Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1:
Mr. Dante Raymundo retired from the government service as Director
of Land Transportation on January 6, 1985. Upon retirement, Mr. Raymundo
received, among other benefits, his terminal leave pay for which the BIR
withheld the sum of P56,000.00 a week following the date of his retirement.
On October 17, 1991, following the decision of the Supreme Court that
the money value of the accumulated leave credits/terminal pay is not subject
to withholding tax, Mr. Raymundo filed a claim for refund of P56,000.00 with
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
1) Is Mr. Raymundo within his rights in claiming refund of taxes
withheld on his terminal leave following the Supreme Court
decision?
2) If the retiree is within his legal rights in claiming refund of the taxes
withheld, will the BIR automatically grant his claim automatically
grant his claim? Explain your answer.
3) Assuming that the BIR denies the claim for refund, what could be
the possible reason or statutory basis for such a denial?
4) Discuss the theory of supervening event as it applies to claims for
refund of erroneously/illegally collected taxes. Can the retiree claim
a refund under this theory? Explain.
Question No. 2:
1) What are the legal remedies of an aggrieved taxpayer both at the
administrative and judicial levels? Describe separately the
procedures.
2) Distinguish between a taxpayers remedies in connection with his
tax assessment and/or demand and his claim for refund of taxes
alleged to have been erroneously or illegally collected.
3) What are the requisites before a taxpayers request for
reinvestigation may be granted by BIR? Discuss briefly.
4) If the request for reinvestigation is denied is it possible or advisable
to file a petition for review with any court or agency as last resort?
Question No. 3:
ABC, a domestic corporation sold in 1989 two (2) condominium units of
Legaspi Towers in Roxas Blvd. for P8,158,142.00. Taxpayer corporation
declared in its income tax return for taxable year 1989, its gains derived
from the sale of two (2) condominium units as follows:
UNIT A
UNIT B
LESS:
a) Acquisition
Cost
(Deed of Sale
9/9/83)
b) Payment of
Realty Tax
Total (a) (b)
Gains
Question No. 5:
Your client, United Market Cooperative, is requesting the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue to exempt it from the payment of VAT on its purchase of
prime commodities from food suppliers/manufacturers on the ground that it
is exempt from all taxes, including VAT, under R.A No. 6938, the Cooperative
Code of the Philippines.
Do you think your client can obtain the necessary exemption from the
BIR? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain the basis for the grant. If in
the negative, state the basis for the rejection of the request.
Question No. 6:
On September 10, 1991, a Bank Manager of Peoples Bank, Inc. (PBI),
upon reading an obituary announcing the death of Mr. Roberto Diaz refused
to allow one of his heirs to withdraw Mr. Diaz Deposit amounting to P2
million.
A week later, immediately following said denial, the administrator of
the estate sued the Bank/Bank Manager to compel them to release the
money since such act was arbitrary and constituted a denial if property/
constitutional rights.
1) If you are retained as counsel by the Bank/Bank Manager to defend
their stand in refusing to release the P2 million to the heirs, what would
you raise as a legal defense? Discuss.
2) Under the same set of facts, would you, as administration appeal with
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or a petition for review with the
Court of Tax Appeals? Explain.
Question No. 7:
Mr. Bill Morgan, a Canadian citizen and a resident of Scarborough,
Ontario, sends a gift check of $20,000.00 to his future Filipino daughter-inlaw who is married to his only son in the Philippines.
1) Is the donation by Mr. Morgan subject to tax? Explain.
2) What is the tax consequence, if any, to the done (Filipino daughterin-law of Mr. Morgan)?
3) Can you name one kind of gift that is exempt from donors tax
which is extendible to both residents and non-residents or noncitizens of the Philippines? Include qualifications, if any.
Question No. 8:
A disgruntled employee of Apache Corporation reported to the
Commissioner of Customs that the company is illegally importing electronic
equipment by way of unlawful shipside activities thereby evading payment
of customs duties and taxes on the goods.
Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs, upon the request of the
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), issued warrants seize
the goods listed in the warrants.
After the seizure of the goods and considering the magnitude of the
value of the goods, counsel for Apache Corporation filed a petition with the
Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the
Commissioner of Customs and his agents from continuing further with the
forfeiture proceedings and praying that the Commissioner return the
confiscated articles on the ground that the warrants were in violation of the
Rules of Court and the Bill of Rights.
If you are a newly-appointed Solicitor in the office of the Solicitor
General representing the Commissioner of Customs, how would you defend
the latter? Give the specific defenses.
1992 BAR EXAMINATION QUESTION IN TAXATION|4 | P a g e
Question No. 9:
Ms. Edna Dinoso is the registered owner of a residential lot with twostorey house situated in Naga City. The lot with an area of 328 sq. meters is
described and covered by TCT No. 4739 of the Registry of Deeds of Naga
City.
On September 12, 1977, a 115 sq. meter portion of Ednas property
was expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines for the sum of P6,700.00
representing the assessed value of the aforesaid portion. This amount was
deposited by the Government in Ednas account.
For almost ten (10) years, Edna failed to pay her real estate taxes on
the same property. Thus, on November 5, 1977, her property was sold at
public auction by the City Treasurer of Naga City to satisfy her real estate tax
delinquencies amounting to P5,800.00. The highest bidder for the property
was Angel Chua.
Edna was not present at the public auction although she later admitted
having received the notice of hearing for the petition for entry of a new
certificate of title by Angel Chua. (Both the auction sale and the final bill of
sale were annotated at the back of TCT No. 4739 by the Register of Deeds.)
On March 15, 1979, Edna filed a complaint to annual the auction sale
which was denied by the CFI Judge of Naga City. In fact, the CFI Judge
Ordered the TCT #4739 of Edna be cancelled and that a new title be issued
to Angel Chua.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI decision in toto.
Edna then elevated the case to the Supreme Court citing several grave
errors of law, among which are: