Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VAT - Guidenotes
VAT - Guidenotes
Under the VAT method of taxation, which is invoice-based, an entity can subtract
from the VAT charged on its sales or outputs the VAT it paid on its purchases,
inputs and imports.
If at the end of a taxable quarter the output taxes charged by a seller are
equal to the input taxes passed on by the suppliers, no payment is
required.
If at the end of a taxable quarter, the output taxes exceed the input taxes,
the excess has to be paid by the seller.
If the input taxes exceed the output taxes, the excess shall be carried over to
the succeeding quarter or quarters
If the input taxes result from zero-rated or effectively zero-rated
transactions or from acquisition of capital goods any excess over the
output taxes shall be refunded to the taxpayer or credited against other internal
revenue taxes.
For example, when a seller charges VAT on its sale, it issues an invoice to the
buyer, indicating the amount of VAT he charged.
For his part, if the buyer is also a seller subjected to the payment of VAT on his
sales, he can use the invoice issued to him by his supplier to get a reduction
of his own VAT liability.
The difference in tax shown on invoices passed and invoices received is the
tax paid to the government.
In case the tax on invoices received exceeds that on invoices passed, a
tax refund may be claimed.
its buyers of goods and services but it cannot claim the same as a refund or tax
credit, while a taxpayer subject to 0% on its sales of goods and services may only
recover its input VAT costs by filing a refund or tax credit with the BIR.
Q: Illustrate input tax, output tax and VAT payable
X Corp, manufacturer, sold goods to Y, a retailer, for 100,000 plus vat of 12,000 (so
Y bought it for 112,000) Then, Y resold the goods to Z, end-consumer for 150,000
plus VAT of 18,000 (so Z bought it for 168,000)
On the part of Y, the retailer,
-His INPUT TAX is 12,000 because this tax was passed on to him when he bought
goods from X Corp.
-His OUTPUT TAX is 18,000 because this is the tax he passed on to Z.
-In this case, Y will pay for/ultimately be liable for the vat of 6,000 on the sale
because the output tax is greater than the input tax. (see 2nd situation in first page)
The value-added tax is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or passed on to
the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services. This rule shall likewise
apply to existing contracts of sale or lease of goods, properties or services at the time of the
effectivity of Republic Act No. 7716.
The phrase 'in the course of trade or business' means the regular conduct or pursuit of a
commercial or an economic activity, including transactions incidental thereto, by any person
regardless of whether or not the person engaged therein is a non-stock, nonp-rofit private
organization (irrespective of the disposition of its net income and whether or not it sells
exclusively to members or their guests), or government entity.
The rule of regularity, to the contrary notwithstanding, services as defined in this Code
rendered in the Philippines by nonresident foreign persons shall be considered as being
course of trade or business.
Q: UNDER 1ST PARAGRAPH OF SEC 105, WHAT ARE THE VAT-ABLE TRANSACTIONS?
[SALE, IMPORTATION AND SERVICES]
1.
2.
3.
4.
Q: UNDER PAR 2, VAT IS AN INDIRECT TAX. DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LIABILITY FOR THE
TAX AND BURDEN OF THE TAX.
* The case of Contex Corporation v. CIR made a distinction between the two
concepts. It provided [[Contex Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 151135, 2 July 2004.]
At this juncture, it must be stressed that the VAT is an indirect tax. As such, the
amount of tax paid on the goods, properties or services bought, transferred, or
leased may be shifted or passed on by the seller, transferor, or lessor to the buyer,
transferee or lessee.
Unlike a direct tax, such as the income tax, which primarily taxes an individuals
ability to pay based on his income or net wealth, an indirect tax, such as the VAT, is
a tax on consumption of goods, services, or certain transactions involving
the same. The VAT, thus, forms a substantial portion of consumer expenditures.
remains the person primarily and legally liable for the payment of the
tax. What is shifted only to the intermediate buyer and ultimately to
the final purchaser is the burden of the tax.
The conclusion that the sale was not in the course of trade or business, which the
CIR does not dispute before this Court should have definitively settled the matter.
Any sale, barter or exchange of goods or services not in the course of trade or
business is not subject to VAT.
