, 2015 a
ondent against petitioner is inescapably void. As such, the said deficiency tax assessments bear no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. 9473
g would be of no practical use or value. , CTA Case No. EB 1869
ssailed Decision and Resolution. Thus, there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. , CTA Case No. EB 1742
void assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. EB 1774
wing the ruling in the PSALM case, this Court has no jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. EB 1822
s served with summons; (3) petitioner was likewise given ample opportunity to present his evidence and witnesses; and, (4) judgmen
mount of P1 ,042,579.35In light of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by the parties. , CT
nd what the taxpayer is entitled to under the law. , CTA Case No. EB 1861
m petitioner. Tax refunds, being in the nature of tax exemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in fa
reliability of which may or may not establish the existence of the factum probandum.Lastly, although petitioner attaches to its petition
the judicial claims would result in the denial of his claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1795
hould not be imposed and must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 9594
med correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise. Failure to present proof of error in the
PMDI is also of no consequence. As held in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Agrinurture, Inc., a finding of under-decla
ase, has no jurisdiction over the instant petition filed by PMDC. , CTA Case No. EB 1900
ndicated therein. , CTA Case No. 9507
ot agree with. In fact, before a taxpayer can successfully file a protest, payment must first be made on the uncontested items. Therefor
ble. Failure to do so, the Court is constrained to uphold such assessment. As observed by this Court, most of petitioner's documentary
al goods, whichever is shorter. On the other hand, if aggregate acquisition cost does not exceed P1Million, the total input taxes shall b
e and admitted by this Court, hence, should form part of the records that will serve as bases for the Court in its final disposition of the
mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or n
lied to the succeeding quarters. Therefore, it eliminates the possibility that the present claim will be applied to future output VAT liabi
t no longer necessary to discuss the other issues raised by both parties. , CTA Case No. 8769
for lack of authority. , CTA Case No. 9155

executory. Further, the payment was not supposed to be collected pursuant RMO No. 9-2000. Accordingly, such erroneous payment m
P8,906, 107.84should not have been paid by petitioner. Thus, the said amount mustperforce be refunded to the latter. With the forego
be granted. , CTA Case No. AC-204
e made to rest on doubtful implications. , CTA Case No. EB 1976
greement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not payin
documentary and evidentiary requirements. It is petitioner's ultimate responsibility to make sure that every piece of evidence is prese
e No. EB 1863
ether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party h
n, is apropos.Having settled the issue on erroneous or illegal payment of taxes, this Court would no longer delve on the issue of the ret
factual basis of his claim for a refund. , CTA Case No. EB 1788
e imposition of compromise penalty contained in the assessment is deleted. , CTA Case No. 9515
icient to prove petitioner's prior year's excess credits despite the absence of proof to the contrary. While the ITRs would, indeed, reve
es. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-048
ade, as required by Section 228 of 1997 NIRC. , CTA Case No. 9574
pay VAT on monthly basis and file a quarterly return. Thus, the assessment covers the months from January to June, the pt and 2nd qu
n for Review32 on August 11, 2017, the same is timely filed. , CTA Case No. 9649
ase No. 9880

5 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, this Court cannot include in its judgment an order to pay the deficiency taxes subject of the instan
ity. Considering that the assessment is void for violation of due process and lack of authority, other issues raised shall no longer be dis
ourt to find a balance between the word and the will, and to ensure that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed. , CTA Case N
judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presump
s of the Supreme Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction, nonetheless the decisions of subordinate courts have a
er by the BIR's revenue officers is properly authorized in the first place by those to whom the discretion to exercise the power of exam
conclusion, i.e., the undeclared purchase istranslated and would automatically result in undeclared income which would in turn increa
urchases of services attributableto its zero-rated sales shall be subject to 12% VAT because these serviceswere rendered and consume
nceal its true income which resulted in basic deficiency income tax of P79,383,226.10, more or less, for taxable year 2007, exclusive o
and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performan
mercial banks including branches of foreign banks that may be authorized by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to transact business w
ng a refund shall be counted is June 30, 2015. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the administrative claim for refund50 was filed
such and or even connected to the taxpayer. The CTA En Bane also affirmed the cancellation of an assessment after finding that the r
s of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for
Lawl Pte. Ltd., , CTA Case No. EB 2008
' should be understood as those documents necessary to support the legal basis in disputing a tax assessment as determined by the ta
ments were only raised by petitioner in his motion for partial reconsideration (MPR) for the first time.Thus, this Court will not discuss f
uities and, by definition, not real properties under the contemplation of Section 135 in relation to Article 415 of the Civil Code. The tra
im both in the administrative and judicial levels. On February 7, 2014, petitioner filed its administrative claim35 in the amount of P10
s one which sufficiently informs the taxpayer in writing of the legal and factual bases of the said assessment, thereby allowing the taxp
were not directly attributable to its zero-rated sales without specifying which invoices/ receipts that the Court in Division erred in consi
utinized and must be duly proven.21 There being no new matters or issues raised in the Petition for Review before this Court and ther
uted its Protest25 to FAN on July 4, 2014. However, respondent did not act on the protest within one hundred eighty (180) days from
AC-214
nger wait for the CIR to come up with a decision thereafter. They should already file an appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals, or else th
sidered part of its passive income, are therefore not subject to the city's taxing power, unless Respondent is a bank or other financial
ed assessment for lack of an LOA authorizing the ROs to examine the taxpayer's books of account and other accounting records. Abse
brought before it, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. This Court, however, declares that the Court of T
a, and ICP A Glenn Ian D. Villanueva, did not mention or refer to the said BIR Certificate of Registration in their respective declarations
such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless o
PA and ensure that ICPA's report comply with the Court's requirements. In this case, TPC formally offered its evidence and rested its ca
ort Zone (SSEFZ), is operated and managed as separate custom territory and as such, by legal fiction, is regarded as foreign territory. A
opportunity to molest peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Without such a legal defense taxpayers would furthermore be under obligation t
the refund of excess or erroneous payments from the government, a taxpayer must prove not only its entitlement to a refund, but als
f the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of th
on is in order. , CTA Case No. EB 1814

a new single corporation which shall be the consolidated corporation." , CTA Case No. EB 1767
ly collected internal revenue taxes even if the CIR failed to act on the taxpayer's administrative claim for refund as long as it complies w
. EB 1717
ring that there was no LOA authorizing RO Luzviminda A. , CTA Case No. 9394
ubsection (A) hereof. , CTA Case No. EB 1867
aid down in Pilipinas Total Gas and pursuant to RMC No. 49-2003, the 120-day period shall be counted thirty (30) days from July 30, 20
s only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits." , CTA Case No. 9464
missionerof Internal Revenue vs. Agrinurture, Inc.79 The three (3) elements in the imposition of income tax are: (1) there must be gain
IR and the validity of a waiver of the statute of limitations.24 , CTA Case No. EB 1716
d ruling thereof. , CTA Case No. EB 1836
the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or (b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the am
g the year 2011. , CTA Case No. 9310
r that statutorily belongs only to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives." Thus, an LOA is, in fact, an authorization lette
es.55 Respondent also presented as evidence the envelope with Registry Receipt No. 913607 which allegedly contained the PAN.56 W
be applied to future output VAT liability. , CTA Case No. 9126
ed assessment. , CTA Case No. EB 1881
uthorization from the CIR or petitioner rendering the FLD/FAN void and without legal consequence. , CTA Case No. EB 1782
TA Case No. 9038

rmine his remedies therefor. Due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. 10 (emphasis supplied) Thu
EB NO. 1878
novo requiring accurate and verifiable data. , CTA Case No. 9579
tively, it becomes irrevocable for that taxable period. In exercising its option, the corporation must signify in its annual corporate adju
bility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
t authorized to conduct such examination via LOA, the said assessment is void. Thus, the Court will no longer discuss the submitted iss
system, so that fermented liquors shall be classified only according to their net retail prices under Tier 1 or Tier 2, as discussed above. T
enerally respected and even accorded finality because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these agencies from handling
on facts. The presumption of the correctness of an assessment, being a mere presumption, cannot be made to rest on another presu
he instant case should be governed by PD 242 (which is now embodied in Chapter 14, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987) an
need to secure import permits from the NFA to import rice. Correspondingly, since at the time of the subject importations, it was lega
d to a refund in the amount of P8,640,000.00 representing final withholding taxes remitted from August 26, 2014 to May 25, 2016. , C
unless given further extension by the CIR. Then, upon filing by the taxpayer of his complete documents to support his application, or e
as failed to highlight any set of facts that would justify the Court's departure from the application of these established and cited prece
under which such privilege of credit or refund is accorded.Clearly, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only p
passed, this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition for Review becomes indisputable. , CTA Case No. 9147
ntamount to the delivery of the money to the borrower. Only when the borrower makes use of the available amount by drawing on th
operations under the Junket Agreement and the Supplement to Junket Agreement both entered into with PAGCOR is concerned, is w
ntertain the instant claim for refund or reimbursement. , CTA Case No. 9548
suant to Section 7(b)(1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125 ^0 , as amended by RA No. 9282, which provides that "the filing of a criminal ac
n the case at bar. , CTA Case No. EB 1813
erroneously resorted to a wrong mode of appeal. Verily, while RR No. 12-99, as amended, allows that the final decision of the CIR's du
e in the field of taxation, particularly in cases involving claims for refunds. , CTA Case No. EB 1711
, the dispute is already between the BIR (represented by the CIR) and another government entity, in this case, the petitioner PSALM.
he 1997 NIRC on protests on assessments of internal revenue taxes. , CTA Case No. EB 1727
aw have been met, a claimant should be considered successful in discharging its burden of proving its right to refund. Thereafter, the
xist. , CTA Case No. O-415

rs should be able to present their case and adduce supporting evidence. Although taxes are the lifeblood of the government, their ass
h a Memorandum of Assignment, signed by a subordinate official such as the RDO in this case. As discussed in the assailed Decision, RD
same treatment as that of other taxpayers in the issuance of the tax assessment. Neither was it established that there is a dispute as
s exempt from the payment of creditable withholding tax. Consequently, petitioner is not liable to the deficiency EWT assessed by res
held that: The Court of Tax Appeals correctly held that the compromise penalty of P20,000.00 could not be imposed on petitioner, a c
hould not be locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price. , CTA Case No. EB 1704
effectively zero-rated sales; and, 6. the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability. , CTA Case No. 9441
es". , CTA Case No. AC-197
t bears no valid fruit". In view of the foregoing, this Court no longer needs to further elucidate on the merits of the subject assessmen
ss granted by law to the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9153
y output VAT liability. Petition was able to prove the said requisites , CTA Case No. 9340
not be allowed. , CTA Case No. 9396

occurred in the instant case, renders the petition before the CTA void , CTA Case No. EB 1762
rks back to the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another , CTA Case No. EB 1761
wing that herein petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the compromise
unauthorized , CTA Case No. EB 1747
o petitioner, other than the assailed decision dated January 31, 2017, in which he denied petitioner's request for reconsideration. Th
reditmust not only prove entitlement to the claim but alsocompliance with all the documentary and evidentiaryrequirements , CTA Ca
pay thecompromise penalty imposed by respondent, it clearly did not agreeto settle the same. , CTA Case No. 8959
ax and an individual's right to due process, thescale favors the right of the taxpayer to due process. x x xCompliance with Section 228 o
TA Case No. 9322
y zero-ratedsales, is likewise not complied with.Considering that the said fourth and eighth requisites are notcomplied with in this cas
the Court finds that plaintiff failed to prove that there is any tax due from accused Villarica, creating reasonable doubt as to his guilt. A
gate the immediacy test and what was required by law for the retained earnings to be exempt from IAET. , CTA Case No. EB 1662
required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. Settled is the rule that the evide
e services is doing business in the Philippines. (Main Issue) In the landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque P
eatment of rice was in place under treaty, there was no need to secure import permits from the NFA to import rice. Since , CTA Case N
case, hence, not within the jurisdiction of the Court, but a land registration case, under the rules on special proceedings, the purpose o
the taxpayers. If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so must it apply the same standa
e was duly issued and delivered to Petitioner such that service by registered mail may be deemed completed. (Main Issue) There is no
sine qua non for the property-for-share transaction. , CTA Case No. EB 1664
but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. , CTA Case No. 9210
her business activity other than NBFI activities, then said entity should be categorized as an NBFI for purposes of local business taxatio
No. EB-1738
properly informed of the basis of their assessment." , CTA Case No. 8782
e penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthori
d by petitioner in its ITRs for the said years. In fine, the Court finds that petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund o
ax liability does not extend to their gaming operations, such as the operation and licensing of gambling casinos, gaming clubs and oth
burden to establish his defense. [2] In this case however, petitioner failed. , CTA Case No. EB 1729
er or applied to the succeeding quarters. As such, it eliminates the possibility that the present claim would be applied to future outpu
e No. EB 1691
ments for late payment of income tax should be cancelled and withdrawn. , CTA Case No. 9016
minal liability on the latter. , CTA Case No. O-241
such report refers to a backend report that must be submitted to the BIR. , CTA Case No. 9362
ck markets, stock brokers and dealers in securities and foreign exchange, as defined under applicable laws or rules thereunder." This en
with the RTC — Branch 217 on April 1, 2005 was timely filed, [3] and the said RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the same. , CTA Case N
ed by the BIR on January 22, 2009. , CTA Case No. EB 1678

erest from its money market placements. As such, the refund of 0.55% LBT pertaining to the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2011 collected by
th this Court. Its failure to do so rendered the decision of denial by inaction of respondent final and unappealable. , CTA Case No. 92
d, is void ab initio. , CTA Case No. 9167
ct matter which is so compromised. The imposition of the compromise penalty without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and un
filed. , CTA Case No. 9369
ays therefrom, petitioner had until August 12, 2016 to file its appeal with the Court. Thus, the Petition for Review filed on August 11, 2
tain a conviction for failure to make or file a return underSection 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, (CTA Crim. Case No. 0-456), the
xpiration of the 120-day period came earlier than the receipt of thedenial letters, petitioner should have filed its appeal within the 30-
rhad until May 5, 2016 within which to file its petition before theCourt. The present Petition for Review was filed on May 4,2016. Henc
already issuedunder the name of the donee. Consequently, the said transfer fallswithin the ambit of Section 98 of the 1997 NIRC. On th
d as a non-bank financial intermediary. , CTA Case No. EB 1636

