Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taxation
2015
+
AMDG
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory vs. CIR
Shell filed a claim for refund for excise taxes it paid on sales
of gas and fuel oils to various international carriers. The Court
initially denied the claims but the Respondent filed a Motion
for Reconsideration
Caltex sold aviation fuel to PAL and included excise taxes in its
billings. PAL filed for a refund of the excise taxes passed-on to it by
Caltex. The claim was based on PALs franchise which confers
upon PAL tax exemption on purchases of fuel. The CTA denied
PALs claim using as basis the earlier decision in Silkair.
??? Does PAL have standing to refund the excise taxes passed-on
by Caltex?
!!! YES. The case of Silkair is not applicable since PALs franchise
provides it with tax exemption privileges from both direct and
indirect taxes. While there have been previous cases discussing
which party is entitled to a refund in the case of excise taxes sold
to exempt entities, the Court reiterated the statement in Silkair
which said that it is primarily the statutory taxpayer which has the
right to file the claim. However, the above rule was deemed not
to apply in PALs case since the law/franchise clearly grants the +
party to which the economic burden of the tax is shifted (i.e., PAL) AMDG
an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes, thus following
the principle laid down in the earlier case of Maceda.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. CIR
!!! YES. The Court said that the principle of pacta sunt
servanda requires the performance in good faith of
treaty obligations. Thus, to require that taxpayers
must first comply with an administrative requirement
(under RMO 1-2000) is not in consonance with the
performance in good faith. The obligation to comply
with a tax treaty must take precedence over the
objectives of the said RMO. In addition, it was
pointed out that the prior application becomes
illogical if the premise of the claim was an erroneous
payment since the taxpayer could not have known
it would be entitled to the refund since precisely it
was using a different basis when it paid the taxes
due. +
AMDG
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. vs.
Treasurer of the City of Manila
!!! YES. There is in fact double taxation since both sections are
being imposed on the same subject matter (privilege of doing
business within the city), for the same purpose, by the same taxing
authority, within the same taxing jurisdiction, for the same taxing
period, and of the same kind or character (a local business tax
imposed on gross sales or receipts). The Court further said that the
LGC provision applicable (Section 143) clearly states that Section
143 (h) may be imposed only on businesses that are subject to
excise tax, VAT, and percentage tax and that are not otherwise +
specified in the preceding paragraphs. AMDG
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Cacayuran
??? Did the Respondent have standing to file for the nullification
of the loan?
!!! YES. The two requisites for a taxpayers suit have been complied
with. First, even if the construction of the commercial center
would be sourced from the loan proceeds from the Petitioner, the
said funds were already converted into public funds upon receipt
by the municipality, and the assignment of the IRA likewise
characterized the funds as public. Second, since the plaza is for
public use, the Respondent, like all other Agoo residents, is directly +
affected. Besides it has been held that as long as taxes are AMDG
involved, people have a right to question government contracts
even if they are not party to the contract/s.
INCOME TAX
CIR vs. Julia Campos Benedicto
!!! NO. The 49% was in no way income because the Respondents
husband did not gain any wealth nor did he become any richer
than he was before as in fact his wealth diminished to the extent
of the 51% which he ceded to the PCGG. The 49% was a mere
return of capital not subject to income tax. The Court ruled that it +
is only the interest income of the deposits which may be AMDG
subjected to income tax as the same is the only gain.
INCOME TAX
CIR vs. Spouses Manly
??? Did the CIR erroneously base the criminal charges on its
use of the expenditure method?
!!! NO. The Court ruled that there is probable cause to indict
respondent for tax evasion since the method clearly yielded a
huge disparity between respondents reported income and
their cash acquisitions. The use of the expenditure method +
AMDG
was thus upheld.
