Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
On April 22, 2014, COL received a copy of the Notice of Decision and
Decision dated 21 April 2014 and 15 April 2014, respectively, issued by the
Third Division of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 8454 filed by COL
Financial Group Inc., against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
The case stemmed from the issuance of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue Regulations No. 2-2010 and Memorandum Circular No. 16-2010,
effectively amending Section 7 of BIR Regulations No. 16-2008. Said RR 22010 and RMC 16-2010 were made to apply retroactively, resulting in COL
having to pay additional taxes. April 15, 2010, COL paid under protest the
amount of P8, 960, 245.00, to avoid the imposition of penalties should the
retroactive effect of said issuances be upheld.
On April 3, 2012, COL Financial filed a Petition for Review to preserve
its right to claim a tax refund or secure a tax credit certificate for the
additional income tax paid under protest for the taxable year 2009.
The CTA granted COLs Petition for Review and ordered the Respondent
to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of P8, 960, 245.00,
representing the additional income tax under protest. Hence, the respondent
filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the said decision contending, among
others, that once the taxpayer elected the optional standard deduction
(OSD) in its first quarterly return, such election is considered irrevocable for
the taxable year, as stated in Section 34(L) 3 of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Motion for Reconsideration is meritorious
HELD:
No, as correctly observed by COL, it is clear that Section 34(L) pertains
to the irrevocability of the election of OSD. However, the election of itemized
deduction will not bar the taxpayer to choose OSD later on. Records show
that RR No. 16-2008 was the prevailing ruling of the CIR when COL filed its
three quarterly returns for the taxable year 2009. COL simply relied on RR
No. 16-2008 at the time of filing of the quarterly returns, the revenue
regulation prevailing at such time, and it would be the height of injustice to
apply a new rule on the filing of quarterly return when such was already filed.
A reversal of a BIR regulation or ruling cannot adversely prejudice a taxpayer
who in good faith relied on the BIR regulation or ruling prior to its reversal.
Thus, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Puregold remains to be liable for excise taxes on its wine,
liquor, and tobacco importations.
HELD:
Yes, clearly, these are not taxes on articles, raw materials, capital
goods, equipment and consumer items removed from the Special Economic
Zones and Freeport Zones and entered into the customs territory of the
Philippines for local or domestic sale. This may be verified in respondent's
Formal Letter of Demand where it was stated that the assessment was made
against petitioner's importation of wines, liquors and tobacco products. In
view thereof, the deficiency tax assessments made against petitioner, which
were sought to be cancelled in the instant petition, are not excluded under
R.A. No. 9399.
The coverage of the tax amnesty is the difference of all national and
local taxes that petitioner is liable under the Local Government Code, the Tax
Code and other pertinent laws, and the 5% tax that petitioner had previously
been liable pursuant to Executive Order (EO) No. 80.
Being liable to VAT and excise taxes on importations of alcohol and
cigars under Section 131 of the 1997 Tax Code is not a condition to be
excluded from the tax amnesty. Contrarily, being liable to such taxes is
obviously contemplated by RA No. 9399 thru the phrase "all national and
local tax impositions under relevant tax laws, rules and
regulations."
claim for refund. Petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration therefrom, and
which was denied by the Former First Division on August 18, 2009.
Petitioner elevated its claim to the CTA En Banc, but was rebuffed after
the tax tribunal found no cause to reverse the findings and conclusions of the
CTA Division. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of
petitioner's claim for tax refund
HELD:
None, the petitioner's documentary evidence submitted were refused
admission for being merely photocopies. Section 3 of Administrative Matter
(A.M.) No. 05-11-07 CTA, the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals,
provides that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily in the proceeding
before the tax tribunal.
In this connection, Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court lays
down the Best Evidence Rule with respect to the presentation of
documentary evidence. In this case, petitioner did not even attempt to
provide a plausible reason as to why the original copies of the documents
presented could not be produced before the CTA or any reason that the
application of any of the foregoing exceptions could be justified. Although
petitioner presented one (1) witness to prove its claim, it appears that this
witness was not even a signatory to any of the disputed documentary
evidence.
Petitioner utterly failed to, not only comply with the basic procedural
requirement of presenting only the original copies of its documentary
evidence, but also to adhere to the requirement to properly make its offer of
proof or tender of excluded evidence for the proper consideration of the
appellate tribunal.
Indeed, while it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities is
equally true, however, that every case must be established in accordance
with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice. In all, the Court finds that the failure of petitioner to
prove its claim in accordance with the settled evidentiary rules merits its
dismissal.
FACTS:
On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted RA No. 7227 which mandated the accelerated conversion of the Clark
and Subic military reservations into special economic zones. Based on Section 12 (c) of RA No. 7227, in lieu
of national and local taxes, all businesses and enterprises operating within the Subic Special Economic Zone
shall pay a preferential gross income tax rate of five percent (5%). In addition, Section 12 (b) also provides
that such businesses and enterprises shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes and duties on the
importation of raw materials, capital, and equipment into the Subic Special Economic Zone. Meanwhile, on
March 20, 2007, Congress enacted RA No. 9400 which extended the aforementioned tax and fiscal
incentives under RA No. 7227 to the Clark Freeport Zone.
Thus, the businesses and enterprises within the Clark Freeport Zone are similarly exempt from the payment
of all taxes and duties on the importation of raw materials, capital and equipment. On February 17, 2012,
the DOF, upon recommendation of the BIR, issued RR 2-2012 which imposed VAT and excise tax on the
importation of petroleum and petroleum products from abroad and into the Freeport or Economic Zones.