eal presentation of evidence, a procedure that is not in accord with orderly justice.In sum, there is no compelling reason to disturb the
nce, unless undertaken by the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives, other tax agents may not validly conduct any of these
AdolfM. Viacrusis, were not authorized as there is no Letter ofAuthority issued by a Regional Director to them. In sum, the Court canno
anglungsod is necessary for any city official to exercise such power. Based on the foregoing, the local franchise tax is imposed on the p
named therein is/are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/audit, it is an express grant of authority. Thus, absent the nece
named therein is/are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation/audit, it is an express grant of authority. Thus, absent the nece
e CIR's denial of its protest to the CTA.It has been ruled that the stringent requirement that an assessment notice be satisfactorily prov
x liability for taxable year 2010. This procedural lapse, or the absence of a new LOA, rendered the assessment issued pursuant thereto
A No. LOA-2009- 00025791 dated June 25, 2010 was void for having been served to defendant beyond the thirty (30)-day period, as m
or investigation renders such without valid authority, and therefore all subsequent notices of assessment and WDL issued by petitione
ch a situation is dangerous and open to abuse by unscrupulous taxpayers who intend to escape their responsibility to pay taxes by mer
8 should be deemed estopped from questioning the validity of the Waivers only after the assessment against it was issued. As to petitio
esent case. On a final note, procedural rules exist to be followed, not to be trifled with, and thus, may be relaxed only for the most per
RA No. 9282.43 Based on the above provision, the allowable input tax on sale to government shall not exceed 7% (5% old rate) of the g
n that accused was aware of his obligation to pay the tax, but he nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally failed to pay it. C
e taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit." , CTA Case No. AC-200
chartered or leased, or that the agent in charge thereof at the time, has no knowledge of the unlawful act. On the other hand, Sectio
od faith in relying on previous court decisions and BIR rulings and its payment of the deficiency DST albeit under protest, the deletion
0. representing its unutilized excess input VAT for the four taxable quarters of CY 2014 which is attributable to its zero-rated sales I rece
andatory and jurisdictional." (Emphases and underscoring supplied.) Based on the foregoing, it is clear that for a claim for tax refund of
he claim or inaction on the part of the CIR is both mandatory and jurisdictional and noncompliance therewith precludes this Court from
credit certificate issued, as well as the amount of P633,971.01 with respect to the input VAT on local purchases of non-capital goods an
essee or its authorized representative. The sending of a PAN to a taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part of the due
gain on sale of investments. In fine, Billing Assessment Nos. 019510, 019511 and 019512, all dated January 13, 2015 were issued by re
assertions. The Court En Bane cannot reasonably determine merely on the basis of the evidence duly presented whether the amount
seeks to address price differentials employed by a manufacturer on similar products differentiated only in brand or design. Specifically,
ailure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission. Applyin
ains tax on the transfer by BBCC of the subject properties to respondent. Thus, We affirm the ruling made by the Court in Division in gr
icer (RO) Clea Marie P. Pimentel and Group Supervisor (GS) Ruleo V. Badilles to conduct the said examination and verification. Conside
n of local taxes. In the instant case, the subject matter was neither disputing an assessment nor claiming for refund but asking for a TRO
sregarding import clearance procedures, the specific violations herein being violative of due process; and (2) violation of the rules on
ome tax. In this case, there is no circumstance which shows that CWC relied in good faith to an interpretation from the BIR which speci
n favor of the taxing authority. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions
nt, relaxing the rule on the mandatory nature of the 2-year prescriptive period for reasons of equity would be tantamount to overrulin
s only them who can effect any modification or amendment to a previously issued LOA, should the need therefor arises. Parenthetical
0 While there are exceptions to the rule, such are not attendant in this case. Further, even if the cited Decision of the Court in Division
x laws are strictly construed against the State. In fact, the same was likewise applied in this case. However, as found by the Court, petit
ded in the Schedule of Export Sales for the first and second quarters of TY 20 13. In sum, the pieces of evidence show that the total zer
ature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy,12 and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or w
The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.97 There being no mutual agreement be
er can appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such decision. (b) It is clear from Section 228
within the ambit of the term "other disposition of shares of stock" in RR No. 6-2008, as amended by RR No. 6-2013. Instead, it is a mer
rein he clarified that only the officers and staff of ADB who are not Philippine nationals shall be exempt from Philippine income tax. No
ly prove that GECC or any of its authorized representatives actually received the PAN. The plaintiffs witnesses could not positively testi
ly is, shown by circumstantial evidence alone, in this case, we have direct admissions by the accused that he really did not declare his
ner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and noncompliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering final an
e remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The petitioner carries the burden of showing that the attendan
Cs on May 24, 20 10 and August 9, 2010. Applying the ruling in the Toledo case, the sales for the 1st quarter of 20 10 were conducted
nd unconstitutional. Petitioner's thesis is that an administrative issuance that is contrary to the provisions of law and/or the Constitut
y payments made by petitioner to Toyota Motor Corporation and Daihatsu Motor Company in Japan, and TMAP-EM in Thailand shoul
receipt of the PAN by respondent. The non-receipt of the PAN in this case was determinative of the validity of the subsequent FANs. (
ailure to pay a deficiency tax or any surcharge or interest thereon, is assessed starting "on the due date appearing in the notice of dem
ded, (ii) Section 2.3 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 9-2004, and (iii) Section 4101Q.l of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Finan
997, as amended. However, considering RMC No 31-13 was issued in taxable year 2013, the same should be made to apply prospecti
rying or holding on board of smuggled goods in commercial quantities" shall subject the vehicles to forfeiture. Respondent failed to co
d the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. (b) In stark contrast
d of the remedy under Section 4(b) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals in assailing the Resolutions dated Febru
carried over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns79, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Ref
sly-issued manual LOA will be invalidated absent immediate compliance with the retrieval and replacement of eLAs. Also, RMO No. 69
City to illegally appropriate the subject real properties owned by petitioner results to a grave injustice on the part of the latter. (b) To l
appeal. , CTA Case No. 9151
ent failed to do, and as a consequence thereof, the assessment is void. (c) Pending resolution by this Court of Petitioner's Urgent Mot
ted by all courts. (b) In the instant case, petitioner PSALM is a GOCC, while respondent represents the Bureau of Internal Revenue, wh
action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en bane or in Division.' As explained in CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, In
ase, there is no disputed assessment appealable to this Court because the FLD /FANs have already attained finality long before the FD
e consolidated rural bank. (b) Exemption is an immunity or privilege; it is freedom from a charge or burden to which others are subjec
is the rule that in the absence of a statutory provision clearly or expressly directing or authorizing payment of interest on the amount
present their case and adduce supporting evidence." [Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fitness By Design, Inc.]; (b) In view of the
mandatory and jurisdictional, and that the CTA does not acquire jurisdiction over a judicial claim that is filed before the expiration of
stitutions" as contemplated by Section 131(e)14 of the LGC for purposes of exemption on the levy of income tax under Section 133 (a
this case, such purpose would not generally make the accumulated or undistributed earnings subject to the tax. , CTA Case No. 9105
egislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication.95 There being no clear legislative intent to
of the benefits provided therein. (b) Accordingly, the fact that respondent failed to file a prior application for tax treaty relief for its in
nger wishes to submit any other addition documents to complete his administrative claim, the 120day period allowed to the CIR begin
tate expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so must it apply the same standard against itself in re
ntly, this is fatal to respondent's cause in establishing the existence of fraud committed by petitioner since the burden of proof to estab
t petitioner's establishment was frequented by customers for dancing either with their own partners or professional dancers furnishe
his Income Tax Return for calendar year 2012 and pay the aggregate amount of Php228,916.81 in one payment. Whereas previously,
al claim was subsequently filed on January 12, 2015. Evidently, both claims were filed way beyond the two-year prescriptive period. (b
issued LOA because, as mentioned earlier, only the CIR or his duly authorized representatives are granted such power. , CTA Case No
the determination of the validity of the WDL is separate from the issue of the validity of the assessment issued against petitioner. In f
ceeding year, at most, BCC may only be assessed in the said succeeding year, which is clearly not covered by the instant case herein. (b
rom the said date, petitioner had until September 3, 2015, within which to file its claim both in the administrative and judicial levels. C
ment is obliged to pay on the basis of a final and executory judgment, is no different from a "forbearance of money". (c) The foregoing
upreme Court held that in order for the supply of services to be VAT zero-rated under Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended,
hment to dance, either with their own partners, or with professional hostesses provided by petitioner. (b) Not being expressly covere
CTA Case No. 9279
l or factual basis for requiring the maintenance and submission of a "back-end" report to the BIR under RR No. 11-2004. There is not e
enalty in the amount of P40,000.00 against petitioner for failure to file SLS/SLP is, likewise, cancelled. Settled is the rule that the impo
f the NIRC, as amended. , CTA Case No. 4
statement in the Certificate against Forum Shopping that the Petition for Review filed before this Court involves an entirely different
2015.46 Within thirty (30) days from receipt of respondent's letter (i.e., on July 22, 2015), petitioner filed its judicial claim for refund.
mposed in Section 3A.02 (h) of the RMRC. , CTA Case No. AC-184
% of TDHC, then the dividend payment of the latter to petitioner is subject to 10% preferential tax rate based on the gross amount of
respondent's right to assess petitioner of deficiency EWT, WTC, FWT, and FVAT for taxable year 2007 has prescribed. That being the c
to rest on another presumption. (b) While the BIR Form No. 2307 satisfies the fact of withholding as stated in Section 2.58.3 of RR No.
is considered as Government property, any tax imposed upon petitioner is considered, in effect, as a tax on Government. Such being t
med zero-rated. , CTA Case No. 7863
Waiver executed. First, petitioner's copy of the Waiver does not bear the signature of the CIR or his duly authorized representative an
o October 2011. , CTA Case No. 9177
ods with aggregate acquisition cost exceeding P1 Million incurred during taxable years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and are attributable to ze
ng that respondent has substantially underdeclared its sales, receipt or income. Meanwhile, the presumption of falsity of returns cann
ed not by the Revenue Regional Director but by the Revenue District Officer, in contravention of the provisions of the law. Thus, RO L
ity is classified as a holding company, it can never be taxed under subsection (p), in relation to subsection (h), Section 3A.02. This Cour
g to partially grant respondent's Petition for Review in said case, it behooves petitioner, in the instant Petition for Review before the C
t the basis for the imposition thereof is Section 3A.02(p) in relation to subsection (h) of the RMRC, which violates the limit set under S
gn corporation. Consequently, respondent's service is not subject to VAT as the service is rendered in favor of the non-resident foreign
(30) days from March 16, 2012, or until April 15, 2012, within which to file its Petition for Review. However, petitioner filed its Petitio
e local government unit's power to tax is the most effective instrument to finance and support the myriad activities of local governme
liabilities arising from the said Purchase Agreement and Deed of Sale and Assignment between petitioner and the said two entities, i.
nd audited financial statements, that it is obliged to pay its income tax on the revenue arising from L TO transactions for taxable year
iod, thus, only the ordinary three (3)-year prescriptive period shall apply. , CTA Case No. 8764
appear to have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. , CTA Case No. 9063
terest. , CTA Case No. 8926

March to November 2006. , CTA Case No. EB 1537
of the law. , CTA Case No. EB 1604
rant of the claim under substantive law.x x x The taxpayer claiming the refund must further complywith the invoicing and accounting re
ciated in TheCity of Manila case, is likewise applicable to the case at bar: "while acourt may be expressly granted the incidental power
derived from its receipt of liquidating dividends from BBCC, respondent's payment of CGT for the same income is clearly erroneous an
wer to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude.112 And even if the Court will concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxat
his Court that petitioner is entitled to its cia i m , CTA Case No. 9542
and payment of such taxes. It thus behooves the government to refund what it erroneously collected. , CTA Case No. 9011
nbooks as well as other literary works, and royalties onmusical compositions shall be subject to a final tax often percent (10%) on the t
al provision of law on the basis of language too plain to be mistaken. Such exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer
ut vital pieces of evidence of commercial transactions. They are written memorials of the details of the consummation of contracts. ,
tion of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of InternalRevenue to act on the disputed assessments. In caseof inaction of the
excess unutilized excess VAT. , CTA Case No. EB 1649
ion of Section 133(o) of the LGC. , CTA Case No. EB 1591
ty to exhaust available administrative remedies. , CTA Case No. EB 1596
validly authorized to do so, the assessment is void. The subsequent issuance of the Revalidation Notice to RO Ma. Lourdes Morales an
taxable entities. The said action was in accord with Section 234 (a) of the LGC of 1991 which provides that real property owned by the
x, subject of the option, by referring to the taxable period when it was acquired by the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9024
vide for any pre-requisite for the availment of the benefits under said agreement. , CTA Case No. EB 1555
affirmed by the Court in Division, in decreeing the grant of refund in favor of respondent, instead of a tax credit, We sustain the assaile
under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the alleged input VAT attributable thereto in the amount of P27,729,564.1
ess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of CY 2013 , CTA Case No. 9021
n the said BIR Ruling justifies the non-imposition of surcharges and interest. , CTA Case No. 9221
that may arise after payment. , CTA Case No. 9189
he Original.) With no other points of error alleged in the Petition for Review, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the findings o
ch observance, the filing of the judicial claims in this Court due to inaction of the petitioner is proper under such circumstances. Thus,
ribed by the law. The letter dated March 12, 201551 denying petitioner's claim for VAT refund is no longer significant as this came yea
ble year 2008 is void for being issued without a valid authority, the Court finds it no longer necessary to discuss the other issues raised
eld in the Amended Decision that the FAN was void, to wit:"It is settled doctrine that the essence of due process in administrative pro
of $367.40 (P15,700.85) shall also be denied of VAT zero-rating. , CTA Case No. 8790
taxpayer relinquishes the right to invoke prescription unequivocally particularly where the language of the document is equivocal. For
subject of the criminal case as finally decided by the Commissioner." Thus, while "there is no requirement for the precise computation
The Tax Court is a court of special jurisdiction. As such, it can take cognizance only of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction
error, We AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Third Division dated July 22, 2016 and the Resolution dated September 21, 2016. , CTA
having been issued in violation of respondent's right to due process, the assessment contained therein is therefore void and must be
ose to avoid income tax upon shareholders. In this case, it must be noted that respondent found that petitioner had earnings in exces
orrect, and that in preparing the same, the BIR personnel regularly performed their duties. This rule fortax initiated suits is premised o
aid delinquent income tax and VAT for calendar year 2007 is likewise void. , CTA Case No. 8664
ed separately and the absence of one will result in the non-dutiability of royalties. As found by the Court in Division, which the Court E
eriod without a proper protest being filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), petitioner's right to question the assessment has
order to support this principle and public policy. , CTA Case No. 8924
subject to the imposition of VAT. , CTA Case No. 9003
ove that he is entitled to the deduction which the law allows. , CTA Case No. 9077
red to 'first pay the tax' under protest, otherwise, the city or municipal treasurer will not act on the said protest. , CTA Case No. AC-1
said presumptions may be. , CTA Case No. EB 1324
n for Review under a procedure analogous to that provided under Rul 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In fine, the arty appealin
ce showing that respondent hasmet all the requirements set forth by law to be regarded as a nonbank financial intermediary, I submit
e of its appellate jurisdic ion appeal shall be made by filing a peti ion for review under a procedure analo ous to that provided for unde
h an LOA, the resulting assessment or examination is a nullity.In this case, there is no indication that an LOA was issued against respon
ncy tax liabilities, this specific qualification would not have been incorporated at all, similar to Sections 248 and 249 (C) of the NIRC.xx
he refundable amount, if any; but any excess of such tax liability over such refundable amount may not be collected in a case involvin
ary hindrance. But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requiremelht in all democratic regimes t
351, the BIR issued RR No. 17-2012, which provides, among others, that importation of alcohol or tobacco products, even if destined fo
come. , CTA Case No. EB 1177
cquittal. , CTA Case No. O-370
principal office, then all sales are presumed to have been conducted in respondent's principal place of business which is in Calamba Ci
rendered the Cou devoid of jurisdiction over petitioner's claim. Thus, the dismissal oft e instant Petition for Review is in order. , CTA
t it erroneously collected. , CTA Case No. 8951
was actually paid. It also helps segregate sales that are subject to 12% VAT from those sales that are zero-rated." , CTA Case No. EB 14
Internal Revenue vs. FortuneTobacco Corporation, if the tate expects taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying heir taxes, it
basis and rationale of its exemption from the payment of CWT on the sales proceeds of its allocated condominium units in the Serendr
me may not be maintained until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. , CTA Cas
R.A.No. 9284. Moreover, the parties have already recognized the ruling in the Meralco case that transformers, electric posts, transmiss
ingly made by the Corporation has been rendered irrelevant and moot.Considering that both elements of the offense charged have be
Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy issued by respondent against petitioner allegedly arising from the subject FAN dated June 29, 2011 m
yment based on Section 143 of the 1991 LGC. , CTA Case No. EB 1531
the instant case, as petitioner never bothered to make any argument on the merits of the claim aside from its general allegation on the
of the investigating/processing office. Notice, by way of a request from the tax collection authority to produce the complete documen
spondent cannot collect the assessed tax deficiency in the FAN for being null and void. , CTA Case No. 8852
e extent that such input VAT has not been applied against any output VAT liability; and4. The claim must be filed within the prescribed
the tax benefit will be in the succeeding quarter(s), at most, petitioner may only be assessed in the said succeeding quarter(s). , CTA
ccordingly, are subject to 12°/o VAT. Since these goods and services were subjected to 12°/o VAT, petitioner paid the input VAT thereo
Motion was granted by the Court in Division in its Resolution dated June 3, 2013. This notwithstanding, petitioner still failed to let the
going shows that taxpayers have an option to either file a claim for refund or the issuance of TCC in case of tax erroneously or illegally
d unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of tax or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxp
d fruit. , CTA Case No. 8844

ationalize the pursuit of justice. , CTA Case No. EB 1461
petitioner made a mere sweeping generalization that respondent submitted incomplete documents without stating the specific docu
e No. EB 1441
of demand accompanying the assessment notice. We note that the old law merely required that the taxpayer be notified of the asse
R personnel, especially if they are unsupported by substantial evidence establishing the fact of mailing. While it is true that an assessm
od. The excess amount shall be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until the same is fully utilized.It must be reiterated that tax
or refund or credit must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of tax, or penalty, regardless of any supervening cause
begin with, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA, i.e. those controversies over which that CIR had exercised her qua
ons of privileges conferred by law. It is a tax on documents, instruments, loan agreements, and papers evidencing the acceptance, ass
ssy or Consulate in the country where the donor is domiciled at the time of transfer, or directly with the Office of the Commissioner.
LOA to conduct his examination of the taxpayer whereas an LN does not contain such a limitation. Simply put, LN is entirely different a
ue on all importationsby the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering sup
upplies is lower than purchasing them locally. , CTA Case No. EB 1433
o the head office. Respondent's allegation of a constructive re1nittance of profits cannot be countenanced.. , CTA Case No. 8934
ted by RR No. 12-99. , CTA Case No. 8793
ment to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements therefor. , CTA Case No. 8876
new matters or issues raised in the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane and there being no reversible error committed by the
he BIR but to seek reimbursement of its alleged input VAT paid from its suppliers of goods and services. , CTA Case No. 8931
unauthorized. , CTA Case No. EB 1489
m and has rendered the Court devoid of jurisdiction over petitioner's claim. Thus, the dismissal of the present Petition for Review is in
able years until fully utilized. All said, petitioner failed to present arguments which would warrant the modification much less the rever
e trial in order to intelligently resolve the conflict brought before it. , CTA Case No. EB 1480
since We adhere to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there
ly, both the administrative and the judicial claims were filed within the two-year prescriptive period under Sections 204(C) and 229 of
easonable interpretation can be adopted which will not do violence to the plain words of the act and will carry out the intention of Co
ts. The categorical statements in the transitory provisions clearly show that internal revenue stamps issued prior to the effectivity of R
al goods, whichever is shorter. On the other hand, if aggregate acquisition cost does not exceed P1Million, the total input taxes shall b
petitioner Kingson, there can be no other conclusion, except that the subject shipment was imported into the country through the use
e penalties. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its ver
VAT Refund/TCC claimed" from the total available input tax of Php51,897,873.00 Thus, the claimed input taxes for the third and fourth
ground of prescription, resulting in the Second Division's lack of jurisdiction over the said judicial claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1506
austively discussed by the CTA-Third Division in its Assailed Amended Decision and Assailed Resolution , CTA Case No. EB 1514
ssessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made t
n violation of the due process requirements under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 and RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013.
ws and regulations in prescribing the IAET provide taxpayers a leeway so as not to hinder expansion of their businesses, it cannot be u
r profit was derived from a transaction. To repeat, petitioner did not derive any gain or profit in the subject taxable year. In relation th
of the instant case as provided under Section 205 of the NIRC. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-038
nutilized CWTs for CY 2010. , CTA Case No. EB 1450

y improbable that accused did not earn income after being paid the amount of Php243,087,130.70. Hence, it is logical that a more str
ettled on other grounds. As a consequence, the Court will no longer address the constitutionality and validity of Section 128(A)(3)(b) o
espectively, and the fact that petitioner did not carry-over the present claim to the subsequent CY 2012 served as an expression of its

or refund cannot be granted , CTA Case No. 8979
e disturbed, in line with the rule that tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, unless proven o
and 2009, are accurate and were issued in the regular performance of duties. Besides, the amounts contained in the BIR Forms are th
upplies or materials are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price. , CTA Case No. EB 1347
is liable for deficiency tax if due process for assessment was violated in the first place. Initially, the court is mandated to inquire whet
ty of RMC No. 90-2012. Collateral attacks on a presumably valid law is not allowed. Thus, unless and until RMC No. 90-2012 has been
e of Sale was registered on December 20, 2011, the period of redemption ends only on December 20, 2012. From the expiration of th
med the taxability of intercompany advances for DST bolsters petitioner's stance that it acted in good faith and that it did not intend to
PAN on December 28, 2010 and the FAN on January 24, 2011, which are beyond the period for assessment. , CTA Case No. 8935
he option to file a claim for refund. , CTA Case No. EB-1504
proprietary educational institutions. , CTA Case No. EB-1424
sessment is void. , CTA Case No. 8862
od. , CTA Case No. EB-1524
d that a void assessment bears no fruit. , CTA Case No. EB-1314