INCOME TAX
Officemetro Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR
!!! (1) The sale was subject to both CGT and ordinary
income tax. As the Petitioner did not do business, it was not
entitled to the incentives under the PEZA law. The Court also
pointed out that the CGT imposed on individuals and
corporations is different in that the CGT for individuals is
imposed on all real properties while CGT on corporations is
imposed only on sale of lands and/or buildings. The income
from the sale of machineries was thus subject to the regular
corporate income tax.
(2) The CTA acquired jurisdiction because of the inaction
of the BIR. As such, the CTA was not making an assessment
but was merely determining the proper category of tax the
petitioner should have paid which became an incidental
matter.
(3) YES. The filing of the refund by the taxpayer was not a
bar to the BIRs exercise of its assessment powers. Since, more
than 10 years have lapsed from the filing of the returns, the
right to assess has lapsed. +
AMDG
INCOME TAX
DPWH vs. Soriano
!!! The buyer-owner is still the party liable for the CGT
in expropriation proceedings, although the said
liability is enforced is via a withholding tax obligation
imposed on DPWH as the withholding agent.
However, the DST is a liability of the government
since the DPWHs guide in acquiring property
through expropriation clearly provides that the
government should shoulder this tax. +
AMDG
INCOME TAX
Banco de Oro vs. CIR
!!! (1) YES. While BIR rulings are generally reviewable by the
Secretary of Finance, the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies does not apply since (1) it involved a pure question
of law and (2) an appeal to the SOF is deemed futile because
the request for ruling in 2011 was filed by the SOF himself.
(2) The phrase at any one time for purposes of determining
the 20 or more lenders would mean every transaction
executed in the primary and secondary market in connection
with the sale of the bonds. The Court also mentioned that
income from debt instruments that are not deposit substitutes
are nevertheless subject to the regular income tax rates.
(3) NO. The term gains as used in Section 32 does not
include interests which represents forbearance for the use of
money. The exclusion covers gains representing the difference
between the selling price and the purchase price of the
bonds in cases where the said securities are transferred/sold. +
AMDG
INCOME TAX
CIR vs. St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc.
??? Does Section 27 (B) have the effect of taking proprietary non-
profit hospitals out of the income tax exemption under Section 30 of
the Tax Code and should instead be subject to a preferential rate of
10% on its entire income?
!!! NO. The enactment of Section 27 (B) does not remove the possible
income tax exemption of proprietary non-profit hospitals. The only
thing that Section 27 (B) captures (at 10% tax) in the case of qualified
hospitals is in the instance where the income realized by the hospital
falls under the last paragraph of Section 30 such as when the entity +
conducts any activity for profit. The revenues derived by St. Lukes AMDG
from pay patients are clearly income from activities conducted for
profit.
INCOME TAX
ING Bank N.V. vs. CIR
!!! NO. Petitioner did not properly prove its losses since the
Subasta books did not reflect the true amounts of the
proceeds and the Rematado books did not reflect the
capital since the only amounts therein were those given to
the pawnees. The losses claimed from fire and theft were
also disallowed since while certifications from the police
and fire departments and a list of the properties lost were
submitted, the Petitioner did not submit sworn
+
declarations. AMDG
INCOME TAX
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretaries of DSWD &
DOF
??? Is the law providing that the 20% senior citizen discount
may be claimed only as a tax deduction unconstitutional?
of exemption).
INCOME TAX
CIR vs. Far East Bank & Trust Company
+
AMDG
INCOME TAX
CIR vs. Smart Communications, Inc.
??? Does Smart have the right to file the claim for refund?
!!! YES. The Court reiterated the ruling in Procter & Gamble
stating that a person liable for tax has sufficient legal
interest to bring a suit for refund of taxes he believes were
illegally collected from him. Since the withholding agent is
an agent of the beneficial owner of the payments (i.e.,
nonresident), the authority as agent is held to include the +
filing of a claim for refund. The Silkair case was held AMDG
inapplicable as it involved excise taxes and not
withholding taxes.
INCOME TAX
United Airlines, Inc. vs. CIR
!!! The 13th month pay and other benefits exclusion from
gross income has been increased from P30,000 to P82,000.
+
AMDG
INCOME TAX
Republic Act 10378 Exemption of
International Air Carriers
!!! Local water districts are now exempt from income taxes
under Section 27 provided that the amount saved by
virtue of the exemption is to be used for capital equipment
expenditure to expand water services coverage
!!! All unpaid taxes starting August 13, 1996 are condoned
provided (1) the BIR establishes financial incapacity of the
LWD and (2) the LWD submits to Congress a program of
internal reforms.
+
AMDG
INCOME TAX
RR 01-2015 Amendment to De Minimis
Benefits
+
AMDG
INCOME TAX
RMC 51-2014 Inurement Prohibition under
Section 30
!!! RMC 9-2013 --- Provides for the possible income tax and
VAT exemption of association dues and income derived
from rentals of homeowners associations properties if (i)
constituted as an association under RA 9904; (ii) the LGU
having jurisdiction certifies that the basic services (i.e.,
security, street lights, maintenance and repair of streets,
garbage disposal, etc.) for which the dues are being used
cannot be provided by the said LGU; and (iii) the
homeowners association presents proof that the dues are
used for the aforesaid basic services.
!!! YES. The Court upheld the use of the book value of the
shares as the fair market value for purposes of applying
Section 100 of the Tax Code. Likewise, the same provision
shows that no exemption/exception is permitted. The
Court also pointed out that the ruling upholding the
Petitioners position cannot be relied upon since it was a
ruling of first impression which was issued by the Assistant
Commissioner and not the CIR herself, in violation of +
Section 7 on the non-delegability of the power to issue AMDG
rulings of first impression.
VALUE-ADDED TAX
Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership vs. CIR
!!! (1) NO. Sony Philippines did in fact incur expenses supported by
valid VAT invoices when it paid for certain advertising costs. This is
sufficient to accord it the benefit of input VAT credits and where
the money came from to satisfy said advertising billings is another
matter but does not alter the VAT effect. In the same way, Sony
Philippines can not be deemed to have received the +
reimbursable as a fee for a VAT-taxable activity. AMDG
VALUE-ADDED TAX
CIR vs. Sony Philippines, Inc.
!!! (2) NO. A Letter of Authority should cover a taxable period not
exceeding one year and to indicate that it covers unverified prior
years should be enough to invalidate it. In addition, even if the
FWT was covered by Sony Philippines fiscal year ending March
1998, the same fell outside of the period 1997 and was thus not
validly covered by the LOA.
+
AMDG
VALUE-ADDED TAX
Maxicare Healthcare Corporation vs. CIR
!!! YES. The difference of this case with that of Tours Specialists
where the tourists asked the local tour agency to pay for their
lodging accommodations is that in that case the local agency
had nothing to do at all with contract between the payors
(tourists) and the payees (hotels) and was only making the
payment as an accommodation. On the other hand, in the
instant case, the alleged amounts earmarked for payment form
part and parcel of the entire package offered to its members.
Thus, there is no portion of the funds that go into the hands of the +
petitioner is delineated for delivery to a third party. The members AMDG
are deemed to have prepaid only the HMO and not the doctors
or hospitals. All these negate the concept of money in trust as
used in Tours Specialists.
VALUE-ADDED TAX
Kepco Philippines Corporation vs. CIR
!!! NO. The requirement that the TIN be imprinted and not merely
stamped is a reasonable requirement imposed by the BIR. More
importantly, the requirement of the appearance of the words
zero-rated on the face of the invoice prevents buyers from
falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was
actually paid. The failure to adhere to the said rules will not only
expose the taxpayer to penalties but should also serve to disallow +
the claim. Finally, the Court disagreed with the position that AMDG
invoices and receipts are interchangeable since the former
clearly refers to sales of goods while the latter to services.
