http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/taxation.

html

G.R. No. L-29059 December 15, 1987 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was ordered to refund to the Cebu Portland Cement Company representing overpayments of ad valorem taxes. Respondents moved for a writ of execution to enforce the said judgment but the motion was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the private respondent had an outstanding sales tax liability. Court of Tax Appeals holding that the sales tax liability of the private respondent was still being questioned and could not be set-off against the refund. WON the sales tax liability in question could be set off. NO. The argument that the assessment cannot as yet be enforced because it is still being contested loses sight of the urgency of the need to collect taxes as "the lifeblood of the government." If the payment of taxes could be postponed by simply questioning their validity, the machinery of the state would grind to a halt and all government functions would be paralyzed.

G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990 MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Judge RTC of Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS CONSORTIUM, INC., and SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA,respondents. Petitioner Municipality of Makati expropriated a portion of land owned by private respondents, Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc. After proceedings, RTC of Makati determined the cost of the said land which the petitioner must pay to the private respondents amounting to P5,291,666.00 minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00. RTC of Makati issued corresponding writ of execution accompanied with a writ of garnishment of funds of the petitioner which was deposited in PNB. However, petitioner ipposed through a motion for reconsideration, contending that its could neither be garnished nor levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper.

WON funds of the Municipality of Makati are exempt from garnishment and levy upon execution. YES. It is well settled that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute. Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution. However, this court orders petitioner to pay for the said land which has been in their use already.
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Facts: The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) appointed Algue Inc. as its agent, authorizing to sell its land, factories, and oil manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, Algue received a commission of P125,000 and it was from this commission that it paid Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, P75,000 in promotional fees. In 1965, Algue received an assessment from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income. Algue filed a protest or request for reconsideration which was not acted upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The counsel for Algue had to accept the distraint and warrant of levy. Algue, however, filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals. Whether or not the assessment was reasonable. Held: NO. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is able to pay must contribute his share in the running of the government. The Government, for his part, is expected to respond in benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. Tax collection, should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. Taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succour. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.

G.R. No. 122480

April 12, 2000

BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, Inc., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,respondents. This case involves a claim for tax refund. . However, petitioner declared that the said total refundable amount will be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year. But sometime in 1990, petitioner filed a written claim for refund with the respondent alleging that it did not apply refundable amount. Petitioner filed a petition for review with respondent Court of Tax Appeals which dismissed petitioner's petition on the ground that petitioner failed to present as evidence its corporate Annual Income Tax Return. CA affirmed the CTA .Hence, this Petition WON petitioner is entitled to the tax refund YES. 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 and thereby enrich itself at the expense of its law-abiding citizens. If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so must it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments of such taxes. Indeed, the State must lead by its own example of honor, dignity and uprightness.
G.R. No. L-68252 May 26, 1995 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. TOKYO SHIPPING CO. LTD., represented by SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES INC., and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.