us, petitioner is now liable under Section 119. Tax on Franchises, of the NIRC as clarified under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 63
o its zero-rated sales for the same period, in the reduced amount of P220,700.89. , CTA Case No. 8082 & 8106
es the taxpayer with fewer options, such as going to the Court of Tax Appeals on appeal or entering into a compromise settlement, am
6,613.2769 as of the end of the first quarter of 2013, which was carried over to the succeeding second quarter of 2013, no longer incl
her issues raised by the CIR. , CTA Case No. EB-1481
f petitioner'sBIR Form No. 1604-E shows that the discrepancy of P19,349.7976 (P233,534.79 less P214,185.00) pertains to the alleged
arification or explanation from the CIR. Considering that tax assessment and eventual tax collection by the BIR do constitute a diminut
on dated August 20, 2015 of the CTA-Third Division. , CTA Case No. EB-1355
me. To reiterate, the 30-day period within which to file an appeal of the denial of the claim or inaction on the part of the CIR is both a
etitioner in relation to its taxes. Thus, the assessment issued against petitioner is void. , CTA Case No. 8830
ld not have awaited the decision of the CIR; and should have filed its judicial claim with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the lapse o
is exempt from the payment of creditable withholding tax. Consequently, petitioner is not liable to the deficiency EWT assessed by re
to its conversion into power, including but not limited to the services performed by subcontractors or contractors, are subject to zero
he claim for refund was filed within theprescriptive periods; , CTA Case No. 8861
mptions found in the treaty establishing the ADB." , CTA Case No. 9096
Case No. EB 1428
ronicallyfiled its CY 2011 Annual ITR on July 24, 2012. Counting from thisdate, petitioner had until July 24, 2014 within which to file its
elevant supporting documents in support of its Protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing. This being so, Petitioner cannot now a
nds that petltloner has sufficientlyestablished its entitlement to a refund/ tax credit of its erroneously withheld FWT in the amount ofP
Assessment Notice and Final Decisionof petitioner for the payment of compromise penalties in theamount of P7,512,051.94 should be
ed unwarranted. , CTA Case No. 8710

e prosecution failed to establish. In fine, there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused Antonio M. Talaue, Leandro Antonio M. Ta
ied-over/utilized in the succeeding fourth quarter of 2012. , CTA Case No. 8450
et up kiosks in the lobby of ADB to collect taxes from7o and eventually the filing of criminal case for tax evasion against some ADBFilip
ests on its money marketplacements. , CTA Case No. AC-157
cription of the goods delivered to the foreign buyer, (3) evidence that such goods were actually received by the buyer, (4) confirmation
st be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the out
5.For his part, petitioner CIR, failed to rebut or validly argue against the said findings of the Court in Division. Hence, the Court En Bane
.106-5 of RR No. 16-05, as amended pertains only to sales made directly to PEZA-registered entities and BOI -registered 100°/o expor
ot in its favor. Verily, respondent's act of impugning the subject waiver after benefitting therefrom and allowing the CIR to rely thereon
There is no doubt that petitioner is engaged in zero-rated sales for its sales of electricity generated through hydropo
red entity shall be subject to twelve percent (12°/o) VAT. The foregoing declarations clearly established that petitioner's purchases o
nds are construed strictly against the taxpayer, the Court in Division did not award respondent the full refund it prayed for and only gr
f Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its
Petition for Review before this Court only on September 5, 2014, or 18 days after the lapse of the 30-day period on August 18, 2014. C
At this juncture, the Court En Banc emphasizes that it is imperative that RMO No. 20-90 be followed in order to produce waive
ns was validly .
l basis for the reversal of the CT A Third Division's denial of the claim.
or (2) copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.In the instant case, petitioner failed to show that the subject
s well as Formal Letter of Demand against the official or employee of SSS responsible for the withholding and remittance of tax within
ocks, bonds or other domestic securities pursuant to Section 32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
More importantly, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is construed strictly against the taxpa
March 12, 201353, the subject deficiency income tax and deficiency expanded withholding tax assessments have prescribed. Correspo
ces are not subject to DST. Moreover, the CA and CTA, the specialized body handling tax cases, also had similar rulings. Hence, petitio
Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated December 10, 2003 but before the adoption of the Aichi doctrine on October 6, 2010, citing the case of S
titioner failed to dispute the evidence presented by respondent. , CTA Case No. EB 1432
e reduced amount of P17 4,460.01. , CTA Case No. EB 1248
d, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations; and3. That accused
ther five (5) years within which to collect the tax due by distraint, levy, or courtproceeding. The five-year period for collection of the as
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, lnc., the Supreme Court said:"xxx. It has been se
on of the income tax is beneficial both to the Government and to its citizens; to the Government becausetax officers would be obliged
rine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a ground for dismissing the judicial suit due to prematurity.Thus, the CTA 1st Division c
rity of the BIR to determine whether a corporation has ceased its corporate existence. It is but reasonable for the Court to require a ce
lies or materials are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price.Again, bare allegations, sans substantiation by compet
al due process pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and the provisions of RR No. 12-99, the First Division correc
ended, and Section 3(a)(1) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals.Further, Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended,
y time within ten (1 0) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has becom
ods is fatal to itsclaim and rendered the Court devoid of jurisdiction over the judicial claim. , CTA Case No. 8967
e of creditable tax withheld at source to be presented in court and authenticate the said document. , CTA Case No. EB 1375
etro Suprema case Considering that no valid notice of assessment was sent to petitioner, the assessment a
f taking cognizance of the case, should have dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. EB 1373
y given under the law. Toallow the additional requirement is to give unfettered discretion to those officials or agents who, without flu
enefit of a treaty for failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance requiring prior application for tax relief. , CTA Case No.
eak of in this case , CTA Case No. EB 1351
e investigation. , CTA Case No. EB 1425
ert it. , CTA Case No. 9359
illegally collected LBT in the first and second quarters of 2011 on the dividends from petitioner's SMC preferred shares and on the int
rtifies to a fact that was existing at the time it was issued. The importations subject of this case were made in the year 2010. Thus, the
this Court on May 27, 2015, which is within the required thirty (30)-day period. Evidently, both the administrative and judicial claims w
rt may not limit itself to the issues stipulated by the parties but may also rule upon related 1ssues necessary to achieve an orderly dis
the 120+30 day period was first settled in Aichi, the interpretation by the Court of its being mandatory and jurisdictional in nature retr
he refund of taxes are strictly construed in favor of the State and against the taxpayer (82 C.J.S. pp. 957-958; Helvering vs. Northwest S
005 requires that it must be substantiated by a copy of the subject Monthly Remittance Return of VAT Withheld (BIR Form 1600) filed
f they never entered into the said contracts/ agreements. Consequently, the obligation to pay the subject capital gains taxes to the BI
VIII thereof, vesting upon it the power to promulgate rules concerning practice and procedure in all courts, the Court thus declares tha
sessment. Pursuant to Section 222(b) of the 1997 NIRC, the prescriptive period in Section 203 of the 1997 NIRC may be extended by w
he proposed assessment is based (see illustration inANNEX A hereof). If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from dat
tion to the period of limitation must be actual not constructive. It must be intentional, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately
RANSCO in transmitting electricity to BATELEC II; while the latter's gross receipts were realized by BATELEC II in distributing electricity
a return in money from respondent PEATC's business, labor, or capital invested. As already established, respondent PEATC was a colle
ated sales; and5. That the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability. , CTA Case No. EB 1395
er of demand and assessment notice. Thus, such cannot be presumed.The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the fac
wing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom.In any event, the requirements to claim refund of excess creditab
on Authority Order No. 05-01, to wit: 'The authorized revenue official shall ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and signed by
with the CTA. Records disclose that the subject period covers January-March, April-June, July-September and October to December, a
t a taxpayer refuses the same. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty
clearly show that some revenues were not reported in the VAT returns. These undeclared revenues rendered petitioner's VAT return
etition before the Court in Division, i.e., refund of the additional 3% CWT, the Court En Bane is constrained to limit the Decision to the
hops, insurance companies, stock markets, stock brokers and dealers in secunt1es and foreign exchange, as defined under applicable l
uling retroactively would be prejudicial to the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 8940
ulations of the BSP' , (CTA Case No. 9722)
e. , CTA Case No. 9147
as the amount shall be applied to future tax liabilities of the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. EB 1928
a tax refund. "Tax refunds partake of the nature of tax exemptions, which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, evidence
behind the factual findings in the investigation. Where there is smoke, there is fire. The presumption of regularity in the performance
way for injustice as it would be rewarding an act of negligence with undeserved tolerance. Considering all these pronouncements, We
orrectness of the returns. The taxpayer must still present substantial evidence to prove his claim for refund. As we have said, there is n
annot be sustained. , CTA Case No. 9603
. The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the assessments are incorrect. , CTA Case No. EB 1864
Nature's fits of temperament, resulting in periodic calamities, typhoons, earthquakes, and, most recently, volcanic eruptions.As a resili
the categories under Section 108(B)(2),64 or simply, the services rendered should be other than "processing, manufacturing or repack
nt and makes the assessment void. , CTA Case No. 9230

side the borders of the ECOZONE to this separate customs territory are deemed exports and treated as export sales. These sales are ze
nt. It should therefore be cancelled. , CTA Case No. EB 1831

in and implementation thereof against respondent was no longer legally possible. , CTA Case No. EB 1974
erting it into finished products. Only then will the Court be able to ascertain the exact portion of tax-paid raw materials that went into
st" shall be understood to include real properties as understood under Philippine laws. "Real Property Interest" means any properties e
on, meaning it is arbitrary and capricious. In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts.
entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. , CTA Case No. EB 1917
red as a derogation of the sovereign authority and are strictly construed against the person or entity claiming the exemption. , CTA Ca
ess or unutilized input VAT is in the nature of a tax exemption. Strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by law is required of the t
is appealable before the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.For petitioner's failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to it an
ary requirements. , CTA Case No. 9499
also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party an
r, the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failu
s rights, the same are null and void. As such, the said deficiency tax assessments bear no valid fruit,51 and must not be given any effec
Court finds that petitioner should be refunded the surcharge, interest and compromise penalty previously paid. Good faith and honest
the payment of the assessed taxes. Neither does this Court find any due date in the corresponding undated Audit Result/ Assessment
ct, including all the subsequent proceedings. , CTA Case No. 9475
es has the burden of proving his or her allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence.Hence, without any sufficient evidence show
Formal Letter of demand (FLD) and FAN cannot be overemphasized. The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequ
unting records for taxable year 2007 and who recommended the issuance of the said PAN against petitioner for the same taxable year
d by the appellate court, as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate court cannot be considered in disposing the cas
ons made during commercial operations. However, beyond the said two-month period, the sale of generated output shall already be d
nce there is nothing in the records which would show that petitioner consented to the compromise penalties assessed for all the defic
and effect. , CTA Case No. 9402
re parts in connection with EDC's wind turbines and the other serviced equipment. For failure to present the required documents, pet
ayment of compromise penalties by petitioner is invalid. , CTA Case No. 9361

hose territorial jurisdiction encompasses the place where the facts thereof have originated (decision or inaction of the local treasurer o
y received by [YLCI] is fatal and amounts to no assessment at all. As such, it cannot bind [YLCI] and may not be utilized as a foundation
rns. The failure to file the income tax was also made repeatedly, negating any possible justification that it could only have been the re
oner's basic tax liability, the minimum compromise amount should have been capped at Php69,255·54, absent the REB's approval to lo
neous or illegal. Parenthetically, it must be emphasized that nothing in the above-quoted provision states or even implies that the fact
al consequences, cannot be presumed. Fraud entails corresponding sanctions under the tax law. Therefore, it is indispensable for the C
on of Kerson Investment Limited. Hence, Petitioner failed to prove that its client is a non-resident foreign corporation doing business o
25, 2016, the portion of the refund claim for the same period should be denied outright, since it is beyond this Court's jurisdiction. , C
, CTA Case No. O-659
And petitioner utterly failed in this regard. , CTA Case No. EB 1838
ff in the pre-trial is a ground for dismissal. Incidentally, although the Court is not bound by the technical rules of procedure and observ
, CTA Case No. EB CRIM-049
t of a suit, the original complaint is deemed abandoned and superseded by the amended complaint only if the amended complaint int
esentation of the computation of the unreported income cannot be used as basis for the determination of the civil liabilities of accuse
2013, which means, it is already precluded from being applied to future VAT liability, if any. , CTA Case No. 9128
245 filed on October 9, 2015 and the testimony of petitioner's witness, altogether confirm that petitioner indeed paid twice the final w
fruit. , CTA Case No. 9473

d witnesses; and, (4) judgment in the case was rendered only after a full-blown trial. , CTA Case No. EB 2004
ues raised by the parties. , CTA Case No. 9532
the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Accordingly, it is a claimant's burden to prove the factual basis of a claim for refu
titioner attaches to its petition the certified true copies of respondents' ITRs for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, it is already too late in th
o present proof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial affirmance of said assessment. , CTA Case No. 9552
e, Inc., a finding of under-declaration of purchase does not by itself result in the imposition of income tax and VAT. An underdeclaration
e uncontested items. Therefore, the mere fact that petitioner paid a portion of the assessment should not be considered an admission
st of petitioner's documentary evidence were denied admission due to failure to submit the duly marked exhibits. The Court also finds
n, the total input taxes shall be allowed as credit/refund in the month of acquisition. , CTA Case No. 8720
t in its final disposition of the issues. , CTA Case No. EB 1884
and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. Absent a showing that herein petitioner consented to the
lied to future output VAT liability. All stated, petitioner has sufficiently established that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of TCC corr
ly, such erroneous payment made by petitioner based on the PAN alone may be recovered. , CTA Case No. 9307
d to the latter. With the foregoing findings, it becomes unnecessary to addressthe issues raised by the parties. , CTA Case No. 9421
e choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayers. Absent showing taxpayer's consent, the compromise penalty sho
ery piece of evidence is presented, duly marked and formally offered in evidence. , CTA Case No. 9541
land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative righ
er delve on the issue of the retroactivity or non-retroactivity of RMC No. 105-2016 as it is not on point with the meat of the issue whic
e the ITRs would, indeed, reveal the amount of Zuellig's prior year's excess credits, they do not, in any way, substantiate every minute a
ary to June, the pt and 2nd quarters where petitioner is required to file its returns. , CTA Case No. EB 1827
ncy taxes subject of the instant criminal cases. , CTA Case No. O-411
s raised shall no longer be discussed. , CTA Case No. 8943
he law is obeyed. , CTA Case No. EB 1903
ssment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption. Hence, assessment should not be based on mere
s of subordinate courts have a persuasive effect and may serve as judicial guides. Accordingly, petitioner's reliance on the said cases ju
to exercise the power of examination is given by the statute. , CTA Case No. 9067
me which would in turn increase petitioner's VAT liabilities, is not based on actual facts and thus, is a mere presumption. , CTA Case N
eswere rendered and consumed outside the PEZA zone. The CIR is of theview that, citing RMC No. 74-99, the sale of goods or services
taxable year 2007, exclusive of surcharge and interests. On the other hand, the accused claimed that there is nothing on record that w
rregularities in the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed.I09 However, the prima facie correctness of a t
nas (BSP) to transact business with foreign currency deposit system, shall be exempt from all taxes. However, it is paramount to point
e claim for refund50 was filed on June 28, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. with the BIR RDO 63 -Calapan City while the instant petition51 was filed o
ssment after finding that the requirements under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC and RR No. 12-99 were not strictly complied with. A po
in favor of the individual, for a citizen's right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while "taxes are the
sment as determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only inform the taxpayer to submit additional documents. The BIR cannot demand
us, this Court will not discuss further said issues considering that those were raised only for the first time in petitioner CIR's MPR befor
415 of the Civil Code. The transfer of MAPL shares from Mirant to CrimsonPower is a type of corporate acquisition at the equity level.
claim35 in the amount of P10,677 ,365.48 covered by Customs Import Entry No. 2013 C4122, and again on November 5, 2014, it filed
ent, thereby allowing the taxpayer to effectively protest the assessment and adduce supporting evidence in its behalf.33 Precisely, du
Court in Division erred in considering when partially granting the claim is simply unacceptable. It is obvious from a plain reading of the
iew before this Court and there being no reversible error committed by the Court in Division, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reaso
undred eighty (180) days from the filling of the protest. 26 Counting thirty (30) days from the lapse of 180 days or from December 31,
Court of Tax Appeals, or else they will lose the sole remedy24 In the present case where there was inaction on a disputed assessment,
nt is a bank or other financial institution. , CTA Case No. EB 1754
her accounting records. Absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically naming the person to whom the case will be reassign
er, declares that the Court of Tax Appeals may likewise take cognizance of cases directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of
n their respective declarations. Not even a hint was volunteered by the named witnesses to indicate that petitioner is a VAT- registered
he tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may,
d its evidence and rested its case. We emphasize that the Court considers the ICPA report when the case was already submitted for de
regarded as foreign territory. As held by the Supreme Court, this legal fiction is necessary to give meaningful effect to the policies of th
hermore be under obligation to always keep their books and keep them open for inspection subject to harassment by unscrupulous ta
ntitlement to a refund, but also its compliance with the procedural due process as non-observance of the prescriptive periods within w
y is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself , CTA Case No. EB 1856
refund as long as it complies with the requirements under Sections 20420 ( C) and 22921 of the NIRC of 1997 Republic Act No. 92821
hirty (30) days from July 30, 2013 when the BIR issued a request for additional documents, or from August 29, 2013. , CTA Case No. E
No. 9464
ax are: (1) there must be gain or profit; (2) that the gain or profit is realized or received, actually or constructively; and (3) it is not exe
en the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or (c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund o
, in fact, an authorization letter for the appropriate ROs assigned to perform assessment functions. It is so because the power to exam
gedly contained the PAN.56 With this admission, it is quite obvious that such PAN cannot be deemed to have been received by petitio
TA Case No. EB 1782
er. 10 (emphasis supplied) Thus, to be valid, an assessment must contain not only the computation of tax liabilities, but must also indi
ify in its annual corporate adjustment return (by marking the option box provided in the BIR form) its intention, whether to request fo
ue opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination." Ba
nger discuss the submitted issue. , CTA Case No. 9408
or Tier 2, as discussed above. Thus, whether petitioner's beer products are variants of existing brands or new brands under RA No. 933
these agencies from handling matters falling under their specialized jurisdiction. 56 Hence, there being no reversiblc error committed
made to rest on another presumption. 20 As such, the Court En Banc sees no reason to disturb the findings of the Court in Division. Th
ministrative Code of 1987) and not by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, considering that the disputing parties are both government enti
bject importations, it was legal for petitioners to import rice without need of import permits, the seizure and forfeiture proceedings co
26, 2014 to May 25, 2016. , CTA Case No. 9444
o support his application, or expiration of the period given, the CIR has 120 days within which to decide the claim for tax credit or refu
se established and cited precedents. Accordingly, the Court is unconvinced, based on the foregoing rehashed arguments, that there is
d or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requireme
e. , CTA Case No. 9147
lable amount by drawing on this facility will there be delivery of the money that will give rise to a loan, but only up to the amount of t
th PAGCOR is concerned, is without legal basis. It is without a doubt that, like PAGCOR, its contractees and licensees shall likewise pay
hat "the filing of a criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the fili
e final decision of the CIR's duly authorized representative may be appealed to the CIR, such must be done within the prescribed perio
s case, the petitioner PSALM. Under Presidential Decree No. 242 (PO 242), all disputes and claims solely between government agencie
ght to refund. Thereafter, the burden of going forward with the evidence, as distinct from the general burden of proof, shifts to the op
d of the government, their assessment and collection "should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the ver
sed in the assailed Decision, RDO Aninag is bereft of any power to authorize the examination of respondent taxpayer or to effect any a
shed that there is a dispute as to the correctness of such assessment. , CTA Case No. EB 1720
eficiency EWT assessed by respondent on its income payments made to the City Government of Iligan. Section 2.57.5(A) of RR No. 2-9
be imposed on petitioner, a compromise being, by its nature, mutual in essence. The payment made under protest by petitioner cou
CTA Case No. 9441
erits of the subject assessments. , CTA Case No. EB 1818
A Case No. EB 1761
mposition of the compromise penalty without the taxpayer's conformity is illegal and unauthorized , CTA Case No. 9255
quest for reconsideration. The issuance thereof was certainly beyond the five-year period to collect,which had expired on May 5, 200
dentiaryrequirements , CTA Case No. 9358
e No. 8959
Compliance with Section 228 of the National InternalRevenue Code is a substantive requirement. It is not amere formality. Providing th
e notcomplied with in this case, We need not look into petitioner'scompliance with the other remaining requisites in obtaining acredit
sonable doubt as to his guilt. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove all the essential element
T. , CTA Case No. EB 1662
ettled is the rule that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength fro
ernal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation40, the Supreme Court held that the taxpayer can seek judicial review of its claim for r
mport rice. Since , CTA Case No. 9156
cial proceedings, the purpose of which is to establish a status, condition or fact. In land registration proceedings, such as the case filed
must it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments, if any, of such taxes. (Main Issue) Republic Act No. 9282 9
eted. (Main Issue) There is no dispute that the Court has appellate jurisdiction over other cases arising under the NIRC of 1997, as am
rposes of local business taxation. , CTA Case No. EB-1673

xpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. 9349
n its entitlement to a refund or issuance of TCC for its unutilized excess CWTs for calendar years 2013 and 2014 in the respective amou
casinos, gaming clubs and other similar recreation or amusement places, gaming pools and related operations, so long as the correspo
uld be applied to future output VAT liability. , CTA Case No. 9442
ws or rules thereunder." This enumeration appears to be exclusive of other entities. Nowhere in the entirety of Section 131 is a holding
ertain the same. , CTA Case No. EB 1657
quarters of 2011 collected by petitioners from respondent is in order. , CTA Case No. EB 1705
ppealable. , CTA Case No. 9202

of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. 9149
or Review filed on August 11, 20 16 was timely filed. , CTA Case No. 9424
CTA Crim. Case No. 0-456), the following elements must be established:1. Accused is a person required by the NIRC or rules andregula
filed its appeal within the 30-dayperiod from the expiration of the 120 days and not from the receipt ofthe denial. , CTA Case No. 916
was filed on May 4,2016. Hence, the Petition for Review was timely filed within thethirty-day prescriptive period. JURISPRUDENCE P
ion 98 of the 1997 NIRC. On the other hand,the subject donation is not one of those enumerated under Section101 of the 1997 NIRC
mpelling reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the Court in Division as it is supported by jurisprudence and evidence on reco
ot validly conduct any of these kinds of examinations without prior authority. Notably, there is no mention in the records that a new L
them. In sum, the Court cannot treat the Referral Memorandumnor the Tax Verification Notice into a Letter of Authorityrequired unde
anchise tax is imposed on the privilege of operating a franchise.24 Moreover, according to the same case, since the local franchise tax p
uthority. Thus, absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically naming the person to whom the case will be reassigned with th
uthority. Thus, absent the necessary issuance of a new LOA specifically naming the person to whom the case will be reassigned with th
nt notice be satisfactorily proven to have been issued and released or, if receipt thereof is denied, that said assessment notice have be
ment issued pursuant thereto void. Being a void assessment, the same bears no fruit52 and must be slain at sight. , CTA Case No. 916
he thirty (30)-day period, as mandated by RAMO No. 1-00In the present case, while the Reassignment Notice cannot be treated as an
nt and WDL issued by petitioner were null and void in violation of respondent's right to due process. Commissioner of Internal Revenu
ponsibility to pay taxes by mere expedient of hiding behind technicalities. It is true that petitioner was also at fault here because it was
ainst it was issued. As to petitioner's argument that the tax investigation is null and void for failure of respondent to comply with RMO
e relaxed only for the most persuasive reasons. Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair re
ceed 7% (5% old rate) of the gross sales/receipts, which effectively accounts for the standard input VAT in lieu of the actual input VAT
intentionally failed to pay it. Considering that the prosecution failed to prove the fact of mailing of the PAN, FAN and Formal Letters of
act. On the other hand, Section 1114 of the CMTA provides that forfeiture of vehicle, vessel or aircraft shall not be effected if it is estab
it under protest, the deletion of the imposition of surcharge and interest in the instant case is also proper. , CTA Case No. 9311
ble to its zero-rated sales I receipts for the same period. , CTA Case No. 9449
at for a claim for tax refund of input VAT to prosper, the 120+30-day periods should have been strictly complied with. In this case, the
ewith precludes this Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. , CTA Case No. 9297
chases of non-capital goods and service and on importations of non-capital goods reclassified as purchases of capital goods exceeding
ent made is but part of the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment. Absent thereof renders nugatory a
ary 13, 2015 were issued by respondents in violation of Section 133 of the LGC. Hence, said Billing Assessments are void and must acco
resented whether the amount reflected as advances made by SMC to Pacific Central Properties Inc. was indeed a mere carry-over of th
n brand or design. Specifically, the provision was meant to obviate any tax avoidance by manufacturing firms from the sale of lower pr
sity, fraud or omission. Applying the doctrine in the afore-quoted case, it is evident that petitioner committed falsity in its 2007 Quarte
e by the Court in Division in granting the refund sought by respondent. , CTA Case No. EB 1684
ation and verification. Considering that the revenue officer who conducted the examination was not validly authorized to do so by virt
for refund but asking for a TRO and prohibiting the respondent LGU from collecting the annual tower fee embodied in the assailed ord
d (2) violation of the rules on customs valuation. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to the refund sought. , CTA Case No. 9323
ation from the BIR which specifically opined that CWC's sales of services in the customs territory is subject to 5% special rate. Thus, thi
with favor on tax exemptions and he who thus seeks to be privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too catego
ld be tantamount to overruling or supplanting the express provision of the law. started. The execution of the said Compromise Agree
therefor arises. Parenthetically, RMO No. 43-90 provides that any reassignment or transfer of cases to another revenue officers shall r
cision of the Court in Division involves McKinsey itself, the determining factors such as the factual milieu and the evidence presented a
er, as found by the Court, petitioner is covered by Section 150(b) of the NIRC of 1997 vis-a-vis the valid interpretation placed thereto by
idence show that the total zerorated sales reported by petitioner in the Quarterly VAT Returns for the first and second quarters of TY 2
w and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an
being no mutual agreement between the parties, the imposition of compromise penalty in the amount of P27,000.00 cannot be sustai
b) It is clear from Section 228 of the Tax Code that the right to respond to a "preassessment notice" or PAN is given to the taxpayer, a
No. 6-2013. Instead, it is a mere equity transaction since petitioner did not recognize any gain or loss therefrom. , CTA Case No. 9078
rom Philippine income tax. Note that when an administrative agency renders an opinion by means of a circular or memorandum, it me
esses could not positively testify that the PAN was actually received by GECC. Hence, the failure of the BIR to prove receipt of the PAN
t he really did not declare his income and pay the corresponding taxes. , CTA Case No. O-546
he effect of rendering final and executory the judgment of the court below. Considering that the CIR's Petition has not been perfected
of showing that the attendant facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited instances. 14 Thus, a direct resort to a special civil a
rter of 20 10 were conducted prior to the issuance of the COC and does not qualify for zero-rating, and therefore, Hedcor is not entitle
ns of law and/or the Constitution has no legal effect. Accordingly, it has no legal obligation to pay taxes in excess of what is legally req
d TMAP-EM in Thailand should be cancelled. , CTA Case No. EB 1688
dity of the subsequent FANs. (b) Having established that respondent never received the PAN, the events that came thereafter became
appearing in the notice of demand of the Commissioner ... until the amount is fully paid." , CTA Case No. EB 1563
egulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. There is likewise no indication in the record that respo
ld be made to apply prospectively in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, compensation income of resident citizens employed by
eiture. Respondent failed to consider the qualifying and limiting provision of the law which clearly states that forfeiture of the vehicles
acquitted. (b) In stark contrast to the evidence presented by the prosecution, accused Caluag offered no evidence to sustain her defen
g the Resolutions dated February 27, 2017 and May 4, 2017 of the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 8993. Hence, the same shall be of
il it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed" in its Quarterly VAT Return for the 3rd quarter of 201480, preventing the carry-over o
ent of eLAs. Also, RMO No. 69-2010 does not state that the replacement of eLAs is a precondition for the continuance of the audit inv
n the part of the latter. (b) To let respondent Mandaluyong City claim ownership over a portion of the EDSA MRT Ill System, such as rai
urt of Petitioner's Urgent Motion for the Issuance of an Order to Suspend the Collection of Tax, Respondent is not precluded from col
ureau of Internal Revenue, which is a government agency. Clearly, the instant petition involves a dispute solely between a governmen
eothermal Power Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, an amended decision is a different decision, and thus, is a prop
ned finality long before the FDDA was issued by the respondent. It is therefore erroneous on the part of the petitioner to assume that
den to which others are subjected. Accordingly, the tax exemption enjoyed by the constituent rural banks under Section 15 of RA 7353
ent of interest on the amount to be refunded to taxpayer, the Government cannot be required to pay interest. Likewise, it is the rule
Design, Inc.]; (b) In view of the defective waivers, the period to assess was not extended, hence, the assessments for income tax, VAT,
filed before the expiration of the 120day period. , CTA Case No. EB 1585
come tax under Section 133 (a)15 of the LGC. , CTA Case No. EB 1634
the tax. , CTA Case No. 9105

g no clear legislative intent to retroactively apply the provisions of the TRAIN law, the same should only be applied prospectively, i.e.,
on for tax treaty relief for its income payments does not ipso facto preclude it from enjoying the preferential tax rate of 10% under Ar
eriod allowed to the CIR begins to run from the date of filing. (b) Petitioner's failure to appeal the "inaction" or "deemed a denial dec
me standard against itself in refunding excess payments of such taxes. Indeed, the State must lead by its own example of honor, dignity
e the burden of proof to establish the same lies with the former alone. , CTA Case No. 9089
professional dancers furnished by petitioner. (b) While a bar or a restaurant can be held liable for amusement tax if the place is being
payment. Whereas previously, Petitioner's income was not subjected to tax, he now had to come up a substantial amount for an indiv
wo-year prescriptive period. (b) Similarly, petitioner has a binding relation to pay the subject excise tax under RR No. 3-08. The advanc
ed such power. , CTA Case No. 9179
issued against petitioner. In fact, the issue of the legality of the WDL rests upon the validity of the tax assessment itself and we canno
d by the instant case herein. (b) With the existence of overpayment of tax credits per its Annual ITR that exceeds the supposed MCIT a
inistrative and judicial levels. Clearly, petitioner's administrative claim filed on May 29, 2015, and the subsequent appeal before this C
of money". (c) The foregoing disquisitions notwithstanding - since the prevailing doctrine is that interest may not be imposed on tax r
f the 1997 NIRC, as amended, the following requisites must be satisfied: 1. the services must be other than processing, manufacturing
(b) Not being expressly covered by the terms "cabaret" and "night or day club", pursuant to RR No. 14-67 and the cited relevant decis
RR No. 11-2004. There is not even a definition or an explanation of what a back-end report is under the aforesaid rules and regulation
ttled is the rule that the imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.36 RMO No. 1-90 e
t involves an entirely different and distinct issues and causes of action from the other related cases mentioned therein obviously resul
ed its judicial claim for refund. Accordingly, petitioner filed its administrative and judicial claims within the prescriptive periods. (b) Fin
based on the gross amount of the dividends, pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Philippines-Netherlands tax treaty. Consequently, sinc
as prescribed. That being the case, the assessments are presumed to have been issued within the prescriptive period. , CTA Case No.
ed in Section 2.58.3 of RR No. 2-98, the official receipts and sales invoices, however, are not sufficient to prove that the income arisin
x on Government. Such being the case, the dividend income earned by petitioner may not be subjected to business tax under Section
y authorized representative and the date of such acceptance. However, the Waiver attached to the BIR Records indicates that the sam
012 and are attributable to zero-rated sales in the taxable years 2012 and 2013 but in the reduced amount of P14,263,324.04. , CTA
mption of falsity of returns cannot arise by mere assertion that the former commissioner imposed surcharge against respondent. Henc
ovisions of the law. Thus, RO Lim acted without authority when he conducted the audit of petitioner, hence, the assessment is null and
n (h), Section 3A.02. This Court does not agree with petitioner-it is non sequitur. (b) In this case, after a careful review of the evidence
etition for Review before the Court En Bane, to specifically pinpoint any error on, or sufficiently argue against, the said findings and co
h violates the limit set under Section 133(a) of the 1991 LGC. Note that an ordinance, or any part thereof, which contravenes any statu
vor of the non-resident foreign corporation, and not the crew member. The parties to the relevant service agreement, the services un
ever, petitioner filed its Petition before the Court in Division only on October 18, 2012. Since the Petition was belatedly filed, the CT A
ad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhance
er and the said two entities, i.e. PEOI-PEOCI and EPPI, respectively. , CTA Case No. EB 1712
O transactions for taxable year 2011 when it becomes due and payable, there is no more need of an assessment notice to petitioner an
he invoicing and accounting requirements mandatedby the NIRC, as well as by revenue regulationsimplementing them. , CTA Case No
granted the incidental powers necessary toeffectuate its jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence ofprohibitive legislation, im
ncome is clearly erroneous and should be refunded. , CTA Case No. EB 1702
y and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with
CTA Case No. 9011
x often percent (10%) on the total amount thereof. , CTA Case No. EB 1532
onstrued against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the government. , CTA Case No. 9228
consummation of contracts. , CTA Case No. EB 1548
ents. In caseof inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenueon claims for refund of internal revenue taxeserroneously or illegally c
o RO Ma. Lourdes Morales and Group Supervisor Aurea S. Guevarra directing them to continue the audit did not cure the said infirmit
at real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions is exempted from payment of the real pro
Case No. 9024
x credit, We sustain the assailed finding. , CTA Case No. EB 1530
the amount of P27,729,564.16 cannot be refunded. , CTA Case No. 9107