VALUE-ADDED TAX
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. CIR
+
AMDG
VALUE-ADDED TAX
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. CIR
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
Allied Banking Corporation vs. CIR
??? Did the CTA have jurisdiction on the petition filed by the taxpayer?
!!! YES. The contention of the CIR that the taxpayer should have
appealed the decision of the CIR on the disputed assessment cannot
hold water since there was no assessment notice issued by the BIR in
the first place. In fact, the burden is on the CIR to prove that the
taxpayer received the FAN required under Section 228 of the Tax
Code. Thus, the Court allowed the CTA to take cognizance of the +
case as it falls under other matters given the peculiarity of the case. AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc.
!!! NO. The rule that the periods to assess and collect are
suspended if the taxpayer cannot be located does not
apply even if the taxpayer failed to follow the process for
the notification on the change of address as long as there
is proof that the BIR in fact was aware of the whereabouts
of the taxpayer. In this case, all indications point to the
fact that the CIR knew of the change in address given
that several submissions of various records already show
the new address and, more importantly, the BIR already
conducted an inspection in the taxpayers new address.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
China Banking Corporation vs. CIR
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. CIR
??? Will the filing of an Answer in the case filed before the
CTA by the taxpayer being assessed be considered as
collection on the part of the BIR?
!!! While previous cases have in fact upheld the rule that
the filing of an Answer by the CIR may constitute the
collection contemplated by law required to be done
within the prescribed period, the same must have been
done properly to be effective. In this case, the Answer was
deemed ineffective since the case was filed with the CTA
at the time (i.e., before 2004 or the effective date of R.A.
9282) when the judicial actions for collection of internal
revenue taxes was within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts. Thus, the right to collect had indeed prescribed.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
People of the Philippines vs. Kintanar
For (3), the Court said that the mere fact of having an accountant
prepare ones returns is not enough to show that that there was
no voluntary, intentional or deliberate failure to file. The Court
added that the fact of her being a businesswoman presupposes
that she ought to know and understand all matters concerning
her business including the filing of returns, citing Rule 131 on the
Rules on Evidence which states that it is presumed that a person
takes ordinary care of his concern. More importantly, the Court
found no affirmative acts on the part of defendant to make sure
her obligation to file ITRs had been fully complied with given that
she testified that she does not even know how much her tax
liabilities were. This neglect or omission was considered
tantamount to deliberate ignorance or conscious avoidance.
Lastly, the Court noted that the accountant himself was not even
presented as witness.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
People of the Philippines vs. Judy Anne Santos
!!! YES. The requirements for a valid waiver as laid down in RMO
20-90 and RDAO No. 5-01 are mandatory to give effect to Section
222 of the Tax Code. Specifically, the flaws in the waiver executed
by Kudos Metal were as follows: (a) there was no notarized written
authority in favor of the signatory for the company; (b) there is no
stated date of acceptance by the Commissioner or his
representative; and (c) the fact of the receipt of the copy was not
indicated in the original waivers.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. MERALCO
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.
??? (1) Was the Petitioners administrative claim filed out of time?
(2) Was the filing of the judicial claim premature?
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.
!!! (1) NO. The right to claim the refund must be reckoned from the
close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made in this
case September 30, 2004. The Court added that the rules under
Sections 204 (C) and 229 as cross-referred to Section 114 do not
apply as they only cover erroneous payments or illegal collections
of taxes which is not the case for refund of unutilized input VAT.
Thus, the claim was filed on time even if 2004 was a leap year
since the sanctioned method of counting is the number of
months. The period of exception for this rule is from June 8, 2007 to
September 11, 2008 when the 2-year period is reckoned from the
date of the payment of output VAT (Atlas Consolidated Mining vs.
CIR)
(2) YES. Section 112 mandates that the taxpayer filing the refund
must either wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse of the 120-
day period provided therein before filing its judicial claim. Failure
to observe this rule is fatal to a claim. Thus, Section 112 (A) was
interpreted to refer only to claims filed with the CIR and not
appeals to the CTA given that the word used is application.
