Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doosan The corporate taxpayer's excess tax credits or overpaid income tax in a
Heavy given taxable year may either be refunded (either in the form of cash or
Industrie tax credit certificate) or carried over and applied against the income tax
s vs. CTA liabilities of the succeeding taxable years. The carry-over option,
however, once taken is irrevocable for the taxable period and no
application for a tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall
then be allowed.
For item (a), taxpayer submitted sales invoices that it issued to Marubeni-
Tokyo. However, the main purpose of provision "A-8.a" of RMC No. 42-
2003 is to prove that the offsetting arrangement is actually in place, by
proving that taxpayer has payables to the foreign parent or its affiliates
against which taxpayer's receivables (i.e., from its sale of goods and
services to Marubeni-Tokyo) were offset. On the other hand, taxpayers
evidence proved the liability of the foreign company, not its own.
From the foregoing, it is clear that what is appealable to the CTA is the
decision of the CIR on disputed assessment and not the assessment
itself.
Clearly, a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment differs from the
assessment itself. Hence, the invalidity of one does not necessarily result
to the invalidity of the other unless the law or regulations otherwise
provide.
T_h_e_ _F_D_D_A_ _m_u_s_t_ _s_t_a_t_e_ _t_h_e_ _f_a_c_t_s_ _a_n_d_
_t_h_e_ _l_a_w_ _o_n_ _w_h_i_c_h_ _i_t_ _i_s_ _b_a_s_e_d_ _t_o_
_p_r_o_v_i_d_e_ _t_h_e_ _t_a_x_p_a_y_e_r_ _t_h_e_
_o_p_p_o_r_t_u_n_i_t_y_ _t_o_ _f_i_l_e_ _a_n_ _i_n_t_e_l_l_i_g_e_n_t_
_a_p_p_e_a_l_ _
The reason for requiring that taxpayers be informed in writing of the facts
and law on which the assessment is made is the constitutional guarantee
that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of
law. Merely notifying the taxpayer of its tax liabilites without elaborating
on its details is insufficient.
The Court, however, finds that the CTA erred in concluding that the
assessment on EWT and FBT deficiency was void because the FDDA
covering the same was void. The assessment remains valid
notwithstanding the nullity of FDDA because the assessment itself differs
from the decision on the disputed assessment.
The Court agrees that the FDDA substantially informed Liquigaz of its tax
liabiliities with reggard to its WTC assessment. As highlighted by the CTA,
the basis for the assessment was the same for the FLD and the FDDA,
where the salaries reflected in thhe ITR and the alphalist were compared
resulting in discrepanct withholding taxes on compensation merely arose
from the modification of the tax rates used in the FDDA. The Court notes
it was Liquigaz which proposed the rate of 25.40% as a more appropriate
tax rate as it is represented the effective tax on compensation paid for
the taxable year 2005. As such, Liquigaz was effectively informed in
writing of the factual bases of its assessment for WTC because the basis
for the FDDa, with regards to the WTC, was identical with the FAN which
had a detail of discrepancy attached to it.
Capitol Submarine or undersea communications cables are akin to electric
Wireless transmission lines which this Court has recently declared in Manila
vs. Electric Company v. City Assessor and City Treasurer of Lucena City,37 as
Provincia "no longer exempted from real property tax" and may qualify as
l "machinery" subject to real property tax under the Local Government
Assessor Code. To the extent that the equipment's location is determinable to be
s of within the taxing authority's jurisdiction, the Court sees no reason to
Batangas distinguish between submarine cables used for communications and
aerial or underground wires or lines used for electric transmission, so that
both pieces of property do not merit a different treatment in the aspect of
real property taxation.
While perhaps it may be necessary to prove that the taxpayer did not use
the claimed creditable withholding tax to pay for his/its tax liabilities,
there is no basis in law or jurisprudence to say that BIR Form No. 2307 is
the only evidence that may be adduced to prove such non-use.