Court to disturb the findings of the Third Division , CTA Case No. EB 1534
der such circumstances. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. , CTA Case No. EB 1624
ger significant as this came years after the lapse of the 120-day period prescribed by law, hence cannot be the basis of any reckoning p
discuss the other issues raised. , CTA Case No. 8932
e process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling compl
he document is equivocal. For the purpose of safeguarding taxpayers from any unreasonable examination, investigation or assessmen
nt for the precise computation and assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal prosecution", 81 Section 205 of the NIRC of 1
e clearly within its jurisdiction.37 Since the Court cannot consider the FDDA in this case as the "decision on the disputed assessment"
ed September 21, 2016. , CTA Case No. EB 1536
is therefore void and must be set aside. , CTA Case No. EB 1544
etitioner had earnings in excess of 100°/o of its paid-up capital in taxable year 2010. Moreover, there is no showing that the accumula
ax initiated suits is premised on several factors other than the normal evidentiary rule imposing proof obligation on the petitioner-taxp
t in Division, which the Court En Bane agrees with after re-evaluation of all the documents presented, all theaforesaid requirements a
o question the assessment has prescribed under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC. Once an assessment has become final for failure of the
protest. , CTA Case No. AC-164
dure. In fine, the arty appealing must comply with the legal and procedural requirements set forth in the provision, lest the appeal ill
nancial intermediary, I submit there is no basis to impose LBTon the dividends derived by respondents from its investments in SMC sha
o ous to that provided for under Rule 43 o the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with t e CTA, which shall hearthe case en bane. , CTA Case
OA was issued against respondent. The BIR came up with the subject tax assessments only on the basis or pursuant to an LN,particula
248 and 249 (C) of the NIRC.xxx In sum, deficiency interest may be imposed only on tax specifically covered and defined by the relevan
be collected in a case involving solely the issue of the concerned taxpayer's entitlement to the refund being claimed. , CTA Case No.
lht in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. , CTA Case No. 9066
co products, even if destined for tax and duty-free shops shall be subject to excise tax. , CTA Case No. 9136
usiness which is in Calamba City. So, Makati City, cannot get a share in the sales made and recorded in the principal office located in C
for Review is in order. , CTA Case No. 8964
-rated." , CTA Case No. EB 1460

honesty in paying heir taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding erroneous exactions and payment ofsuch taxes.
dominium units in the Serendra Project. Such admission completely dilutes petitioner's impression that the ruling on its exemption is m
of Internal Revenue. , CTA Case No. 8942
mers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters may qualify as machinery subject to real property tax. , CTA Ca
of the offense charged have been sufficiently established, Ugnayang Magbubukid ng San Isidro, Inc. is found liable of the charge of smu
ect FAN dated June 29, 2011 must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8659
om its general allegation on the alleged inadequacy of the documents submitted at the administrative level, the ruling on the matter is
roduce the complete documents in these cases, became essential. It is only upon the submission of these documents that the 120-da
be filed within the prescribed period both in the administrative and judicial levels , CTA Case No. 8869
d succeeding quarter(s). , CTA Case No. 9086
oner paid the input VAT thereon. Hence, petitioner is entitled to claim for refund or issuance of TCC for its unutilized input VAT on loc
petitioner still failed to let the ICPA identify exhibit "WW-3-384" when the latter was recalled in the hearing held on July 15, 2015. Thi
e of tax erroneously or illegally collected. However, if the taxpayer opted for a tax credit, the same may not be recovered in the form
hall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the pa
thout stating the specific documents that respondent failed to provide for his determination of the merit of its claim for refund/tax cr
xpayer be notified of the assessment made by the CIR. This was changed in 1998 and the taxpayer must now be informed not only of
While it is true that an assessment is made when the notice is sent within the prescribed period, the release, mailing, or sending of the
d.It must be reiterated that tax refunds, being in the nature of taxexemptions, are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer an
less of any supervening cause that may arise after payment. , CTA Case No. 8969
that CIR had exercised her quasi-judicial functions or her power to decide disputed assessments, refunds or internal revenue taxes, fee
videncing the acceptance, assignment, sale or transfer of an obligation, right or property incident thereto. Pending valuation of the ju
Office of the Commissioner. , CTA Case No. EB 1520
y put, LN is entirely different and servesa different purpose than an LOA. Due process demands, as recognized under RMO No. 32-2005
, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materia
ced.. , CTA Case No. 8934
, CTA Case No. 8876

ersible error committed by the Court in Division, hence, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to reverse the assailed Decision and
, CTA Case No. 8931
resent Petition for Review is in order. , CTA Case No. 9055

odification much less the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1407
ny doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation, it has been Our consistent ruling, where the law speaks in
der Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9027
ill carry out the intention of Congress. , CTA Case No. AC-172
ued prior to the effectivity of RR No. 7-2014 are covered, thus, the allegation of nonretroactivity of rulings is bereft of merit. , CTA Cas
n, the total input taxes shall be allowed as credit/refund in the month of acquisition. , CTA Case No. 8065
to the country through the use of false and spurious documents.This being the case, the subject shipment, which was imported on the
mise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter wh
taxes for the third and fourth quarters of CY 2012 could not have been carried-over or utilized in the succeeding third quarter of 2014
presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption. In the present case, the presumption of correctness of the FAN cannot
amended by RR No. 18-2013.With this finding , it becomes unnecessary to resolve the second stipulated issue, concerning the proprie
heir businesses, it cannot be used to circumvent the purpose for which such taxes areimposed. , CTA Case No. 8726
ect taxable year. In relation thereto, assuming the disallowance of pre-operating expenses is proper, no income tax may result therefro
ce, it is logical that a more stringent application of the mandate of our tax laws be applied to accused. The omission on the part of acc
lidity of Section 128(A)(3)(b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and the provision imposing final withholding of percentage tax under R
served as an expression of its choice to have the CWT for CY 2011 refunded. , CTA Case No. 8801
in good faith, unless proven otherwise. , CTA Case No. 8963

tained in the BIR Forms are the same amounts the withholding agents are required to report to the BIR. To require accused to go over
t is mandated to inquire whether there was a valid assessment, before it can proceed to rule on the merits of the assessment. , CTA C
til RMC No. 90-2012 has been declared invalid and unconstitutional through the proper proceeding, the same is binding; and there is
012. From the expiration of the said redemption period, petitioner has thirty (30) days, or until January 19, 2013, within which to file t
th and that it did not intend to evade its responsibilities as a taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9085
ent. , CTA Case No. 8935
Memorandum Circular No. 63-2003 dated October 10, 2003, , CTA Case No. 9493
& 8106
a compromise settlement, among others, which all entail financial costs to the taxpayer. Hence, the mandatory period granted to ass
quarter of 2013, no longer included the subject second, third, and fourth quarters claims. , CTA Case No. 8623
85.00) pertains to the alleged remittance of EWT due for the month of March 2007. However, petitioner failed to present the correspo
he BIR do constitute a diminution of the taxpayer's property rights, it should observe the caveat enshrined in our constitution, to wit:
on the part of the CIR is both andatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance therewith precludes the CTA from acquiring jurisdiction
hirty (30) days from the lapse of the one hundred and twenty (120) day period, which ended on November 18, 201383. Instead, record
deficiency EWT assessed by respondent on its income payments made to the City Government of Iligan. , CTA Case No. 9099
ontractors, are subject to zero percent VAT under Sections 106(A)(2)(c) and 108(8)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 9337
4, 2014 within which to file itsadministrative claim as well as its judicial claim for the issuance of TCC.Thus, petitioner's administrative c
ng so, Petitioner cannot now argue otherwise. , CTA Case No. EB 1435
thheld FWT in the amount ofP127,673,786.53. , CTA Case No. 8965

nt of P7,512,051.94 should be canceled and set aside. , CTA Case No. EB 1365
Talaue, Leandro Antonio M. Talaue, Hannah Aileen Lim Fernandez, Analyn G. Fernandez, and Angel T. Deray, Jr. Where there is reasona
evasion against some ADBFilipino employees in order to collect past due income taxes for taxable year 20 12 had prejudiced the statu
by the buyer, (4) confirmation receipts, and (5) respondent's Application for Tax Credit of Value-Added Tax Paid (BIR Form 2552), whic
t been applied against the output tax.
ion. Hence, the Court En Bane finds no justifiable reason to deviate therefrom. , CTA Case No. EB 1397
BOI -registered 100°/o exporters. Since CEBECO III is neither a PEZA-registered entity nor a BOI-registered 100°/o exporter, the follow
owing the CIR to rely thereon is an act of bad faith.On the other hand, the CIR was also remiss in its duty of faithfully complying with it
ty generated through hydropower to NPC. Nevertheless, petitioner's purchases of local supply of goods, properties and services need
d that petitioner's purchases of services from SMCC were rendered outside the Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone, thus, it is entitled to
efund it prayed for and only granted a portion thereof which is supported by evidence. , CTA Case No. EB 1493
has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude. JURISPRUDENCE: Page 25 "From the foregoing, it can be inferred that respondent had no int
period on August 18, 2014. Clearly, petitioner belatedly brought its judicial claim for refund or issuance of TCC, and thus, the CTA has
wed in order to produce waivers that validly extend the prescriptive period to assess. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. FMF Dev
'-Just as in the above-quoted Next M
Second
ailed to show that the subject certification was attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record. x x x"
g and remittance of tax within the period prescribed. Considering that SSS, as a government-owned and controlled corpo
d.
trued strictly against the taxpayer. 30 It must be kept in mind that the TIN serves asidentification of taxpayers in relation to their paym
nts have prescribed. Correspondingly, the Petition for Review must necessarily be granted. , CTA Case No. 8803
similar rulings. Hence, petitioner cannot be faulted if it relied in good faith on these rulings.
er 6, 2010, citing the case of San Roque as authority." Elementary is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature
egulations; and3. That accused, as the employee responsible for the violation,willfully failed to pay such tax, make such return, keep su
r period for collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent to the tax
Court said:"xxx. It has been settled that while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of the mail, this is mer
setax officers would be obliged to act properly in the making of the assessment, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period o
ty.Thus, the CTA 1st Division committed no error when it held that the petition was belatedly filed on May 28, 2015, or almost 4 years
le for the Court to require a certification, that petitioner has already been dissolved, from the authority competent to do so.
sans substantiation by competent evidence, are not proof.
2-99, the First Division correctly cancelled the Formal Letter of Demand dated January 7, 2011 and the attached Assessment Notices.
of RA No. 1125, as amended, states that any party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
d assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal actio
CTA Case No. EB 1375

o petitioner, the assessment against the petitioner for its alleged tax liabilities for taxable 2009,based on FLD-FAN dated January 25, 2
ials or agents who, without fluid consideration, are bent on denying a valid application. , CTA Case No. 8843
for tax relief. , CTA Case No. EB 1389
referred shares and on the interest from petitioner's money market placements for 2010. , CTA Case No. AC-162
ade in the year 2010. Thus, the Court may rule on petitioner's claim for refund without ruling on the failure of petitioner to appeal the
nistrative and judicial claims were seasonably filed. , CTA Case No. 9057
sary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. , CTA Case No. EB 1452
nd jurisdictional in nature retroacts to the date the NIRC was enacted. Thus, the 120/30 day prescriptive periods are mandatory and j
958; Helvering vs. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, 311 US 46, 85 L. ed. 29 S. Ct., 51 Am. Jur. p. 526). xxx." As such, it is axiomatic that a c
Withheld (BIR Form 1600) filed by the refund claimant on behalf of the non-resident. Although the Court-commissioned ICPA is of the v
ct capital gains taxes to the BIR no longer exists, and the tax payments made by reason of the said conveyances must be returned to S
ts, the Court thus declares that the CA's original jurisdiction26 over a petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution in a preliminar
7 NIRC may be extended by way of a written agreement between the taxpayer and the CIR, if entered into before the lapse of the said
thin fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, in which case, a formal letter of demand and a
ption willfully and deliberately done or resorted to. As stated in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ayala Hotels, Inc., "
LEC II in distributing electricity to the City of Lipa and in certain municipalities. Clearly therefore, the RTC of Batangas City did not err in
respondent PEATC was a collectingagent of PEA/PRA and UMPC/CIC. As such, the gross toll revenues collected by respondent PEATC is
EB 1395
writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void , CTA Case No. 8987
claim refund of excess creditable withholding tax are the three conditions discussed above. Having shown compliance with the require
y accomplished and signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative before affixing his signature to signify acceptance of the sa
r and October to December, all of 2009; hence the taxable quarters close on March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009 and
o pay the compromise penalty because, by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing o
dered petitioner's VAT returns "false" under the doctrine in Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals, which classifies as "false" a return which de
ed to limit the Decision to the issues raised by the parties, considering that the evidence on record failed to meet or to prove the requi
, as defined under applicable laws, or rules and regulations thereunder. , CTA Case No. AC-152
against the taxpayer, evidence in support of a claim must likewise be strictissimi scrutinized and duly proven." , CTA Case No. 9084
regularity in the performance of duties by the CIR's representatives stands, and their findings must be upheld and accorded not only r
all these pronouncements, We find that the court a quo properly exercised its discretion in ruling that there is no sufficient basis for th
nd. As we have said, there is no automatic grant of a tax refund.Hence, for failing to prove its entitlement to a tax refund, respondents
y, volcanic eruptions.As a resilient people, we have learned to live with and cope with these. However, as the legislature has recognized
sing, manufacturing or repackinggoods' and4. The services must be performed in the Philippines66 by a VATregistered person. , CTA C
export sales. These sales are zero-rated or subject to tax rate of zero percent. , CTA Case No. 9206
d raw materials that went into each finished good for purposes of this refund. , CTA Case No. 9059
terest" means any properties enumerated in Section 327 of the RR No. 4-86 which, are not, however, exclusive of others that are simil
must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on an
ming the exemption. , CTA Case No. EB 1721
bed by law is required of the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9717
ive remedies available to it and to comply with payment under protest, the assessment therefore attained finality and the collection w
he right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a na
sdictional as well, hence, failure to perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. , CTA Case No. 8717
nd must not be given any effect. , CTA Case No. 8986

ly paid. Good faith and honest belief that one is not subject to tax on the previous interpretation of the government instrumentality ta
ated Audit Result/ Assessment Notice.Particularly, the space in this Assessment Notice where the due date is to be stated "remained u
ut any sufficient evidence showing the existence of any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 246 of the NIRC of 1997 against petitio
sment is a substantive prerequisite for collection of taxes. A final assessment is a notice "to the effect that the amount therein stated
oner for the same taxable year, did not have the authority to do so in the first place, the subject tax assessments issued by the respond
onsidered in disposing the case. , CTA Case No. EB 1885
rated output shall already be deemed as transactions made during commercial operations by the generation company for which a CO
alties assessed for all the deficiency taxes, the compromise penalties in the total amount of P191,000.00 cannot be sustained. , CTA Ca
t the required documents, petitioner's gross receipts of P35,054,176.17, representing its sales to EDC, cannot be considered as subjec
naction of the local treasurer on local tax protests) and which has jurisdiction over the parties sought to be enjoined. , CTA Case No.
not be utilized as a foundation of a valid collection against it. , CTA Case No. EB 1953
it could only have been the result of carelessness or thoughtlessness (hence not intentional on his part). As bad faith need not be sho
absent the REB's approval to lower the same. With neither party in the present controversy giving proof of such approval, the First Div
es or even implies that the fact of payment can only be established through the presentation of the DST Declaration/Return. As a coro
re, it is indispensable for the CIR to include the basis for its allegations of fraud in the assessment notice. , CTA Case No. 9216
n corporation doing business outside the Philippines. , CTA Case No. EB 1820
nd this Court's jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. 9357
rules of procedure and observance thereof remains paramount and its liberal application may only be warranted for the weightiest o
if the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or demand. As explained earlier, the introduction of addition
of the civil liabilities of accused. While an assessment of the tax before a criminal action is not necessary, a civil action for collection o
r indeed paid twice the final withholding VAT of P10,896,470.80 for the same transaction and for the same taxable period of Septemb
factual basis of a claim for refund or tax credit.As it is undisputed that petitioner is a Philippine citizen or national, and a resident of th
009, it is already too late in the day for these pieces of evidence to be introduced or considered. Trial has long been over, and the pres
ase No. 9552

x and VAT. An underdeclaration of purchases does not, by itself, result in the imposition of income tax since no deficiency assessment c
ot be considered an admission of the validity of the assessment itself, especially if payment of the uncontested portions is needed for
d exhibits. The Court also finds that there is no evidence presented to prove that the items pertained in the assessment are erroneous
in petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conform
refund or issuance of TCC corresponding to its excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four ( 4) quarters of CY 2015
No. 9307
rties. , CTA Case No. 9421
t, the compromise penalty should be removed. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unaut
ty also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. , CTA Case No. EB 1859
ith the meat of the issue which lies beneath the arguments propounded by both parties. , CTA Case No. 9762
ay, substantiate every minute aspect of each of the items composing the said amount. In presenting the ITRs alone, it is apparent that
should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. , CTA Case No. 9219
r's reliance on the said cases justifies the non-imposition of surcharge and interest. , CTA Case No. 9637
ere presumption. , CTA Case No. 9531

the sale of goods or services made byVAT-registered suppliers to a registered enterprise operating in theECOZONE is not subject to ou
ere is nothing on record that would show that the alleged income was gained during the taxable year 2007. They assert that the prose
prima facie correctness of a tax assessment does not apply upon proof that an assessment is utterly without foundation, meaning it is
ever, it is paramount to point out that while the legal issue of whether Section 27 of the NIRC provides a tax exemption for income der
e instant petition51 was filed on even date at 4:47 p.m. with the Court. Both the administrative and judicial claims for refund clearly fa
not strictly complied with. A portion of the CTA En Bane's discussion dealt with the authority of the person who received the FAN. n th
on. Thus, while "taxes are the lifeblood of the government", the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude. Henceforth, co
ents. The BIR cannot demand what type of supporting documents should be submitted. Otherwise, a taxpayer will be at the mercy of
in petitioner CIR's MPR before the Court in Division as well as his petition for review under CTA EB No. 1768, hence, we are constraine
acquisition at the equity level. , CTA Case No. EB 1883
on November 5, 2014, it filed another administrative claim36 in the amount of P2,669,909.72 covered by Customs Import Entry No. 2
ce in its behalf.33 Precisely, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.34 Any deficiency to the man
ous from a plain reading of the Petition of the CIR that it is a verbatim quote of its Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 17, 2018 w
En Bane finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision and Resolution. , CTA Case No. EB 1850
0 days or from December 31, 2014, petitioner had until January 30, 2015 to elevate its case to the CTA. Evidently, the instant Petition f
on on a disputed assessment, Respondent chose the second option under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. It opted to aw
whom the case will be reassigned with the corresponding annotation per RMO No. 43-90, there is no authority to conduct the investiga
constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or administrative issuance (revenue orders, revenue memorandum circulars, rulin
petitioner is a VAT- registered taxpayer. In the instant case, the Court En Bane agrees with the Court in Division that petitioner failed t
, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon w
was already submitted for decision. The Court cannot prematurely check the veracity of the ICPA report. , CTA Case No. EB 1778
ngful effect to the policies of the special law creating the said freeport zone.Article 7 ( 1) of the Convention Between the Government
arassment by unscrupulous tax agents. The law on prescription being a remedial measure should be interpreted in a way conducive t
e prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and the judicial claims would result in the denial of his claim.Needless to
1997 Republic Act No. 928218, amending Republic Act No. 112519, is the governing law on the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appea
st 29, 2013. , CTA Case No. EB 1825
tructively; and (3) it is not exempted by law or treaty from income tax. Income tax is assessedon income received from any property, a
who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried ove
so because the power to examine was not statutorily given to the said ROs, and for the latter to exercise such power, authority must b
have been received by petitioner in the due course of mail. On the other hand, there is also no indication whatsoever that responden
x liabilities, but must also indicate a definite amount of the tax due, and a categorical demand for payment within a prescribed period
tention, whether to request for a refund or claim for an automatic tax credit for the succeeding taxable year. To ease the administrati
nder grueling examination." Based on the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no reversible error to disturb the assailed Decision and
new brands under RA No. 9334 are inconsequential in determining the applicable tax rates under RA No. 10351. , CTA Case No. 9513
no reversiblc error committed by the Court in Division, the Court en banc finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Decision and
ngs of the Court in Division. Thus, petitioner failed to raise meritorious arguments to justify the reversal of the assailed Decision and R
ties are both government entities. Hence, jurisdiction over the case vests with the SOJ, and not with this Court. Accordingly, the Court
and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs were without legal basis, neither under RA No. 8178, nor under NICA
the claim for tax credit or refund. Should the taxpayer, on the date of his filing, manifest that he no longer wishes to submit any other
shed arguments, that there is any reversible error in the finding that the assessment issued by the petitioner is barred by the three (3
ry and evidentiary requirements.29 , CTA Case No. EB No. 1763
but only up to the amount of the actual amount of money that was drawn from the credit facility.37 , CTA Case No. 9692
and licensees shall likewise pay corporate income tax for income derived from such "other related services", including income from ju
and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized." In Ungab v. Cusi ^*, the Su
one within the prescribed period provided for. Clearly, the elevation of the protest with the CIR by petitioner was filed out of the 30-da
between government agencies and offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be administratively settled
urden of proof, shifts to the opposing party.68 It is then the turn of the CIR and the COC to disprove PAL's claim by presenting contrary
bitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself."43 , CTA Case No. 8673
ent taxpayer or to effect any amendment to the previously issued LOA , CTA Case No. EB 1757
ection 2.57.5(A) of RR No. 2-98 is clear and unequivocal, leaving no room for interpretation. A regulation adopted pursuant to law is l
nder protest by petitioner could only signify that there was no agreement that had effectively been reached between the parties.' Con
TA Case No. 9255
ich had expired on May 5, 2009. Consequently, the said assailed Decision could no longer be enforced was the same was alrady barre
t amere formality. Providing the taxpayer with the factual andlegal bases for the assessment is crucial before proceedingwith tax collec
requisites in obtaining acredit/refund of input VAT. , CTA Case No. 9119
prove all the essential elements of the crime attributed to accused. Accused Villarica should be acquitted of the offense charged. , CTA
e allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Ostensibly, it is elementary that in all criminal cases, mere speculations
udicial review of its claim for refund/TCC in either of the following ways: (1) file the judicial claim within 30 days after the respondent d
eedings, such as the case filed by petitioner before the Quezon City RTC, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be
ssue) Republic Act No. 9282 9 , amending Republic Act No. 112510, is the governing law on the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeal
under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, or related laws administered by the BIR pursuant to Section 7(a)(1) of R.A. No. 1125, as amended
d 2014 in the respective amounts of P36,610,118.00 and P37,547,131.00, or in the total amount of P74,157,249.00. , CTA Case No. 9
ations, so long as the corresponding 5% franchise tax has been paid, as the same is in lieu of all other taxes. , CTA Case No. 8730
ety of Section 131 is a holding company mentioned." (emphasis supplied")Based on the foregoing, Davao City erred in imposing IBT on
by the NIRC or rules andregulations to make or file a return;2. Accused failed to make or file the return at the time ortimes required by
the denial. , CTA Case No. 9162
e period. JURISPRUDENCE Page 19, " In this case, the one year period provided under Section 4 RA No. 9480 xxxx" , CTA Case No. 9
Section101 of the 1997 NIRC as exempt from donor's tax. In sum, this Courtfinds that there is simply no basis for the grant of petition
rudence and evidence on record. , CTA Case No. EB 1679