Finally, the Court said that applying the 2-year period even to
judicial claims would render nugatory Section 112 (D) which +
already provides for a specific period to appeal to the CTA --- i.e., AMDG
(a) within 30 days after a decision within the 120-day period and
(b) upon expiry of the 120-day without a decision.
REMEDIES
CIR vs. Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership
December 10, 2003 October 5, 2010
(Notes :
(1) 120 days is reckoned from submission of complete documents which is to be
presumed to be simultaneous with the filing of the administrative claim if no
contrary proof is offered --- Section 112 (C) Tax Code and CIR vs. GST, Philippines,
Inc.) +
(2) The rule in the San Roque ruling is to be applied to ALL taxpayers who filed their AMDG
judicial claims within the period allowed by the ruling, regardless of whether the
claimant invoked the rule.
REMEDIES
Aichi, Mirant, Atlas, San Roque, etc.
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM
According to Mirant & Aichi (pre-June 8, 2007 & post-September 11, 2008)
Second Quarter June 15, 2015 October 13, 2015 November 13, 2015
REMEDIES
Miramar Fish Company, Inc. vs. CIR
!!! NO and YES. The claims that merely relied on the same
unamended VAT returns cannot be used since both versions of
the claim relied on the figures reflected in the VAT returns. On the
other hand, the claims that were revised relied as well on
amendments made to the VAT returns themselves and as such
are considered as validly justified amendments.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
United Airlines, Inc. vs. CIR
??? Can the Court, without violating the general principle against
offsetting of taxes, disallow a claim for refund on the ground that
its (Courts) finding of a deficiency assessment against the same
claimant is even higher than that sought to be refunded?
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
United Airlines, Inc. vs. CIR
Note: The Court apparently did not find it relevant that the Tax
Code provision refers to the Commissioner having such an +
opinion/finding since in this case it was the CTA which first brought AMDG
up the issue of the tax return not being relied upon.
REMEDIES
Smart Communications, Inc. vs. Municipality of
Malvar
??? Does the CTA have jurisdiction over a decision of the RTC on
a purported tax case?
!!! NO. The primary reason for the CTAs lack of jurisdiction is that
what was imposed under the questioned ordinance are not taxes
but are instead regulatory fees, specifically to address the +
environmental depredation of the said special projects. As such, AMDG
the case that originated from the RTC is not considered a local tax
case over which the CTA has jurisdiction.
REMEDIES
Philippine American Life and General
Insurance Company vs. CIR
!!! NO. The CIR and the Secretary of Finance issued the
regulations on the excise tax on importation of petroleum
products into the BCDA in the exercise of their quasi-
legislative or rule-making powers, not judicial or quasi-
judicial functions. Thus, the same is outside the scope of a
petition for certiorari. The Court lastly ruled that it shall not
entertain a direct resort to them unless there are
exceptional and compelling circumstances which is not
present in this case.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales, Inc.
!!! YES. The use of the term must clearly indicates that the
requirement is mandatory and not merely directory. There is no
exigent and persuasive reason (such as relieving a litigant of
injustice) to relax the rules in this case.
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
CIR vs. CBK Power Company Limited
!!! YES. The CTA en banc has clear jurisdiction over final orders or
judgments but not over interlocutory orders issued by the CTA in
division. As no appeal can be taken from the questioned order to
declare in default, Petitioners filing of the instant petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court is in conformity with the rules.
Note: As a general rule, decisions of the CTA in division are still only
appealable to the CTA en banc and not to the Supreme Court.
