Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases;
a. CIR v. Marubeni Corp. GR 137377, Dec 18, 2001 [Contractor’s tax cannot be imposed on the
offshore portion of contract where the materials and equipment were all manufactured or done in
Japan for lack of taxing jurisdiction.
b. ABAKADA Party List, et., al. v. Sec of Finance (Sept and Oct 2005 SC decisions)
c. CIR v CA 329 SCRA 237 (2000) [Reimbursement only charging is also subject to VAT; Even if
no profit, VAT applies.) 70% of production is exported, 100% is 0% rated.
d. Atlas Consolidated Mining v CIR 318 SCRA 386 (1999) – sold gold and silver to CB. BIR
assessed for deficiency VAT;
e. Atlas Mining Consolidated v CIR, GR 14104 & 148763, Jun 8, 2007 – Key issues: (1)
prescription of the claims of petitioner corporation for input VAT refund/credit; (2) validity and
applicability of Revenue Regulations No. 2-88 imposing upon petitioner corporation, as a
requirement for the VAT zero-rating of its sales, the burden of proving that the buyer companies
were not just BOI-registered but also exporting 70% of their total annual production; (3)
sufficiency of evidence presented by petitioner corporation to establish that it is indeed entitled
to input VAT refund/credit; and (4) legal ground for granting the motion of petitioner corporation
for re-opening of its cases or holding of new trial before the CTA so it could be given the
opportunity to present the required evidence; Destination Principle and Cross Border Doctrine
defined; distinction between sales to BOI-registered exported oriented firms and to EZPA
enterprises.
f. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 249 SCRA 248 GL 115455
g. CIR v Toshiba 466 SCRA 308 GR 150154 Aug 9, 2005
h. CIR v American Express, 462 SCRA 197 GR152609 (Jul 2005)
i. Contex Corp v. CIR 433 SCRA 376 (2004)
j. CIR v. Cebu Toyo Corp. 451 SCRA 447 [distinction between exempt & 0-rated.]
k. CIR v Benguet, GR No. 145559, July 20, 2006
l. CIR v Bursmeiters & Wain Scandinavian, GR 153205, Jan 2007)
m. CIR v Acesite (Philippines) Hotel Corp GR 147295 Feb 16, 2007
n. CIR v Mirant Pagbiao Corp GR172129 Sep 12, 2008 Sale of power by Mirant to NPC is subject
to zero rate VAT because NPC is exempt both to direct and indirect tax. Excess input tax of
Mirant can be claimed for refund or credit with 2 years from close of the taxable quarter when
the sale was made under Sec 112(A) of the NIRC and not from date of payment under Sec 204
and 229 of the NIRC. Since the input tax was belatedly paid beyond the two year period, the
claim for refund was denied on the ground of prescription.