SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J.

PACQUIAO,
Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION AND
THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.
G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016

FACTS:

As a world-class professional boxer, Pacquiao and the family relied

heavily on his income from both the Philippines and in the United States of
America. His income comes primarily from his boxing matches. Prior to
entering politics, they already amassed wealth both intentionally and
locally, not just from boxing but also from endorsements, advertising,
commercial and TV appearances.

As a large-taxpayer, he dutifully pays his taxes, the BIR, however,

doubts as to the correctness of the income and VAT paid by him and his
spouse. So, the petitioners, received a Letter of Authority (LA) to inspect
and/or examine his books of accounts and other accounting records on
March 2010, for the period covering January 2008 to December 2008. The
BIR, not satisfied, issued another LA which covers accounting and book
records of Spouses for the last 15 years (1995-2009). Petitioners
questioned the propriety of the CIRs investigation. They contend that they
were already subjected to an earlier investigation by the BIR for the years
prior to 2007 and no fraud was found. The CIR contends that the second
LA superseded the first LA it issued, that the reinvestigation of years prior
to 2007 was justified because the assessment thereof was pursuant to a
fraud investigation against petitioners.

Petitioners complied. After conducting the investigation, CIR found

that the petitioners was unable to fully pay their deficiency tax and VAT
liabilities amounting to P4,104,245,360.01. After the tax assessment
process, and still adverse to the petitioners, they filed a petition for review
with the CTA, contending that the assessment of the CIR was defective
because they were not afforded due process, and it was merely based on
mere allegations of fraud. Pending resolution, the petitioners, sought for the
suspension of the issuance of warrants of distraint/ levy and garnishment.
CTA granted the urgent motion of the petitioners. The CTA, however
required the petitioners to deposit the deficiency tax as a bond or the
amount of P4, 947,514,894.35. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion when it

required the petitioners to deposit the amount equal to the deficiency tax or
in the amount it required to post as a bond, as a condition for its order
enjoining the CIR from collecting the taxes from them.
 PILIPINAS TOTAL GAS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207112, December 08, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. (Total Gas) is a VAT registered
taxpayer with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) engaged in the
business of selling, transporting and distributing industrial gas. It is also
engaged in the sale of gas equipment and other related businesses.
On April 20, 2007 and July 20, 2007, Total Gas filed its Original
Quarterly VAT Returns for the First and Second quarters of 2007,
respectively and subsequently amended it on May 20, 2008 to reflect it
sales subject to VAT, ZERO RATED SALES, and domestic purchases of
non-capital goods and services with the BIR.

On May 15, 2008, Total Gas filed an administrative claim for refund of
excess unutilized input VAT for the first two quarters of taxable year 2007,
inclusive of supporting documents amounting to P7,898,433.98.

On August 28, 2008, Total Gas submitted additional supporting

document to the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On January 23, 2009, Total Gas elevated the matter to the CTA in
view of the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).

Ruling of the CTA Division

In its January 13, 2011 Decision, the CTA Division dismissed the
petition for being prematurely filed. It explained that Total Gas failed to
complete the necessary documents to substantiate a claim for refund of
unutilized input VAT on purchases of goods and services.

Ruling of the CTA En Banc

The CTA En Banc likewise denied the petition for review of Total Gas for
lack of merit. It condensed its arguments into two core issues, to wit: (1)
whether Total Gas seasonably filed its judicial claim for refund; and (2)
whether it was unable to substantiate its administrative claim for refund by
failing to submit the required documents that would allow respondent to act
on it.

As to the first issue, the CTA En Banc ruled that the CTA Division had no
jurisdiction over the case because Total Gas failed to seasonably file its
petition. Counting from the date it filed its administrative claim on May 15,
2008, the CTA En Banc explained that the CIR had 120 days to act on the
claim (until September 12, 2008), and Total Gas had 30 days from then, or
until October 12, 2008, to question the inaction before the CTA.
Considering that Total Gas only filed its petition on January 23, 2009, the
CTA En Banc concluded that the petition for review was belatedly filed. For
the tax court, the 120-day period could not commence on the day Total
Gas filed its last supporting document on August 28, 2008, because to
allow such would give the taxpayer unlimited discretion to indefinitely
extend the 120-day period by simply filing the required documents
piecemeal.

As to the second issue, the CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division that
Total Gas failed to submit the complete supporting documents to warrant
the grant of its application for refund. Quoting the pertinent portion of the
decision of its division, the CTA En Banc likewise concurred in its finding
that the judicial claim of Total Gas was prematurely filed because the 120-
day period for the CIR to decide the claim had yet to commence to run due
to the lack of essential documents.