(Duty Free Philippines vs. BIR) +
AMDG
REMEDIES
Republic Act 10021 --- Exchange of Information by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue on Internationally-agreed
Tax Standards
!!! The Commissioner can now inquire into bank deposits and
other related information held by financial institutions of a
specific taxpayer or taxpayers subject of a request for supply of
tax information from a foreign tax authority pursuant to an
international convention or agreement on tax matters to which
the Philippines is a signatory or a party. The information may be
used by the BIR for tax assessment, verification, audit, and
enforcement purposes. The exchange of information shall be
done in a secure manner to ensure confidentiality.
!!! If the subject of the request are income tax returns, the same +
shall be open to inspection upon the order of the President of the AMDG
Philippines.
REMEDIES
Executive Order 56 --- Opening of Income Tax Returns
to Implement Republic Act 10021
+
AMDG
REMEDIES
RR 18-2013 & RMC 11-2014 --- Amending RR 12-99
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
Pelizloy Realty Corporation vs. Province of Benguet
!!! NO. The Court stated that a valid local tax imposition must
(1) be consistent with the principles under Section 130 and (2)
not breach the limitations imposed under Section 133. Even
while Petitioner disputed the imposition of the tax by stating
that Section 133 of the LGC prohibits LGUs to impose
percentage taxes (such as the amusement tax) and/or VAT,
the Court ruled that provinces are not barred from levying
amusement taxes given that the LGC expressly allows them
to levy amusement taxes but only on theaters, cinemas, and
other places of amusement. However, it was ruled that resorts,
pools, hot springs, etc. are not covered by other places of
amusement since the enumeration under Section 140 are all
venues primarily for staging of spectacles which cannot
encompass the facilities of Petitioner.
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
City of Manila vs. Colet
!!! NO. Section 133 clearly proscribes LGUs from imposing any
tax on the gross receipts of transportation contractors
engaged in the transport of passengers or freight by hire, and
common carriers by air, land, or water. The supposed omnibus
grant of power to cities and municipalities under Section 143
(h) of the LGC cannot overcome the specific
exception/exemption in Section 133. This does not result in
Section 143 (h) being a hollow decorative provision since
there are still other businesses subject to excise tax, VAT, or
percentage tax which the LGUs can still tax under Section 143
such as hotels, caterers, dealers in securities, franchise holders,
banks, finance companies, amusement places, etc.
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs.
Ambanloc
Lepanto Consolidated Mining had a mining lease
contract for a mining claim in Benguet. They used the
sand and gravel mined to construct and maintain
concrete structures needed in its mining operations such
as a tailings dam, access roads, and offices. The provincial
treasurer of Benguet then asked Lepanto Consolidated
Mining to pay sand and gravel tax for the quarry materials
extracted from the mining site. The counterargument was
that the said tax applied only to commercial extractions
and since Lepanto did not supply other users for some
profit, the tax should not apply.
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs.
Ambanloc
!!! YES. The CTA erred in applying the provision of the Local
Government Code (Section 138) since the basis of Benguet
province emanates from the Revised Benguet Revenue Code
itself. This notwithstanding, the provincial revenue measure still
did not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial
extractions.
!!! NO. Section 133 of the LGC expressly provides that the
taxing powers of LGUs shall not extend to the levy of
income tax, except when levied on banks and other
financial institutions. In this relation, Section 131 defines
banks and other financial institutions to include lending
investors, investment companies, pawnshops, insurance
companies, stock brokers etc. The same does not cover
holding companies.
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
National Power Corporation vs. Bataan
??? Does the CTA have jurisdiction over a special civil action for
certiorari assailing an interlocutory order (injunction) issued by the
RTC in a local tax case?
!!! YES. While Republic Act 9282 does not contain a categorical
statement which vests to the CTA jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari on orders by the RTC on local tax cases, the grant of
appellate jurisdiction on local tax cases leads to an assumption
that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed
necessary if not indispensable in aid of such appellate jurisdiction.