In this case, PNB was able to establish, through the evidence it presented,
that Gotesco did not in fact use the claimed creditable withholding taxes
to settle its tax liabilities,
Refund granted
Demaala The taxing power granted by constitutional fiat to local government units
vs. COA exists in the wider context to ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
The Special Education Fund was created by virtue of R. A. No. 5447, which
is [a]n act creating a special education fund to be constituted from the
proceeds of an additional real property tax and a certain portion of the
taxes on Virginia-type cigarettes and duties on imported leaf tobacco,
defining the activities to be financed, creating school boards for the
purpose, and appropriating funds therefrom, which took effect on January
1, 1969. Pursuant thereto, P.D. No. 464, also known as the Real Property
Tax Code of the Philippines, imposed an annual tax of 1% on real property
which shall accrue to the SEF.47
Where the provision reads may, this word shows that it is not
mandatory but discretionary. It is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty,
opportunity, permission and possibility. The use of the word may in a
statute denotes that it is directory in nature and generally permissive
only.
It is true that petitioner, as the local chief executive, was charged with
fidelity to our laws. However, it would be grossly unfair to sustain
respondents position. It implacably dwells on supposed non-compliance
with Section 235 but turns a blind eye on the context which precipitated
the collection made by the Municipality of Narra at the reduced rate of
0.5%.
It is basic that laws and local ordinances are presumed to be valid unless
and until the courts declare the contrary in clear and unequivocal
terms.62 Thus, the concerned officials of the Municipality of Narra,
Palawan must be deemed to have conducted themselves in good faith
and with regularity when they acted pursuant to Chapter 5, Section 48 of
Provincial Ordinance No. 332-A, Series of 1995, and collected the
additional levy for the special education fund at the rate of 0.5%.
Accordingly, it was improper for respondent to attribute personal liability
to petitioner and to require her to personally answer to the deficiency in
special education fund collections.
City of The CTA en banc affirmed the factual findings of the court in division,
Makati upholding the argument of the respondent corporation that its business
vs. Trans- consists of manufacture and sale of electricity, as it uses bunker fuel as
Asia raw material for its power generation plant and converts the same fuel by
mechanical and chemical process to electricity.
The CTA dismissed the argument of the city of Makati that since Trans-
Asia is also engaged in repairing and maintaining power plants, then it
could also be considered as a contractor. But the CTAs factual findings
indicated that Trans-Asia actually owns the power plant from which the
electricity it sells is generated, and as the owner it also needs to manage,
operate, maintain and repair its own power plant.
In the city of Makatis revenue code, the local business taxes assessed on
manufacturers is 52.5 percent of 1 percent of the total gross receipts of
the business during the preceding taxable year.
As a result of the CTAs reclassification of Trans-Asia as a manufacturer,
the corporation is entitled to a refund of local business taxes it paid in
excess of 52.5 percent of 1 percent of the total gross receipts.
National NGC is not exempt from paying real property tax
Grid Corp
vs. CBAA Section 939 of RA 9511 provides that NGCP shall pay "a franchise tax
equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts derived by the
Grantee from its operation under this franchise." This franchise tax is "in
lieu of income tax and any and all taxes, duties, fees and charges of
any kind, nature or description levied, established or collected by any
authority whatsoever, local or national, on its franchise, rights,
privileges, receipts, revenues and profits, and on properties used in
connection with its franchise, from which taxes, duties and
charges, the Grantee is hereby expressly exempted."
It is very clear that NGCP's payment of franchise tax exempts it from
payment of real property taxes on properties used in connection with its
franchise. However, NGCP's tax exempt status on real property due to the
"in lieu of all taxes" clause is qualified: NGCP shall be liable to pay the
same tax as other corporations on real estate, buildings and personal
property exclusive of their franchise. The phrase "exclusive of this
franchise" means! that real estate, buildings, and personal property used
in the exercise of the franchise are not subject to the same tax as other
corporations. !
The CBAA should determine whether the subject properties are properties
used in connection with NGCP's franchise. If the subject properties are
usbd in connection with NGCP's franchise, then NGCP is exempt from
paying real property taxes on the subject properties. If the subject
properties are not used in connection with NGCP's franchise, then the
assessment level should be based on actual use, 40 in accordance with
Section 218(a-c) of the Local Government Code.41chanroblesl
Coca- There is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes
Cola under both Sections 14 and 21 of the tax ordinance since these are being
Bottlers imposed: (1) on the same subject matter the privilege of doing
vs. City business in the City of Manila; (2) for the same purpose to make
of Manila persons conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to city
revenues; (3) by the same taxing authority petitioner City of Manila; (4)
within the same taxing jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction of
the City of Manila; (5) for the same taxing periods per calendar year;
and (6) of the same kind or character a local business tax imposed on
gross sales or receipts of the business.