The decision contained an explanation of VAT, to wit:
That the sale of the vessels was not in the ordinary course of trade or business of
NDC was appreciated by both the CTA and the Court of Appeals, the latter doing so
even in its first decision which it eventually reconsidered. We cite with approval the
CTAs explanation on this point:
In Imperial v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7924, September 30,
1955 (97 Phil. 992), the term "carrying on business" does not mean the
performance of a single disconnected act, but means conducting, prosecuting and
continuing business by performing progressively all the acts normally incident
thereof; while "doing business" conveys the idea of business being done, not from
time to time, but all the time.
"Course of business" is what is usually done in the management of trade or
business.
What is clear therefore, based on the aforecited jurisprudence, is that "course of
business" or "doing business" connotes regularity of activity. In the instant case, the
sale was an isolated transaction. The sale which was involuntary and made
pursuant to the declared policy of Government for privatization could no
longer be repeated or carried on with regularity. It should be emphasized that
the normal VAT-registered activity of NDC is leasing personal property.
This finding is confirmed by the Revised Charte of the NDC which bears no
indication that the NDC was created for the primary purpose of selling real property.
TAX 2 SYLLABUS
DEAN LILY K. GRUBA
S/Y 2011-2012
SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. (A) Rate and Base of Tax. - There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale,
barter or exchange of goods or properties, value-added tax equivalent to twelve percent
(12%) of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold,
bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor.
(1) The term 'goods' or 'properties' shall mean all tangible and intangible objects which
are capable of pecuniary estimation and shall include:
(2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%)
rate:
(a) Export Sales. - The term 'export sales' means:
(1) The sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country,
irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or
determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported and paid for in acceptable
foreign currency or its equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with
the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(b) The right or the privilege to use patent, copyright, design or model, plan, secret formula
or process, goodwill, trademark, trade brand or other like property or right;
(2) Sale of raw materials or packaging materials to a nonresident buyer for delivery to a
resident local export-oriented enterprise to be used in manufacturing, processing, packing or
repacking in the Philippines of the said buyer's goods and paid for in acceptable foreign
currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(c) The right or the privilege to use in the Philippines of any industrial, commercial or
scientific equipment;
(3) Sale of raw materials or packaging materials to export-oriented enterprise whose export
sales exceed seventy percent (70%) of total annual production;
(d) The right or the privilege to use motion picture films, tapes and discs; and
(5) Those considered export sales under Executive Order NO. 226, otherwise known as the
Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, and other special laws.
(a) Real properties held primarily for sale to customers or held for lease in the ordinary
course of trade or business;
The term 'gross selling price' means the total amount of money or its equivalent which the
purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller in consideration of the sale, barter or
exchange of the goods or properties, excluding the value-added tax. The excise tax, if any,
on such goods or properties shall form part of the gross selling price.
Q: WHAT IS A SALE OF GOODS OR PROPERTIES?
In transactions taxed at a 12% rate (VAT rating), when at the end of any
given taxable quarter the output VAT exceeds the input VAT, the excess shall
be paid to the government; when the input VAT exceeds the output VAT, the
excess would be carried over to VAT liabilities for the succeeding quarter or
quarters.
On the other hand, transactions which are taxed at zero-rate do not result in
any output tax. Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales could be refunded or
credited against other internal revenue taxes at the option of the taxpayer.
When the taxpayer sells his finished product in a zero-rated transaction, say, for
P110.00, he is not required to pay any output VAT thereon. In the case of a
transaction subject to 10% VAT, the taxpayer is allowed to recover both the input
VAT of P7.30 which he paid to his supplier and his output VAT of P2.70 (10% the
P30.00 value he has added to the P80.00 material) by passing on both costs to the
buyer. Thus, the buyer pays the total 10% VAT cost, in this case P10.00 on the
product.
[CIR v. Benguet Corporation, GR Nos. 134587 & 134588, 8 July 2005.]
Q: DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VAT EXEMPTION AND ZERO-RATING.
The case of Contex Corporation v. CIR enumerated two ways by which a
transaction could have preferential treatment under the VAT system, namely: (1)
VAT exemption; and (2) zero-rating.
Exemptions from VAT are granted by express provision of the Tax Code or special
laws. Under VAT, the transaction can have preferential treatment in the following
ways:
Vat Exempt Sales (Vat-Exempt)
Simply put, the VAT is removed at the
exempt stage (e.g. point of the sale,
barter, etc)
Effectively Zero-Rated
Effectively zero-rated transactions
refer to the sale of goods or supply of
services to persons or entities whose
exemption under special laws or
international agreements to which the
Philippines is a signatory effectively
subjects such transactions to a zero
rate.