The Court pointed out that to confer the power over certiorari
petitions to the Court of Appeals would create a split-jurisdiction
situation which is anathema to the orderly administration of
justice. Thus, the power of the CTA to rule on petitions for certiorari
on interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in local tax cases is
included in the powers granted by the Constitution as well as
inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
+
AMDG
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
National Power Corporation vs. City of
Cabanatuan
!!! NO. There is nothing in the law which would justify the
computation done by the City. The surcharge is to be computed
only against the annual tax due and not compounded. While it is
true that imposing a higher amount may be a more effective
deterrent, it cannot be done as to make it confiscatory and
oppressive since in effect the surcharge would even exceed the +
72% limit on the interest imposable. Besides, if the legislative intent AMDG
was to make the 25% surcharge proportionate to the period of
delay, the law should have clearly said so.
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. City of
Manila
+
AMDG
REAL PROPERTY TAX
City of Pasig vs. Presidential Commission On Good
Government
!!! Only those portions of the properties leased to taxable entities are
subject to real estate taxes for the period of such leases and may
also be sold at public auctioned to satisfy the tax delinquency.
While it was established that the owner of the properties is now
clearly the Republic of the Philippines given the voluntary surrender,
the Local Government Code clearly states that the exemption will
not apply when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for +
consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. The Court cited AMDG
several cases to support the decision such as Philippine Fisheries,
GSIS, MIAA, and Lung Center.
REAL PROPERTY TAX
Provincial Assessor of Marinduque vs. Court of
Appeals
!!! NO. While Section 234 (e) exempts from the real property tax
machinery and equipment used for pollution control, the Court
found that during the period covered by the assessment, no
evidence was presented that the property was used actually,
directly, and exclusively for pollution control purposes. In addition,
the DENR itself characterized the property as a structure rather
than as machinery or equipment which thus takes it away from
the exempting provision.
+
AMDG
REAL PROPERTY TAX
Provincial Assessor of Marinduque vs. Court of
Appeals
+
AMDG
REAL PROPERTY TAX
Demaala vs. Commission on Audit
??? (1) Can Petitioner (NPC) file the protest against the real
property tax assessment?
(2) Can Petitioner claim exemption from the RPT given the
BOT arrangement with Mirant?
(3) Is payment under protest required before an appeal to
the LBAA is made?
+
AMDG
REAL PROPERTY TAX
National Power Corporation vs. Province of Quezon
Petitioner was assessed by Baguio City for its buildings within the
John Hay Special Economic Zone. Petitioner protested the same
and raised as defense its alleged exemption from paying all taxes
under the Bases Conversion Act. However, there was no payment
under protest made by the Petitioner.
!!! NO. A claim for tax exemption, whether full or partial, does not
deal with the authority of local assessor to assess real property tax.
Such claim questions the correctness of the assessment and
compliance with the provisions of the LGC and as such payment
under protest is mandatory. Neither can Petitioner use the
argument that the rule on paying under protest will not apply to it
since it is not a taxpayer as it is a tax-exempt entity. The Court
replied by stating that the LGC provides for a process by which an +
entity claiming exemption can comply with the same and hence AMDG
it becomes a question of fact which would require and
administrative determination.
REAL PROPERTY TAX
City Mayor of Quezon City vs.
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation
!!! YES. While the LGC provides that the one year begins from
the date of sale on which date the delinquent tax and other
fees are paid (in this case May 30, 2003), the local ordinance
of Quezon City provides that the period is reckoned from the
date of annotation of the sale (in this case February 10, 2004).
To reconcile the conflicting provisions, the Court applied the
rule laid down in the special law or the Quezon City +
ordinance. AMDG
REAL PROPERTY TAX
Executive Orders 27 & 173 - Reduction and
Condonation of Real Property Taxes on Power
Generation Facilities of IPPs Under BOT Contracts
+
AMDG
CUSTOMS
Airlift Asia Customs Brokerage, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
+
AMDG
CUSTOMS
DOF Order 011-2014
GOOD
LUCK!