on in the records that a new LOA wasissued specifically designating RO Pre to examine and audit the booksof accounts and other acco
ter of Authorityrequired under the law. Revenue Officer Janet Q. Soretta isnot authorized under a valid and existing Letter of Authority
, since the local franchise tax partakes of the nature of an excise tax, the situs of taxation is the place where the privilege is exercised,
ase will be reassigned with the corresponding annotation per RMO No. 43-90, there is no authority to conduct the investigation/audit
ase will be reassigned with the corresponding annotation per RMO No. 43-90, there is no authority to conduct the investigation/audit
aid assessment notice have been served on the taxpayer, applies only to formal assessments prescribed under Section 228 of the Nati
n at sight. , CTA Case No. 9168

otice cannot be treated as an LOA as precisely, any re-assignment of cases requires the issuance of a new LOA, its fatal infirmity is furth
mmissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama, Inc. , CTA Case No. 8907
so at fault here because it was careless in complying with the requirements of RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05. Nevertheless, petition
pondent to comply with RMO No. 69-2010 in relation to the issuance of electronic LOAs, it did not, however, point out or identify whic
eded if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of
n lieu of the actual input VAT attributable to such sales. , CTA Case No. 9051
AN, FAN and Formal Letters of Demand, and no evidence was presented to prove that accused actually received the assessments, the
all not be effected if it is established that the owner or the agent in charge thereof has no knowledge of or participation in the unlawf
er. , CTA Case No. 9311
omplied with. In this case, the determination of the 120+30-day periods are shown as follows: Quarter Date of Filing of End of the 120-
es of capital goods exceeding P 1 million, but supported by BOC SAD and statement of settlement of duties and taxes evidencing actua
ent thereof renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities.40 The use of the word shall in subsection 3.1.2 of R.R. No. 1
sments are void and must accordingly be cancelled. , CTA Case No. AC-196
indeed a mere carry-over of the portion of advances made in 2009. What the relevant pieces of evidence plainly show is that SMC ext
rms from the sale of lower priced variants of its existing beer brands, thus, falling in the lower tax bracket with lower excise tax rates.
itted falsity in its 2007 Quarterly VAT Returns as it did not declare substantial receipts from its interest income in the amount of P25,5
dly authorized to do so by virtue of an LOA signed by the CIR or the Regional Director, the subject tax assessment or examination is a n
e embodied in the assailed ordinance. Petitioner should have first observed the appellate procedure outlined in Section 187 of the 199
ht. , CTA Case No. 9323
ct to 5% special rate. Thus, this Court affirms the imposition of deficiency and delinquency interests as well as the surcharge. Based on
o be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. Petitioner has a burden of proof to establish the factual basis of its claim for t
of the said Compromise Agreement on December 4, 2014, and the subsequent cancellation of the sale of property from which the CGT
nother revenue officers shall require the issuance of a new LOA. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the same would not ne
and the evidence presented are simply unique to the said case justifying the conclusion and ruling by the Court. Again, the determina
terpretation placed thereto by respondent in BIR Ruling No. 43-2000. Thus, there is no basis to grant petitioner's claim for refund of th
st and second quarters of TY 20 13 must be disallowed for VAT refund purposes. There being no valid zero-rated sales pursuant to Sect
ubject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured
of P27,000.00 cannot be sustained. , CTA Case No. 8933
AN is given to the taxpayer, and from RR No. 1299, that the period of fifteen (15) days to file said response is also the taxpayer's right
erefrom. , CTA Case No. 9078
ircular or memorandum, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. (c) In the absence of a specific grant of income tax exemption, the Cou
R to prove receipt of the PAN by GECC leads to the conclusion that no assessment was validly issued. , CTA Case No. O-336
etition has not been perfected, the Court en bane is bereft of jurisdiction over this case. , CTA Case No. EB 1601
direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the general rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly gr
herefore, Hedcor is not entitled to the refund of input VAT attributable to said sales. Although the COCs were eventually issued, the p
in excess of what is legally required. Correspondingly, the amount of taxes already paid pursuant to an invalid and/or unconstitutiona
that came thereafter became irrelevant such as the issuance of the FANs, the filing of the protest, the submission of supporting docu
cation in the record that respondent is engaged in these functions "on a regular and recurring basis, and not on an isolated basis." (b) A
resident citizens employed by foreign governments and/ or international organizations shall only be subject to income tax beginning t
that forfeiture of the vehicles can only be effected: "Provided, That the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or any other craft is not used as a com
evidence to sustain her defense. Aside from her self-serving testimony, insisting that all her receipts were lost during the flood cause
3. Hence, the same shall be of no avail as the said Resolutions, being interlocutory orders, are not appealable to the Court En Banc. ,
80, preventing the carry-over or application of the claimed input VAT in the next taxable quarters. Accordingly, the subject claim no lon
e continuance of the audit investigation. , CTA Case No. EB 1625
SA MRT Ill System, such as railways, train cars, and stations, would cause an irreparable injury to petitioner. Aside from an absurd situa
dent is not precluded from collecting the said amount. Unlike in the case of Banco De Oro, et. aL vs. Republic, et. aL where the Bureau
e solely between a government corporation and another government agency, as such this Court is bereft of jurisdiction to take cogniza
nt decision, and thus, is a proper subject of a motion of reconsideration. (b) Considering therefore that there is no indication that pet
the petitioner to assume that the FDDA superseded the FAN for the following reasons: (a) The FDDA was issued after the FAN has alre
s under Section 15 of RA 7353 could have been one of those immunities transferred to petitioner ONBI as the new corporation create
nterest. Likewise, it is the rule that interest may be awarded only when the collection of tax sought to be refunded was attended with
essments for income tax, VAT, EWT, and WTC, which were issued by the BIR beyond the threeyear prescriptive period, are void and of
be applied prospectively, i.e., beginning January 1, 2018. , CTA Case No. 9058
ential tax rate of 10% under Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Philippines-Japan Tax Treaty. Simply put, such failure is of no moment. , CTA
tion" or "deemed a denial decision" of the CIR with the Court within 30 days from the lapse of the 120-day period or until November 1
own example of honor, dignity and uprightness. , CTA Case No. EB 1620
ement tax if the place is being used in giving dancing privileges within the term of "night clubs" and "day clubs" under Revenue Regula
ubstantial amount for an individual in order to settle his income tax liability. Hence, it would be in keeping with justice and equity for t
under RR No. 3-08. The advance payment or deposit was not made through mistake but was made by petitioner in compliance with th
ssessment itself and we cannot but rule on both issues. (b) It is well established that a void assessment bears no fruit. Noteworthy is t
exceeds the supposed MCIT as found by the Division, it is but proper for the assessed deficiency income tax to be cancelled. , CTA C
bsequent appeal before this Court filed on September 1, 2015 were made within the two-year period prescribed by law. , CTA Case N
t may not be imposed on tax refunds - the Court finds that the prevailing doctrine should be applied in the present case. Indeed, the S
han processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods; 2. the payment for such services must be in acceptable foreign currency account
67 and the cited relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, petitioner thus cannot be held liable for the payment of percentage tax (am
aforesaid rules and regulations. , CTA Case No. 9363

authorized.36 RMO No. 1-90 expressly provides that "compromise penalties are only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liab
tioned therein obviously results in the filing of a false and misleading Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. , CTA Case No. EB 1566
he prescriptive periods. (b) Finally, the Court finds that out of the total input VAT of Php9,695,110.88 for CY 2013, the amount of Php7
tax treaty. Consequently, since the dividends received by petitioner were subjected to 15% FWT instead of the 10% preferential tax ra
iptive period. , CTA Case No. 8820
o prove that the income arising from such withholding was recorded and reported as income in prior years. Petitioner did not furnish
to business tax under Section 131 (e) of the LGC of 1991 by respondent City of Davao, pursuant to Section 133(o) of the same law. , C
Records indicates that the same was signed by the CIR' s duly authorized representative and the latter's date of acceptance. Second, p
unt of P14,263,324.04. , CTA Case No. EB 1404

rge against respondent. Hence, in the absence of proof of substantially underdeclared sales, receipt or income, the presumption of fa
nce, the assessment is null and void. Accordingly, a void assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. EB 1569
careful review of the evidence presented in the proceedings a quo, there is no showing that petitioner falls within the purview of the
ainst, the said findings and consequent ruling. The mere general averment of petitioner that respondent failed to fully substantiate its
f, which contravenes any statute is ultra vires and void. , CTA Case No. AC-179
ce agreement, the services under which is presumably zero-rated, remain to be respondent and either DIOM, PDSK, or NSSPL. Having
n was belatedly filed, the CT A did not acquire jurisdiction over this case. , CTA Case No. EB 1562
e general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people; still, adherence to the Local Government Code i
ssment notice to petitioner and opportunity to be heard. , CTA Case No. 9125
menting them. , CTA Case No. EB 1418
nce ofprohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidentalpowers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing laws a
onably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. , CTA Case No. 9068
e taxeserroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer mustfile a petition for review within the two-year periodprescribed by law from p
t did not cure the said infirmity in the process. Besides, the one who authorized the assessment or examination was not a Revenue Re
from payment of the real property tax except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a
be the basis of any reckoning period for the purpose of counting the time within which to appeal before this Court. , CTA Case No. 90
n of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the
on, investigation or assessment, our tax law provides a statute of limitations in the collection of taxes. Thus, the law on prescription, b
81 Section 205 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, "requires that in order to be included in the judgment of said civil liability, it must be
on the disputed assessment" because petitioner failed to timely protest the assessment, which consequently became final and execu
no showing that the accumulated earnings in 2010 are for the immediate and reasonable needs of its business. , CTA Case No. 9106
bligation on the petitioner-taxpayer: the presumption of administrative regularity; the likelihood that the taxpayer will have access to t
l theaforesaid requirements are obtaining in this case , CTA Case No. EB 1471
become final for failure of the taxpayer to file a protest within the time allowed, the validity or correctness of the assessment may no
e provision, lest the appeal ill not prosper. Record reveals that petitioners failed to furnish the RTC which rendered the assail d Decisio
om its investments in SMC shares of stock or on the interest income it derived from its money market placements. , CTA Case No. EB
arthe case en bane. , CTA Case No. AC-171
or pursuant to an LN,particularly, LN No. 039-TRS-07-00-00120 dated March 15, 2010. Thus, for lack of an LOA, the said tax assessmen
red and defined by the relevant provisions of the NIRC, i.e., income tax, donor's tax and estate tax; conversely, deficiency interest may
eing claimed. , CTA Case No. EB 1374
edure. , CTA Case No. 9066
he principal office located in Calamba City as the entity located in Makati City is a mere administrative office. The 70/30 sales allocatio
ons and payment ofsuch taxes. It thus behooves the government to refund what it erroneously collected. , CTA Case No. 9023
he ruling on its exemption is merely an opinion or obiter dictum as it was left out in the fallo of the assailed Decision. , CTA Case No.
to real property tax. , CTA Case No. AC-168

und liable of the charge of smuggling or unlawful importation under Section 3601, in relation to Section 101, of the Tariff and Customs
vel, the ruling on the matter is deemed final, as pertains to both parties, who never appealed this aspect of the ruling of the Court in D
se documents that the 120-day period would begin to run. , CTA Case No. 9008
ts unutilized input VAT on local purchases of goods and services consumed and rendered outside the PEZA zone. , CTA Case No. 8804
ring held on July 15, 2015. This situation could have been avoided had petitioner exercised ordinary prudence and diligence in prosecu
not be recovered in the form of cash, but may only be applied to future tax obligations of the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. AC-174
thin two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, that a return ftled showing an overpayment shall be co
it of its claim for refund/tax credit. , CTA Case No. EB 1510
now be informed not only of the law but also of the facts on which the assessment is made. Such amendment is in keeping with the c
ease, mailing, or sending of the same must still be clearly and satisfactorily proved. Mere notations made without the taxpayer's interv
mi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government. Consequently, the burden of proving entitlement to a tax refund o
s or internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, not to those that involved the CIR's exercise o
to. Pending valuation of the just Compensation before the RTC, ownership over the property cannot yet be transferred to the govern
nized under RMO No. 32-2005, that after an LN has serve its purpose, the revenue officer should have properly secured an LOA before
er articles, supplies, or materials;provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its tran
erse the assailed Decision and Resolution , CTA Case No. EB 1483
Case No. EB 1407
uling, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation; there is only room for application
gs is bereft of merit. , CTA Case No. 9137
nt, which was imported on the strength of false documents, was appropriately seized and forfeited in favor of the government, pursuan
the thing or subject matter which is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. With
cceeding third quarter of 2014. , CTA Case No. 8928
orrectness of the FAN cannot be based on the presumption that the failure to file return for several instances automatically makes su
d issue, concerning the propriety of the imposition of the 20% deficiency and delinquency interests under Sections 248 and 249 of the
ase No. 8726
ncome tax may result therefrom. Following the computation, respondent added back the disallowed expenses to the taxable income.
he omission on the part of accused to ftle her ITR, knowing that she makes money out of her sale of gold to the BSP is tantamount to
ding of percentage tax under RR No. 2-98. , CTA Case No. 8810
To require accused to go over every detail contained in the certifications and re-compute his income tax liability on the premise that
rits of the assessment. , CTA Case No. EB 1516
same is binding; and there is no basis for petitioner's claim for refund or TCC. With regard to the other issues, the Court finds the sam
19, 2013, within which to file the Capital Gains Tax Return and remit the capital gains tax due. , CTA Case No. 9010
ndatory period granted to assail the PAN is integral to the right of due process granted by law to the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9103
8623
failed to present the corresponding withholding tax return for the said month. In fact, petitioner paid the compromise penalty of P1,0
ed in our constitution, to wit: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
TA from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. , CTA Case No. 8768
er 18, 201383. Instead, records reveal that petitioner belatedly filed its Petition for Review on April 15, 2015. There being no supporti
, CTA Case No. 9099
7, as amended by RA No. 9337, in relation to Section 15(g) of RA No. 9513. , CTA Case No. 8875
us, petitioner's administrative claim for refund filed on April 2,2014 and the subsequent appeal via Petition for Review filed beforethis
ray, Jr. Where there is reasonable doubt, an accused must be acquitted even though his innocence may not have been fully established
0 12 had prejudiced the status of the petitioners. , CTA Case No. 9081
ax Paid (BIR Form 2552), which are all required under Section 16 of RR No. 5-87, as amended by RR No. 3-88, vis-a-vis the Atlas case.H
ed 100°/o exporter, the following sales to CEBECO III do not qualify for VAT zero-rating.
y of faithfully complying with its own issuances. The CIR ought to ensure that all of the requirements for the execution of a valid waive
properties and services needed for the development, construction and installation of its plant facilities, as well as the whole process
ng Zone, thus, it is entitled to a refund of the 12°/o VAT it paid thereon.
ed that respondent had no intention of giving petitioner the opportuity xxxxx" , CTA Case No. 9039
of TCC, and thus, the CTA has lost jurisdiction over the petitioner's appeal. , CTA Case No. 8888
f Internal Revenue v. FMF Development Corporation, the CIR raised the argument that "the requirements in RMO No. 20-90 are mere
as in the above-quoted Next Mobile case, the parties are likewise in pari delicto, and have not come to this Court with clean hands. Fu
Second, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that the Court cannot consider evidence wh
rd. x x x" While the aforementioned exhibits have been admitted in evidence, We come to th
nt-owned and controlled corporation, may not be held liable for the "additions to tax", and absent any showing that the BIR observed
In sum, the FWT on its interest income earned
ayers in relation to their payment with the BIR. Absent this, even with the taxpayer's name, it cannot be verified if indeed the taxpayer
On this point alone, the deficiency DST assessment for 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2
tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result to loss of revenue for the government. Upon the person claiming an exe
tax, make such return, keep such record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refu
ased, mailed or sent to the taxpayer. For the purpose of safeguarding taxpayers from any unreasonable examination, investi
course of the mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion, the direct denial of which shifts the burden to th
after the lapse of the period of prescription, citizens would have a feeling of security against unscrupulous tax agents who may find an
ay 28, 2015, or almost 4 years after the expiration of the 120-day period. Meanwhile, it is also correct that a wrong remedy, i.e., prem
competent to do so.
In this particula
attached Assessment Notices.Hence, there is no need to discuss the other issues raised by petitioner.
missioner of Internal Revenue may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or adverse rulin
e of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof." (underscoring supplied) , CTA Case No. EB 1312
n FLD-FAN dated January 25, 2013 must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8838
ure of petitioner to appeal the BIR Ruling No. 001-2003. , CTA Case No. 8495
e periods are mandatory and jurisdictional, and the matter of jurisdiction cannot be waived because it is conferred by law and is not d
As such, it is axiomatic that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund.
-commissioned ICPA is of the view that certain amounts input VAT are refundable, despite not being supported or substantiated by th
eyances must be returned to Spouses Genato in accordance with the principle of solutio indebiti. Be that as it may, and as mentioned
DOJ resolution in a preliminary investigation involving tax and tariff offenses was necessarily transferred to the CTA pursuant to Sectio
to before the lapse of the said period. , CTA Case No. EB 1427
formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be caused to be issued by the said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer's d
evenue vs. Ayala Hotels, Inc., "A mistake, not culpable in respect of its value would not constitute a false return." , CTA Case No. EB 1
C of Batangas City did not err in declaring the nullity of petitioner's assessment of franchise tax on respondent's gross receipts from BA
lected by respondent PEATC is not its own revenues, but of the latter corporations. , CTA Case No. EB 1372
oid , CTA Case No. 8987
n compliance with the requirements for a claim for refund, to the extent of P1,356,786.92, respondent is entitled to a refund of the sa
to signify acceptance of the same. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, the concerned revenue offici
009, September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009, respectively. Therefrom, CHI had 2 years or until March 31,2011, June 30,2011, Se
arties in respect to the thing or the subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs
es as "false" a return which deviates from the truth, whether intentional or not. , CTA Case No. EB 1388
to meet or to prove the requirements under the SPV Act of 2002. , CTA Case No. EB 1527
oven." , CTA Case No. 9084
pheld and accorded not only respect, but also finality. , CTA Case No. EB 1947
ere is no sufficient basis for the reopening of the case. , CTA Case No. EB 2018
t to a tax refund, respondents claim must be denied. Since tax refunds partake of the nature of tax exemptions, which are construed st
s the legislature has recognized in the passage of the RE Law, the Philippines has still much to learn in terms of harnessing and channel
VATregistered person. , CTA Case No. 9438