ISSUES:
a) Whether the judicial claim for refund was belatedly filed on 23
January 2009, or way beyond the 30-day period to appeal as provided in
Section 112(c) of the Tax Code, as amended; and

(b) Whether the submission of incomplete documents at the

administrative level (BIR) renders the judicial claim premature and
dismissible for lack of jurisdiction.
 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner vs. NEXT
MOBILE, INC., Respondent
G.R. No. 212825, December 7, 2015

FACTS:
Respondent filed with the BIR its Annual Income Tax Return for
taxable year ending December 31, 2001.On September 24, 2003,
respondent received a copy of the Letter of Authority signed by the RDO
authorizing Revenue Officer Nenita Crespo to examine respondents books
of accounts. Ma. Lida Sarmiento, respondents Director of Finance,
subsequently executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to
extend the prescriptive period of assessment for taxes due in taxable year
ending December 31, 2001 .

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter
of demand to pay deficiency income tax. October 25, 2005, respondent
received a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Assessment
Notices/Demand No. 43-734 both dated October 17, 2005 from the BIR,
demanding payment of deficiency income tax, final withholding tax (FWT),
expanded withholding tax (EWT), increments for late remittance of taxes
withheld, and compromise penalty for failure to file returns/late filing/late
remittance of taxes withheld, in the total amount of 313,339,610.42 for the
taxable year ending December 31, 2001.On November 23, 2005,
respondent filed its protest against the FLD and requested the
reinvestigation of the assessments. On July 28, 2009, respondent received
a letter from the BIR denying its protest. Thus, on August 27, 2009,
respondent filed a Petition for Review before the CTA.

RULING OF THE CTA:

Based on the date of filing of respondents Annual ITR, it is clear that
the FFLD and the FAN both dated October 17, 2005 were issued beyond
the 3-year prescriptive period provided under Section 203 of the 1997
NIRC, as amended. Furthermore, the CTA First Division held that the
Waivers executed by Sarmiento is invalid thus it will not validly extend the
three-year prescriptive period to assess respondent for deficiency income
tax due to the following reasons:

a) Sarmiento signed the Waivers without any notarized written authority

from the respondents Board of Directors.
b) Even assuming that Sarmiento had the necessary board authority,
the Waivers are still invalid as the respective dates of their
acceptance by RDO Recto are not indicated therein,
c) The fact of receipt by respondent of its copy of the Second Waiver
was not indicated on the face of the original Second Waiver., and
d) Estoppel does not apply in questioning the validity of a waiver of the
statute of limitations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CIRs right to assess respondents

deficiency taxes had already prescribed.
 ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE
PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioners vs. CIR,
Respondent
G.R. No. 167679, July 22, 2015

FACTS:
ING Bank is a foreign banking corporation incorporated in the
Netherlands, duly authorized by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to operate
as a branch with full banking authority in the Philippines.

On January 3, 2000, ING Bank received a Final Assessment Notice

covering several deficiency tax assessments for taxable years 1996 and
1997 dated December 3, 1999. On February 2, 2000, while ING Bank paid
some of the deficiency assessments, it however protested on the same day
the remaining ten (10) deficiency tax assessments in the total amount of
P672,576,939.18. ING Bank filed a Petition for Review before the Court of
Tax Appeals on October 26, 2000 seeking the cancellation and withdrawal
of the said deficiency tax assessments.

After trial, the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division rendered its
Decision partially granting the petition. It declared that the 1996 and 1997
deficiency income tax, 1996 and 1997 deficiency branch profit remittance
tax and 1997 deficiency documentary stamp tax on IBCLs exceeding five
days are hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN. However, the
assessments for 1996 and 1997 deficiency withholding tax on
compensation, 1996 deficiency onshore tax and 1996 and 1997 deficiency
documentary stamp tax on special savings accounts are UPHELD.

ING Bank prayed that this court issue a resolution taking note of its
availment of the tax amnesty, and confirming its entitlement to all the
immunities and privileges under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9480,
particularly with respect to the "payment of deficiency documentary stamp
taxes on its special savings accounts for the taxable years 1996 and 1997
and deficiency tax on onshore interest income derived under the foreign
currency deposit system for taxable year 1996.

Petitioner ING Bank asserts that it is "qualified to avail of the tax

amnesty under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9480 and not disqualified
under Section 8 of the same law.

Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserts that BIR

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008 specifically excludes "cases
which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR
prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" from the coverage of the tax
amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480. In any case, respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue argues that petitioner ING Bank's
availment of the tax amnesty is still subject to its evaluation,47 that it is
"empowered to exercise its sound discretion in the implementation of a tax
amnesty in favor of a taxpayer," and "petitioner cannot presume that its
application would be granted.

On another issue, Petitioner ING Bank claims that it is not liable for
withholding taxes on bonuses accruing to its officers and employees during
taxable years 1996 and 1997. It maintains its position that the liability of the
employer to withhold the tax does not arise until such bonus is actually
distributed. It cites Section 72 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code,
which states that "[e]very employer making payment of wages shall deduct
and withhold upon such wages a tax," and BIR Ruling No. 555-88
(November 23, 1988) declaring that "[t]he withholding tax on the bonuses
should be deducted upon the distribution of the same to the officers and
employees. Since the supposed bonuses were not distributed to the
officers and employees in 1996 and 1997 but were distributed in the
succeeding year when the amounts of the bonuses were finally determined,
petitioner ING Bank asserts that its duty as employer to withhold the tax
during these taxable years did not arise.

Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue counters that

petitioner ING Bank's application of BIR Ruling No. 555-88 is misplaced.
Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that
petitioner ING Bank's act of "claiming the subject bonuses as deductible
expenses in its taxable income although it has not yet withheld and
remitted the corresponding withholding tax" to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue contravened Section 29(j) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue
Code, as amended. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue claims
that "subject bonuses should also be disallowed as deductible expenses of
petitioner."

ISSUE:

1. Whether petitioner ING Bank may validly avail itself of the tax
amnesty granted by Republic Act No. 9480; and

2. Whether petitioner ING Bank is liable for deficiency withholding tax on

accrued bonuses for the taxable years 1996 and 1997.
 BANCO DE ORO, et. al, Petitioners,

vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, et.al , Respondents.

G.R. No. 198756, January 13, 2015

FACTS:

The case involves the proper tax treatment of the discount or interest
income arising from the P35 billion worth of 10-year zero-coupon treasury
bonds issued by the Bureau of Treasury on October 18, 2001
(denominated as the Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates or the
PEACe Bonds by the Caucus of Development NGO Networks).

On October 7, 2011, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued

BIR Ruling No. 370-2011 (2011 BIR Ruling), declaring that the PEACe
Bonds being deposit substitutes are subject to the 20% final withholding
tax. Pursuant to this ruling, the Secretary of Finance directed the Bureau of
Treasury to withhold a 20% final tax from the face value of the PEACe
Bonds upon their payment at maturity on October 18, 2011.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the PEACe Bonds are deposit substitutes and thus subject
to 20% final withholding tax under the 1997 National Internal Revenue
Code. Related to this question is the interpretation of the phrase
borrowing from twenty (20) or more individual or corporate lenders at any
one time under Section 22(Y) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code,
particularly on whether the reckoning of the 20 lenders includes trading of
the bonds in the secondary market; and

2. Whether or not the PEACe Bonds are considered deposit

substitutes, whether the government or the Bureau of Internal Revenue is
estopped from imposing and/or collecting the 20% final withholding tax
from the face value of these Bonds.
 THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Petitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 210987, November 24, 2014

FACTS:
Petitioner PHILAMLIFE offered to sell its shareholdings in
PHILAMCARE through competitive bidding. Thus, petitioners class A
shares were sold for USD 2,190,000 or Php 104,259,330 based on the
prevailing exchange rate at the time of the sale, to STI investments, Inc.,
who emerged as the highest bidder.
After the sale was completed, Philamlife filed an application for a
certificate authorizing registration/tax clearance with the BIR Large
Taxpayers Division to facilitate the transfer of the shares. Months later,
petitioner was informed that it needed to secure a BIR Ruling in connection
with its application due to potential donors tax liability. In compliance,
petitioner requested a ruling to confirm that the sale was not subject to
donors tax.
Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied Philamlifes
request through BIR Ruling No. 019-12. As determined by the
Commissioner, the selling price of the shares thus sold lower than their
book value based on financial statements of PhilamCare. As such, the
Commissioner held, donors tax become imposable on the price difference
pursuant to Sec. 100 of the NIRC.
Aggrieved, petitioner requested respondent Secretary of Finance to
review BIR Ruling No. 015-12, but to no avail. Not contended with the
adverse results, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via
Petition for Review under Rule 43, but was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the CA
Petition for lack of jurisdiction; and

2. Whether or not the price difference in petitions adverted sale of

shares in Philamcare attracts donors tax.
 Consolidated Cases of:

G.R. No. 187485

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
vs.
SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.
---------------------------------
G.R. No. 196113
TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
---------------------------------
G.R. No. 197156
PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

FACTS:

This Resolution resolves the Motion for Reconsideration and the

Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed by San Roque Power
Corporation (San Roque) in G.R. No. 187485, the Comment to the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in
G.R. No. 187485, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the CIR in
G.R.No. 196113, and the Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by Taganito Mining Corporation (Taganito) in G.R. No. 196113.

San Roque prays that the rule established in our 12 February 2013
Decision be given only a prospective effect, arguing that "the manner by
which the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Court of Tax
Appeals(CTA) actually treated the 120 + 30 day periods constitutes an
operative fact the effects and consequences of which cannot be erased or
undone."

The CIR, on the other hand, asserts that Taganito Mining

Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for tax credit or refund was
prematurely filed before the CTA and should be disallowed because BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued by a Deputy Commissioner, not by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not doctrine of operative fact should apply to the case
of San Roque.

2. Whether or not the tax credit or Tax Refund of Taganito Mining

should be disallowed because Taganito Mining is relying on the BIR Ruling
No. DA-489-03 which was issued by a Deputy Commissioner, not by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.