Again, as applied to the tax base, such
rate does not yield any tax chargeable
against the purchaser.
The seller who charges zero output tax
on such transactions can also claim a
refund of or a tax credit certificate for the
VAT previously charged by suppliers.
Effective zero rating, on the contrary,
is intended to benefit the purchaser
who, not being directly and legally liable
for the payment of the VAT, will
ultimately bear the burden of the tax
shifted by the suppliers
Hence:
actual export of goods and services from the Philippines to a foreign country
must be free of VAT;
On the other hand, those destined for use or consumption within the
Philippines shall be imposed with ten percent (10%) [now 12%] VAT.
Additionally, sales made by an enterprise within a non-ECOZONE territory, i.e.,
Customs Territory, to an enterprise within an ECOZONE territory shall be free
of VAT.
The case of Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. CIR is a claim for tax refund/credit
of alleged unutilized input VAT on local purchases of goods and services which are
attributable to export sales for the second quarter of 1998.
[CIR v. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc., GR No. 150154, 9 Aug. 2005.]
To prove that it was engaged in the sale and actual shipment of goods from
the Philippines to a foreign country and therefore entitled to tax credit of input
VAT, Intel Technology presented documentary evidence such as summary of
export sales, sales invoices, official receipts, airway bills, and export
declarations.
And, to prove that payment was made in acceptable foreign currency or its
equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), a certification of
inward remittances was presented by Intel Technology
The Supreme Court found that Intel Technologys evidence sufficiently
established that it was engaged in export sales.
Note: Based on Sec 106, export sales, or sales outside the Philippines, are subject
to VAT at 0% rate if made by a VAT-registered person. When applied to the tax
base, the 0% rate obviously results in no tax chargeable against the purchaser.
The seller of such transactions charges no output tax, but can claim a refund or tax
credit certificate for the VAT previously charged by suppliers.
Additionally, Under Sections 106 (A)(2)(a)(1) in relation to 112(A) of the Tax Code, a
taxpayer engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated transactions may apply for
a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for input taxes paid attributable to
such sales upon complying with the following requisites: (1) the taxpayer is
engaged in sales which are zero-rated (like export sales) or effectively zero-rated;
(2) the taxpayer is VAT-registered; (3) the claim must be filed within two years after
the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; (4) the creditable
input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input
tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax;
and (5) in case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1) and (2), Section
106(B), and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange
proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and
regulations. It is added that, "where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties
or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly or
entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated
proportionately on the basis of the volume of the sales
[Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 157594, 9 Mar. 2010.]
raw materials or packaging materials to a nonresident buyer for delivery to a resident local
export-oriented enterprise to be used in manufacturing, processing, packing or repacking in
the Philippines of the said buyer's goods and paid for in acceptable foreign currency and
TAX 2 SYLLABUS
DEAN LILY K. GRUBA
S/Y 2011-2012
accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP);
whose export sales exceed seventy percent (70%) of total annual production;
Q: Give an example of a sale of raw materials to an export-oriented
enterprise.
* Section 106(A)(2)(a)(3) of the 1997 Tax Code pertains to the sale of raw materials
or packaging materials to an export-oriented enterprise whose export sales
exceed 70% of total annual production. With respect to the extent of the relief,
the Supreme Court held that:
Thus, the 0% rate applies to the total sale of raw materials or packaging
materials to an export-oriented enterprise and not just the percentage of the
sale in proportion to the actual exports of the enterprise.
[Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 146221,
25 Sept. 2007.]
in
period sometime in 2002, for which SRPC was paid an amount of Php 42.5
million.
The issue was whether such sale qualified for zero-rating. The Supreme Court
held that although the sale was not a commercial sale or in the normal course of
business, it was a transaction deemed sale under Section 106(B)(1) of the 1997
Tax Code. It thus qualified for zero-rating.
[San Roque Power Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 180345, 25 Nov. 2009.]
106(C) Changes in or Cessation of Status of a VAT-Registered Person
106(D) Sales Returns, Allowances, and Sales Discounts
106(E) Authority of the Commissioner to Determine the Appropriate Tax Base
Sec. 107, Value-Added Tax on Importation of Goods
Q: Does VAT apply on every importation of goods?