clusive of others that are similarly situated. Moreover, the term "Principally" means more than fifty percent (50%) of the entire assets
cannot be made to rest on another presumption. Hence, assessment should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how reas
ed finality and the collection would be proper. , CTA Case No. AC-192
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the m
se No. 8717
government instrumentality tasked to implement the tax law are sufficient justification for petitioner to be spared the imposition of in
ate is to be stated "remained unaccomplished", just as in the Fitness By Design case. Correspondingly, the subject tax assessment is vo
he NIRC of 1997 against petitioner, RMC No. 20-2010 cannot be given a retroactive application. With the finding of the non-retroactivi
at the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment thereof. " This demand for payment signals the time "when pen
ssments issued by the respondent against petitioner are inescapably void. It must be emphasized that a void assessment bears no valid
ation company for which a COC from the ERC is required. , CTA Case No. 9516
cannot be sustained. , CTA Case No. 8991

annot be considered as subject to VAT zero-rating under the law. , CTA Case No. 9672
be enjoined. , CTA Case No. EB 1933
. As bad faith need not be shown, but only that the failure to file the tax return is voluntary and/or willful, the willfulness of accused's
of such approval, the First Division was duty-bound to rule for the invalidity of the parties' compromise agreement. , CTA Case No. E
Declaration/Return. As a corollary, the fact of payment may be proven by other clear and convincing evidence. , CTA Case No. EB 192
, CTA Case No. 9216
warranted for the weightiest of reasons. , CTA Case No. EB 1966
r, the introduction of additional parties-petitioners does not result into a new or different cause of action but simply clarifies or identi
y, a civil action for collection of the tax requires that the assessment procedures be first complied with. As such, no proper determinati
me taxable period of September 2015. , CTA Case No. 9944

r national, and a resident of the Philippines, he is not entitled to invoke the income tax exemption granted under Section 45(b) of the R
s long been over, and the present appeal to the Court En Bane is neither a trial de novo nor reopening of the cases appealed from. , C
nce no deficiency assessment can be made on account of undeclared purchases. To repeat, a taxpayer is free to deduct from its gross in
ntested portions is needed for the protest to continue. , CTA Case No. 9375
the assessment are erroneously subjected to tax by the respondent. , CTA Case No. 9389
the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. 9047
e four ( 4) quarters of CY 2015 but in the reduced the amount of P6,297,480.35. , CTA Case No. 9661
he taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. 9164

ITRs alone, it is apparent that Zuellig's legal position is grounded on its interpretation and evaluation that it is not duty bound to prove
be. , CTA Case No. 9219
eECOZONE is not subject to output VAT. Consequently, respondent's claimfor input tax credit should be denied, without prejudice to it
07. They assert that the prosecution failed to establish that Enviroaire actually or constructively received the amounts indicated in sai
hout foundation, meaning it is arbitrary and capricious. Where the BIR has come out with a "naked assessment", i.e., without any foun
tax exemption for income derived by a depositary bank for the specific variety of income referred to therein has been settled, it is stil
cial claims for refund clearly fall within the two-year period provided by the aforequoted Section 229 of the Tax Code. the settled rule
on who received the FAN. n this case, petitioner denied the receipt of the LOA, the PAN, the FAN/FLD and the FDDA by authorized per
l its plenitude. Henceforth, considering that petitioner satisfactorily proved that the payment of royalties and service fees rendered in
xpayer will be at the mercy of the BIR, which may require the production of documents that a taxpayer cannot submit." , CTA Case No
1768, hence, we are constrained to disregard the same. Furthermore, this is violative of the right to due process of respondent Mindan
by Customs Import Entry No. 2013 C4123. Thereafter, petitioner filed its judicial appeal before this Court on August 28, 2015. Clearly t
.34 Any deficiency to the mandated content of the assessment or its process will not be tolerated. , CTA Case No. EB 1799
ation filed on April 17, 2018 which the Court in Division already resolved in the assailed Resolution dated May 22, 2018. The argument
Evidently, the instant Petition for Review was also timely filed on January 30, 2015. Clearly, the power to issue LOA in relation to the po
97, as amended. It opted to await the final decision on the protested assessment. On September 03, 2013, Respondent received the F
hority to conduct the investigation or audit. , CTA Case No. EB 1956

e memorandum circulars, rulings). , CTA Case No. EB 1904
Division that petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Indeed, a review of the records shows that petitioner's proof of VAT registration
the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid. At the outset, pe
t. , CTA Case No. EB 1778
on Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and North
erpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the beneficient purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within the contemplati
enial of his claim.Needless to say, this Court is enjoined to adhere to judicial precedents, such as the afore-mentioned cases. In Comm
tion of the Court of Tax Appeals. Section 7 provides that the Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions and
received from any property, activity or service. In the instant cases, respondent failed to prove the existence of the three elements. ,
etermined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxabl
e such power, authority must be given to them by petitioner or his duly authorized representative. Such being the case, it is perforce r
on whatsoever that respondent validly resorted to other recognized modes of service of the PAN under Section 3.1.6 of RR No. 12-99 a
ent within a prescribed period. , CTA Case No. EB NO. 1760
year. To ease the administration of tax collection, these remedies are in the alternative, and the choice of one precludes the other. , C
sturb the assailed Decision and Resolution of the then CTA Third Division. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM. No. 043
. 10351. , CTA Case No. 9513

urb the assailed Decision and Resolution. , CTA Case No. EB NO. 1800
of the assailed Decision and Resolution. Hence, the denial of the instant Petition is in order. , CTA Case No. EB NO. 1786
Court. Accordingly, the Court in Division should have dismissed respondent's Petition for Review filed in CTA Case No. 9136 for lack of
er RA No. 8178, nor under NICA Memorandum Circular No. AO-2K13-03003. Such being the case, the Court finds that the subject rice s
er wishes to submit any other addition documents to complete his administrative claim, the 120-day period allowed to the CIR begins
ioner is barred by the three (3)-year prescriptive period. , CTA Case No. EB NO. 1710
TA Case No. 9692

es", including income from junket operations, considering that Section 14(5) of PD. No. 1869 is clear that any income that may be rea
d." In Ungab v. Cusi ^*, the Supreme Court held that "there is no requirement for the precise computation and assessment of the tax
oner was filed out of the 30-day period. , CTA Case No. 9388
all be administratively settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General, or the Government Corporate Counsel,
s claim by presenting contrary evidence. It is noteworthy that the Court En Bane, in Commissioner of Customs vs. Philippines Airlines,
n adopted pursuant to law is law. And where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation;
hed between the parties.' Considering that petitioner disputed respondent's imposition of compromise penalty, the same cannot be i
was the same was alrady barred by prescription./For such reasons, respondent's defense that the prescriptive period provided for the
fore proceedingwith tax collection. Tax collection should be premised on avalid assessment, which would allow the taxpayer to presen
of the offense charged. , CTA Case No. O-212
minal cases, mere speculations cannot substitute for proof in establishing the guilt of the accused. Indeed, suspicion no matter how str
30 days after the respondent denies the claim within the 120-day waiting period, or (2) file the judicial claim within 30 days from the e
parcel of land is sought to be established,44 exactly what petitioner wanted the RTC and this Court to do. , CTA Case No. EB 1701
ion of the Court of Tax Appeals. Section 7 provides that the Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions and
) of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, the pertinent provision of which states: (Other Issue) , CTA Case No. 8901
,157,249.00. , CTA Case No. 9332
xes. , CTA Case No. 8730
o City erred in imposing IBT on holding companies under the category of "banks and other financial institutions" under Section 69 (f) o
t the time ortimes required by law or rules and regulations; and3. The failure to make or file the return was willful.In this case, the pro
. 9480 xxxx" , CTA Case No. 9342

basis for the grant of petitioners' claim forrefund. , CTA Case No. 9765
oksof accounts and other accounting records of Herbalife for taxable year2007. Thus, RO Pre cannot be considered as validly authorize
and existing Letter of Authority toexamine petitioner PTI's records. , CTA Case No. 9258
ere the privilege is exercised, i.e., where the franchisee has its principal office and from where it operates, regardless of the place whe
onduct the investigation/audit. Consequently, the assessment is null and void. And a void assessment bears no valid fruit.Since the sub
onduct the investigation/audit. Consequently, the assessment is null and void. And a void assessment bears no valid fruit.Since the sub
under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code, but not to postreporting notices or pre-assessment notices. The issuance of
w LOA, its fatal infirmity is further highlighted by the fact that it was signed and issued by an ROO and not by the Revenue Regional Dire
O 01-05. Nevertheless, petitioner's negligence may be addressed by enforcing the provisions imposing administrative liabilities upon th
ever, point out or identify which aspect of the tax investigation failed to comply with the RMO. In fact, petitioner did not discuss this iss
ed by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Pre-trial is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes. Hence, parties
eceived the assessments, the PAN No. 2781 and the Income Tax and VAT Assessment Notices issued On December 9, 2010, which were
or participation in the unlawful act. Forfeiture would be effected if there is prima facie evidence against the vessel. After weighing the
ate of Filing of End of the 120- End of the 30-day (TV 2011) Administrative Claim day period period First November 19, 2012 March 19
ies and taxes evidencing actual payment of VAT. Thus, out of the total unutilized input VAT of P7, 757,468.99 being claimed for refund,
subsection 3.1.2 of R.R. No. 12-99 describes the mandatory nature of the service of a PAN. The persuasiveness of the right to due pro
e plainly show is that SMC extended advances to Pacific Central Properties Inc. in 2010 in the amount ofP231,374,770.99. The same is
et with lower excise tax rates. To favor government, a variant of a brand is taxed according to the highest rate of tax for that particular
ncome in the amount of P25,522,729.00. While the under-declaration in petitioner's gross receipts did not arise from a deliberate attem
essment or examination is a nullity. , CTA Case No. EB 1577

lined in Section 187 of the 1991 LGC, which is to appeal before the SOJ. Thus, the dismissal made by the Court in Division is proper in t
well as the surcharge. Based on the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no reversible error to disturb the assailed Decision and Resol
e factual basis of its claim for tax refund, which it failed to do. Without the supporting documents needed to prove petitioner's alleged
f property from which the CGT arose, is precisely a "supervening cause that occurs after payment" which should be disregarded in det
ew that the same would not necessarily negate the authority of the CIR and his duly authorized representatives to effect amendment o
e Court. Again, the determination by the Court must rest on all the evidence introduced and its ultimate determination must find supp
titioner's claim for refund of the excise taxes paid in the amount of P75,127,370.39 on the removals of splash colognes and body spray
ro-rated sales pursuant to Section 106(A)(2)(A)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the claimed input VAT allegedly attributable there
er of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties.13 If the court has no jurisdictio
nse is also the taxpayer's right; they are not for the CIR to waive. Petitioner's right to due process has therefore been violated and the
ncome tax exemption, the Court holds that salaries and emoluments received by officers and employees of ADB who are resident citiz
CTA Case No. O-336
ecourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-037
were eventually issued, the privilege of VAT zero-rating did not retroact to cover the 1st quarter of 2010. , CTA Case No. EB 1641
nvalid and/or unconstitutional revenue issuance should be refunded as mandated by Section 229 of the 1997 NIRC. Verily, the issue o
ubmission of supporting documents and the issuance of the FDDA. A void assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. EB 1578
not on an isolated basis." (b) As held in cases more than one, he who alleges, not he who denies, must prove. Since petitioners utterly
ject to income tax beginning taxable year 2013, while those income payments made for taxable year 2012 shall be refunded. , CTA C
ther craft is not used as a common carrier which has been chartered or leased for purposes of conveying or transporting persons or ca
ere lost during the flood caused by typhoon Ondoy, and faulting the BIR for using her gross income as the basis for the assessment, 10
alable to the Court En Banc. , CTA Case No. EB 1659
dingly, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of P21,410,409.9481 as of the 3rd quarter of 2014 which was c
ner. Aside from an absurd situation being created whereby the said portion of the EDSA MRT Ill System will be possessed by responden
ublic, et. aL where the Bureau of Treasury was held liable to pay legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum due to its obstinate refu
t of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present case. , CTA Case No. 9235
there is no indication that petitioners COC and CIR filed a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Amended Decision in CTA Case N
as issued after the FAN has already become final and executory; and, (2) The FDDA is not equivalent to a FAN to have the effect of sup
as the new corporation created upon consolidation. However, it appears that the tax exemption period had already expired before th
e refunded was attended with arbitrariness , CTA Case No. EB 1640
riptive period, are void and of no legal effect; and a void assessment bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case No. 9345
ailure is of no moment. , CTA Case No. EB 1652
ay period or until November 19, 2010, the CIR's "deemed a denial decision" became final and unappealable. , CTA Case No. EB 1645
y clubs" under Revenue Regulation No. 14-67 regardless of whether there are professional hostesses furnished or not, there is nothing
ng with justice and equity for the implementation of RMC No. 31-13 to begin prospectively and to apply to compensation income earn
titioner in compliance with the said revenue regulations. Hence, the six-year prescriptive period under the principle of solutio indebit
bears no fruit. Noteworthy is the provision in the 1997 NIRC which cites the three (3) instances where a collection case may be filed in
e tax to be cancelled. , CTA Case No. EB 1614
rescribed by law. , CTA Case No. 9133

he present case. Indeed, the Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the l
able foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations; and 3. the recipient of such services is doing bu
ayment of percentage tax (amusement tax) under Section 125(b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9279
d in settlement of criminal liability, and may not, therefore, be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a taxpayer refuse
g. , CTA Case No. EB 1566

