READ THE FOLLOWING CASES FOR MID TERM EXAMINATIONS (TAXATION)

1. Philippine Airlines vs. CIR –G.R. 206079-80--- Jan. 17, 2018

Lastly, while tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, the
government should not misuse technicalities to keep money it is not entitled to.
Substantial justice, equity and fair play are on the side of petitioner. Technicalities and
legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money
not belonging to it, thereby enriching itself at the expense of its law-abiding citizens.
Under the principle of solutio indebitiprovided in Art. 2154, Civil Code, the BIR received
something "when there [was] no right to demand it," and thus, it has the obligation to
return it. Heavily militating against respondent Commissioner is the ancient principle
that no one, not even the state, shall enrich oneself at the expense of another. Indeed,
simple justice requires the speedy refund of the wrongly held taxes. 163 (Citations
omitted)
Considering that PAL presented sufficient proof that: (i) it is exempted from
paying withholding taxes; (ii) amounts were withheld and deducted from its
accounts; (iii) and the Commissioner did not contest the withholding of these
amounts and only raises that they were not proven to be remitted, this Court finds
that PAL sufficiently proved that it is entitled to its claim for refund. TCAScE

Finally, both the Commissioner and the Court of Tax Appeals should have
appreciated the unreasonable difficulty that it would have put the taxpayer — in
this case PAL — to claim a statutory exemption granted to it. In requiring that it
prove actual remittance, the court a quo and the Commissioner effectively put
the burden on the payee to prove that both government and the banks complied
with their legal obligation. It would have been near impossible for the taxpayer to
demand to see the records of the payor bank or the ledgers of the government.
The legislative policy was to provide incentives to the taxpayer by unburdening it
of taxes. By administrative and judicial interpretation, such policy would have
been unreasonably reversed. This is not this Court's view of equity. Clearly, the
taxpayer in this case is entitled to relief. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 206079-80 & 206309, [January 17, 2018])

2. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. CIR G.R. 224327 - June 11, 2018
First of all, the CTA did not err in its ruling that it has jurisdiction over cases asking
for the cancellation and withdrawal of a warrant of distraint and/or levy as
provided under Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282, thus:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
1. x x x
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties
in relation thereto, or other matter arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period
of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
xxx xxx xxx
Anent the other grounds relied upon by petitioner, such are factual in
nature. It is doctrinal that the Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions
reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being
dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has developed an
expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident
exercise of authority. 9 We thus accord the findings of fact by the CTA with
the highest respect. These findings of facts can only be disturbed on
appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence or there is a
showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the CTA. In the absence of
any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court must presume
that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every
respect. 10 Nevertheless, the factual findings of the CTA are supported by
substantial evidence.
An assessment becomes final and unappealable if within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the assessment, the taxpayer fails to file his or her protest
requesting for reconsideration or reinvestigation as provided in Section
229 of the NIRC, thus:
SECTION 229. Protesting of assessment. — When the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be
assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings within a period to be
prescribed by implementing regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to
respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner shall
issue an assessment based on his findings.
Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation in such form and manner as may be
prescribed by implementing regulations within thirty (30) days from receipt
of the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and
unappealable.
If the protest is denied in whole and in part, the individual, association or
corporation adversely affected by the decision on the protest may appeal
to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said
decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and
demandable. 11 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the
Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 224327, [June 11, 2018])
3. CBK Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIR- G.R. 193383 - 84, Jan. 14, 2015
4. CIR vs. Nagase Phil. Corp. -CTA En Banc No. 1048 Jan. 29, 2015
5. CIR vs. Alpha Rigging & Moving System , CTA En Banc No. 1076, Jan. 8, 2015
6. Philippine Airlines vs. CIR CTA Case No. 7152- April 3, 2018
7. Premium Leisure Corp. vs. CIR, CTA En Banc No. 1702 – April 25, 2018
8. Solid-One Mills Phil. Vs CIR – CTA En Banc No. 1562 – June 1, 2018
9. Petron Corp. vs. CIR -CTA En Banc No. 1499—June 4, 2018
10. Ludo vs. Luym Corp. vs. CIR – CTA En Banc No. 1559—June 8, 2018
11. General Foods, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 4386, Feb. 8, 1994
12. Armco-Marsteel Alloy Corp. vs CIR—CTA Case No. 4592, July 1, 1993
13. CIR vs. St. Luke’s Medical Center Inc. G.R. No. 195909, Sept. 26, 2012
14. South African Airways vs. CIR, G.R. No. No. 180356, Feb. 16, 2010
15. CIR vs. GCL Retirement Plan G.R. 95022 March 23, 1992
Prof. Nicasio C. Cabaneiro