CY 2013, the amount of Php7,892,492.07 (Php4,476,065.4067 plus Php1,702,410.5368 plus Php1,1714,016.1469) was deducted as "V
d of the 10% preferential tax rate, then it is proper to grant petitioner its refund claim representing the additional 5% FWT it paid amo
ars. Petitioner did not furnish this Court its GL, audited financial statements (AFS), and AITR for CYs 2009 and 2010 to ascertain that in
on 133(o) of the same law. , CTA Case No. EB 1607
date of acceptance. Second, petitioner's receipt of the duly accepted Waiver was not indicated on the original copy of the Waiver atta
ncome, the presumption of falsity of returns cannot be applied. Therefore, respondent had only three (3) years to assess respondent'
alls within the purview of the term "Banks and other financial institutions" as defined under Section 131(e) of the LGC of 1991 and Sec
t failed to fully substantiate its claim for refund, standing alone, without specifically pinpointing the supposed reversible error/s allege
DIOM, PDSK, or NSSPL. Having rendered the service of training the crew in favor of such non-resident foreign corporation, respondent
the Local Government Code is needed being the enabling law for the local legislative body. As the maxim goes, intentio inservire deb
and, subject to existing laws andconstitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has powerto do all things that are reasona
eriodprescribed by law from payment or collection of thetaxes. , CTA Case No. EB 1594
mination was not a Revenue Regional Director. , CTA Case No. 8555
nsideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. , CTA Case No. EB 1438
this Court. , CTA Case No. 9032
re judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. The standard of due process that must be met in administr
hus, the law on prescription, being a remedial measure, should be liberally construed in order to afford such protection. As a corollary
of said civil liability, it must be the final decision of petitioner [CIR]. Thus, it refers to a formal assessment. , CTA Case No. O-445
uently became final and executory, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant case. , CTA Case No. 8746
siness. , CTA Case No. 9106
taxpayer will have access to the relevant information; and the desirability of bolstering the record-keeping requirements of the NIRC.
ess of the assessment may no longer be questioned on appeal. , CTA Case No. EB 1502
h rendered the assail d Decision and Order, with a copy of the instant Petition fo Review. , CTA Case No. EB 1451
acements. , CTA Case No. EB 1590
n LOA, the said tax assessments are void. , CTA Case No. EB 1463
ersely, deficiency interest may not properly be imposed on the WTC assessed against respondent. , CTA Case No. EB 1519
ffice. The 70/30 sales allocation under Section 150 (b) of 1991 LGC cannot apply to the Makati City office. , CTA Case No. AC-167

led Decision. , CTA Case No. EB 1467
101, of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended. , CTA Case No. O-380
of the ruling of the Court in Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1464
EZA zone. , CTA Case No. 8804

dence and diligence in prosecuting its case. Thus, petitioner has no one to blame but itself for the said predicament. In view of the circ
, CTA Case No. AC-174
ng an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." , CTA Case No. 9037
dment is in keeping with the constitutional principle that no person shall be deprived of property without due process. In view of the
e without the taxpayer's intervention, notice or control, and without adequate supporting evidence cannot suffice. Otherwise, the de
g entitlement to a tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificateis on the taxpayer and failure to discharge the burden is fatal to the cla
at involved the CIR's exercise of quasi-judicialpowers. , CTA Case No. 9111
t be transferred to the government. Thus, expropriation process cannot be deemed completed. Consequently, there is still no sale tra
roperly secured an LOA before proceeding with the further examination andassessment of the petitioner. Unfortunately, this was not d
e use of the grantee in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in
ere is only room for application. , CTA Case No. EB 1431
or of the government, pursuant to Section 2530, paragraph (I) (3) and (4) of the TCCP, as amended. , CTA Case No. O-133
belongs to the taxpayer. Without showing that petitioner consented to the compromise penalty, its imposition should be deleted. , CT
ances automatically makes such omission willful and deliberate. , CTA Case No. EB 1478
r Sections 248 and 249 of the NIRC of 1997. , CTA Case No. 8927
penses to the taxable income. Since petitioner had no taxable income, only the disallowed expenses necessarily formed part of the adj
d to the BSP is tantamount to a willful non-filing of a return. , CTA Case No. O-330
x liability on the premise that the certifications issued may be inaccurate is incredible, if not impractical. The Court could not discount
ssues, the Court finds the same academic in view of the Court's lack of jurisdiction. , CTA Case No. 8955
e No. 9010
xpayer. , CTA Case No. 9103
he compromise penalty of P1,000 for non-filing of BIR Form No. 1601-E for the month of March 2007. For petitioner'sfailure to prove th
ess of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 54 For although we are mindful that damage to such prop
2015. There being no supporting documents filed on or before June 19, 2013, the counting of the one hundred and twenty (120)-day p
on for Review filed beforethis Court on April 14, 2014 are well within the two-year prescriptiveperiod provided by law. Clearly, the first
not have been fully established. When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, exoneration must begran ted as a rna tter of right. , CTA
, CTA Case No. 9081
3-88, vis-a-vis the Atlas case.However, it must be emphasized that respondent, like any other refund claimant, is still charged with the
Based on the ICPA's findings, petiti

the execution of a valid waiver are carefully and completely followed. But as found by the Court in Division, the 1st waiver executed by
as well as the whole process of exploring and developing renewable energy sources up to its conver
ts in RMO No. 20-90 are merely directory," and that "there is no provision in RMO No. 20-90 stating that a waiver may be invalidated
his Court with clean hands. Furtherm
t cannot consider evidence which has not been formally offered.
ed in evidence, We come to the same conclusion with the Court in Division that, in terms of evidentiary standards as ascribed by the R
howing that the BIR observed the procedural requirements in assessing and collecting the "additions to tax" from SSS' responsible offic
on its interest income earned from the investme
verified if indeed the taxpayer paid the correctamount to the gov
ent for 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008 should be disallowed since the Letter of Authority issued by the BIR covers only the period of Ja
on the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistak
r remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes withheld on compensation, at the time or times required by law or rules and regulations
asonable examination, investigation or assessment, our tax law provides a statute of limitations in the collection of taxes. Thus, the law
f which shifts the burden to the sender to prove that the mailed letter wa
us tax agents who may find an excuse to inspect the books of taxpayers, not to determine the latter's real liability, but to take advantag
hat a wrong remedy, i.e., premature filing, will not toll the running of the prescriptive period to file the judicial claim for refund. There
In this particular item, petitioner fa
such decision or adverse ruling.

conferred by law and is not dependent on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or any one of them. , CTA
claim for tax credit or refund. 31 In this case, petitioner failed to properly discharge the said burden of proof. , CTA Case No. EB 1377
pported or substantiated by the above-stated documents, the Court in Division is not bound by the findings of the ICPA in CTA Case No
t as it may, and as mentioned earlier, the entitlement to the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of the subject capital gains taxe
d to the CTA pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9282, and that such petition shall be governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amen
or payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties. From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that
return." , CTA Case No. EB 1337

ndent's gross receipts from BATELEC II. , CTA Case No. AC-145
s entitled to a refund of the said amount, as correctly granted by the Second Division. , CTA Case No. EB 1344
, the concerned revenue official shall see to it that such delegation is in writing and duly notarized. The 'WAIVER' should not be accept
rch 31,2011, June 30,2011, September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2011, respectively, to file its administrative claims for refund. , CT
not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unau
ptions, which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, eviden
ms of harnessing and channeling this abundance of resources into renewable e

ent (50%) of the entire assets in terms of value. xxxAs computed, the real prop
umptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. , CTA Case No. EB 1945
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance wi
be spared the imposition of interest and surcharges. , CTA Case No. 9504
he subject tax assessment is void, and thus, bears no valid fruit. , CTA Case N
e finding of the non-retroactivity of RMC No. 20-2010, it becomes unnecessary to address the o
nt signals the time "when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to
void assessment bears no valid fruit. Such being the case, the subject tax assessments cannot be enforce
ul, the willfulness of accused's inaction could no longer be doubted. The
agreement. , CTA Case No. EB 1980
idence. , CTA Case No. EB 1924
n but simply clarifies or identifies the proper parties who have the right to file the Petition for Revival
As such, no proper determination of the civil liabilities can be made by the C

d under Section 45(b) of the RP-ADB Agreement. Such bei
f the cases appealed from. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-064
free to deduct from its gross income a lesser amount, or not claim any deduction at all.
t it is not duty bound to prove every minute aspect of its ca
denied, without prejudice to its right to seekreimbursement thereof from its

d the amounts indicated in said Official Receipts Nos. 7760 and 7761 during the taxable year 2007. The
ssment", i.e., without any foundation character, the determination of the tax due is with
erein has been settled, it is still incumbent upon UCPB to prove that the income for which it seeks
he Tax Code. the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and
nd the FDDA by authorized persons. Respondent also failed to present any evidence to show th
s and service fees rendered in 2012 was only made in 2014, the asse
cannot submit." , CTA Case No. EB 1870

process of respondent Mindanao II that was not given the opportuni
t on August 28, 2015. Clearly then, both the administrative and judicial claim were made w
A Case No. EB 1799
d May 22, 2018. The arguments the CIR raises in his Petition are th
issue LOA in relation to the power of respondent to make assessments is expr
13, Respondent received the Final Decision25 dated August 28, 2013 signed by Region
oner's proof of VAT registration was not identified by

neously paid. At the outset, petitioner anchors its claim for refund on the tax treaty betwee
om of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Preven
xpayer within the contemplation of the Commission which recommend the approval of the law.
re-mentioned cases. In Commission on Higher Education vs. Dasig14, the Supreme Cou
jurisdiction over decisions and inactions by the CIR in cases
ence of the three elements. , CTA Case No. 9172
ed tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxabl
being the case, it is perforce required that the ROs so authorized must be identified
Section 3.1.6 of RR No. 12-99 as amended, considering the attempt to validly serve the PAN by registered mai
of one precludes the other. , CTA Case No. 9575
No. EB NO. 1786

CTA Case No. 9136 for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court En Banc finds that it is n
urt finds that the subject rice shipments in the instant consolidated cases should not be considered as i
riod allowed to the CIR begins to run from the date of filing. , CTA Case No
at any income that may be realized from these related services shall not be included as p
on and assessment of the tax before there can be a criminal prosecution
vernment Corporate Counsel, depending on the issues and government agencies involved. , CTA C
ustoms vs. Philippines Airlines, Inc., CTA EB No. 1731, February 7, 2019,71 affirmed the s
o occasion for interpretation; there ts only room for application. , CTA Case No. EB 1732
penalty, the same cannot be imposed upon it. , CTA Case No. 9374
riptive period provided for the collection of the assessed tax was suspended by the issuance of the
d allow the taxpayer to presenthis or her case and produce evidence for substantia
d, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable
laim within 30 days from the expiration of the 120-day period if respondent
do. , CTA Case No. EB 1701

jurisdiction over decisions and inactions by the CIR in cases involving refun
CTA Case No. 8901

utions" under Section 69 (f) of the 2005 Revenue Code of the City of Davao. , CTA
was willful.In this case, the prosecution's witness Ms. Legaspi admitted o
onsidered as validly authorized toconduct an examination and audit of the same. To reiterate,
es, regardless of the place where its services or products are delive
ars no valid fruit.Since the subject deficiency tax assessments are clearly void for
ars no valid fruit.Since the subject deficiency tax assessments are clearly void for
sment notices. The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite to
t by the Revenue Regional Director. , CTA Case No. OC-020
dministrative liabilities upon the officers responsible for these errors. The B
titioner did not discuss this issue in its Memorandum filed on November 6, 2017.
ion of disputes. Hence, parties cannot brush it aside as a mere
December 9, 2010, which were the basis of the criminal complaint and Amende
the vessel. After weighing the evidence presented by petitioner vis-
November 19, 2012 March 19, 2013 April 18, 2013 Second December 5, 2012 April 4, 2013 M
8.99 being claimed for refund, it is ascertained that only P6,402,530.48 is proper for refu
iveness of the right to due process reaches both substantial and procedural rights and the f
P231,374,770.99. The same is true with regard to advances made by SMC to Sou
rate of tax for that particular brand. 'San Mig Light' and 'Pale Pilsen' do not
ot arise from a deliberate attempt to evade tax, nonetheless, its d
Court in Division is proper in the instant case considering that the
he assailed Decision and Resolution of the CT A Third Division. , CTA C

d to prove petitioner's alleged zero-rated sales and the input taxes
h should be disregarded in determining the prescriptive period. This is in accordance with the clear
tatives to effect amendment or modification of a previously-issued LOA instead of j
determination must find support in credible evidence. It has also been
plash colognes and body sprays products for the period May 2012 to Decembe
AT allegedly attributable thereto cannot be refunded. It must be stressed that in
3 If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdicti
erefore been violated and the FAN /FLD is null and void. , CTA Case No. 878
of ADB who are resident citizens or nationals of the Philippines are subject
0. , CTA Case No. EB 1641

1997 NIRC. Verily, the issue of validity and/or constitutionality of RMC No. 90-2012 is
it. , CTA Case No. EB 1578
prove. Since petitioners utterly failed to establish by convincing and credible
012 shall be refunded. , CTA Case No. 9093
g or transporting persons or cargo". (b) It is settled that findings of fact

e basis for the assessment, 104 accused Caluag made no effort to substantiate her cl
d quarter of 2014 which was carried over/applied to the succeeding 4th quarter of
will be possessed by respondent Mandaluyong City, hundreds of thousands of commute

nnum due to its obstinate refusal to release the final withholding tax collected to be deposited
ended Decision in CTA Case Nos. 7966, 7990 and 8020, the latter has attained f
FAN to have the effect of superseding the latter. An FDDA is a decision of the Commissioner
had already expired before the consolidation. No more tax exemptions could, therefore, be passed on
able. , CTA Case No. EB 1645
nished or not, there is nothing on the records to prove otherwise. , CTA Case No. 9
to compensation income earned by Petitioner beginning calendar year 2013. (b) In sum, compensation income of
he principle of solutio indebiti is not applicable. (c) The government chiefly relies on t
collection case may be filed in court without a corresponding assessment, i.e.,
as the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justiciable
nt of such services is doing business outside the Philippines. Based on the foregoing requ
A Case No. 9279
e event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested compromise penalty". Considering petitioner d
,016.1469) was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the quarter it was inc
dditional 5% FWT it paid amounting to P9,664,657.43, plus interest o
9 and 2010 to ascertain that indeed the income payments upon which the taxes were withheld
riginal copy of the Waiver attached to the docket of the case. In fact, it would app
3) years to assess respondent's deficiency VAT under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as a
(e) of the LGC of 1991 and Section 3A.01 (e) of the RMRC, so as t
posed reversible error/s allegedly committed by the Court in Divisi
reign corporation, respondent's services may be subject to VAT zero-rating provided it is able to properly subs
m goes, intentio inservire debet legibus, non leges intentiom. , CTA Case No.
do all things that are reasonably necessary for the ad

that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitud
such protection. As a corollary, the exceptions to the law on prescription should

t. , CTA Case No. O-445
CTA Case No. 8746
ing requirements of the NIRC.However, the prima facie correctness of a tax
A Case No. EB 1519

e. , CTA Case No. AC-167
redicament. In view of the circumstances elucidated above, we hold that the Court
ut due process. In view of the absence of a fair opportunity for Enron to be informed of the legal and f
not suffice. Otherwise, the defenseless taxpayer would be unreasonably placed at the me
ge the burden is fatal to the claim for refund or tax credit.

uently, there is still no sale transaction which may be subject to the imposition of DS
r. Unfortunately, this was not done in this case. , CTA Case No. EB 1470
and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, qualit
A Case No. O-133

osition should be deleted. , CTA Case No. 8956
essarily formed part of the adjusted taxable income. However, it should be noted th
The Court could not discount the confidence placed upon by accused on his subordinates
r petitioner'sfailure to prove that it remitted the full amount of P233,534. 79 to the BIR as pay
dful that damage to such property rights will generally take a back seat to t
undred and twenty (120)-day period shall commence therefrom. Hence, the CIR had until October 17,2
ovided by law. Clearly, the first requisite has been sati
ted as a rna tter of right. , CTA Case No. O-273

mant, is still charged with the heavy burden o
on, the 1st waiver executed by the parties failed to strictly follow the pre
t a waiver may be invalidated upon failure of
standards as ascribed by the Rules if Cour

ax" from SSS' responsible official or employee, petitioner's prayer
overs only the period of Ja

y words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be mis-interpreted,
by law or rules and regulations. A careful reading of the f

ollection of taxes. Thus, the law on prescription, being a remedial
l liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to molest peaceful, law-ab

udicial claim for refund. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Pe
es or any one of them. , CTA Case No. 8702
proof. , CTA Case No. EB 1377
ngs of the ICPA in CTA Case No. 8443. It must be emphasized that the said documents under Secti
of the subject capital gains taxes shall pertain only to Spouses Genato, and should n
of the Rules of Court, as amended. Accordingly, it is the CTA, not the C
oing provisions, it is clear that the taxpayer is given 15 days from recei
1344
WAIVER' should not be accepted by the concerned BIR office and official unless dul
trative claims for refund. , CTA Case No. EB 1143
he taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized. , CTA Case No. EB 1393
atter to

List Case No. Date Promulgated Case Title

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

List Case No. Date Promulgated Case Title

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE

LIST CASE NO. CASE TITLE

2nd 1. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, DENIED G1 Nevertheless,while petit

n is not evidence, and is notequivalent to proof. , CTA Case No. EB 1844

e be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 9399

eficiency. , CTA Case No. EB 1743

ion should be deleted. , CTA Case No. 8141

TA Case No. EB 1755

party or otherwise. , CTA Case No. EB 1682

hus, it refers to a formal assessment. , CTA Case No. O-522

ssment on deficiency WTC. , CTA Case No. 8490

Case No. 9007

n this case. , CTA Case No. O-407

assessment void. , CTA Case No. 9553

ect PPA fees. , CTA Case No. AC-199

or examination is a nullity. , CTA Case No. EB 1843

right to collect thereon has no basis. , CTA Case No. 8648

stablished by the evidence , CTA Case No. EB 1873

r of the government. , CTA Case No. 9239

ry of the omission. , CTA Case No. 8735

he additions to the tax prescribed herein." , CTA Case No. EB 1581

al basis. , CTA Case No. EB 1708

e been erroneously paid." , CTA Case No. 8914

he appealed Final Decision shall prevail. , CTA Case No. 9166

d therefrom. , CTA Case No. 9335

05. , CTA Case No. 9022

. , CTA Case No. EB 1522

ongfully seized and forfeited. , CTA Case No. 9488

ant case must be cancelled. , CTA Case No. 8904

d 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-05, as amended. , CTA Case No. 9015

become final, executory and demandable. , CTA Case No. 8903

dence. , CTA Case No. EB 1446

not be subjected to VAT , CTA Case No. 8897

bed portions. , CTA Case No. EB 1335

y. , CTA Case No. O-394

at respondent is en tided to its refund claim. , CTA Case No. EB 1944

essment. , CTA Case No. 9704

t. , CTA Case No. 9710

for lack of authority. , CTA Case No. 9155

es. , CTA Case No. EB CRIM-048

ase No. 9880

on is in order. , CTA Case No. EB 1814

g the year 2011. , CTA Case No. 9310

TA Case No. 9038

xist. , CTA Case No. O-415

ss granted by law to the taxpayer. , CTA Case No. 9153

not be allowed. , CTA Case No. 9396

unauthorized , CTA Case No. EB 1747

minal liability on the latter. , CTA Case No. O-241

ed by the BIR on January 22, 2009. , CTA Case No. EB 1678

d as a non-bank financial intermediary. , CTA Case No. EB 1636

o October 2011. , CTA Case No. 9177

terest. , CTA Case No. 8926

of the law. , CTA Case No. EB 1604

ion of Section 133(o) of the LGC. , CTA Case No. EB 1591

ty to exhaust available administrative remedies. , CTA Case No. EB 1596

d fruit. , CTA Case No. 8844

nutilized CWTs for CY 2010. , CTA Case No. EB 1450

, CTA Case No. EB 1392

od. , CTA Case No. EB-1524

d that a void assessment bears no fruit. , CTA Case No. EB-1314

Case No. EB 1428

ed unwarranted. , CTA Case No. 8710