* In explaining value-added tax, CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines)
stated that VAT shall be imposed on every importation of goods, whether or
not in the course of trade or business. This is unlike VAT on sale of goods or
properties which must be in the course of trade or business. Otherwise, the
person/transaction shall not be liable to pay VAT. Pertinent portion of the
decision read:
Viewed broadly, the VAT is a uniform tax ranging, at present, from 0 percent
to 10 percent [now 12 percent] levied on every importation of goods,
whether or not in the course of trade or business, or imposed on each sale,
barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties or on each rendition of
services in the course of trade or business as they pass along the
production and distribution chain, the tax being limited only to the value
added to such goods, properties or services by the seller, transferor or
lessor.
[CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines), GR No. 153866, 11 Feb. 2005.]
Sec. 108, Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of
Properties
108(A) Rate and Base of Tax
Q: What is a sale of services?
* In CIR v. Sony Philippines, Inc., Sony Philippines engaged the services of
several advertising companies. Due to Sony Philippines dire economic
conditions, Sony International Singapore handed Sony Philippines a doleout to answer for the expenses payable to the advertising companies. Sony
Philippines was thereafter assessed deficiency VAT for the transaction, i.e.,
TAX 2 SYLLABUS
DEAN LILY K. GRUBA
S/Y 2011-2012
Canada engaged the services of Placer Dome Phils. to perform the clean-up
and rehabilitation of the Makalupnit and Boac Rivers in Marinduque. Placer
Dome Phils. argued that its sale of services to Placer Dome Canada was a
zero-rated transaction under Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code. Citing
CIR v. American Express International, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld
Placer Dome Phils. argument.
[CIR v. Placer Dome Technical Services (Philippines), Inc., GR No. 164365,
8 June 2007.]
*** In CIR v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc.,
Burmeister was engaged in the actual operation and management of two
power barges in Mindanao. It claimed that its transactions were subject to
zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code. The Supreme
Court denied Burmeisters claim on the ground that Section 108(B)(2) of the
1997 Tax Code additionally required that the payer-recipient of the services
must be doing business outside the Philippines. It ruled in this manner:
The Tax Code not only requires that the services be other than processing,
manufacturing or repacking of goods and that payment for such services be
in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP
rules. Another essential condition for qualification to zero-rating under
Section 102(b)(2) is that the recipient of such services is doing business
outside the Philippines. While this requirement is not expressly stated in
the second paragraph of Section 102(b), this is clearly provided in the first
paragraph of Section 102(b) where the listed services must be for other
persons doing business outside the Philippines. The phrase for other
persons doing business outside the Philippines not only refers to the
services enumerated in the first paragraph of Section 102(b), but also
pertains to the general term services appearing in the second paragraph of
Section 102(b). In short, services other than processing, manufacturing, or
repacking of goods must likewise be performed for persons doing business
outside the Philippines.
[NOTE: In relation to CIR v. American Express International, Inc. and CIR v.
Placer Dome Technical Services (Philippines), Inc. discussed above, said
cases stated that consumption of the services abroad is not a
requirement for zero-rating. However, on the basis of CIR v. Burmeister &
Wain Contractor Mindanao, Inc., the payer-recipient of the services must
be doing business outside of the Philippines.]
[CIR v. Burmeister & Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., GR No.
153205, 22 Jan. 2007.]
108(B)(3) Zero-Rated Sales pursuant to Special Laws or International
Agreements
Q: Distinguish between zero-rated transactions [e.g., Sec. 108(B)(1)-(2)] and
effectively zero-rated transactions [e.g., Sec. 108(B)(3)].
* The case of CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines) addressed this issue.
It stated that:
9
Although both are taxable and similar in effect, zero-rated transactions differ
from effectively zero-rated transactions as to their source.
Zero-rated transactions generally refer to the export sale of goods and
supply of services. The tax rate is set at zero. When applied to the tax base,
such rate obviously results in no tax chargeable against the purchaser. The
seller of such transactions charges no output tax, but can claim a refund of
or a tax credit certificate for the VAT previously charged by suppliers.
Effectively zero-rated transactions, however, refer to the sale of goods or
supply of services to persons or entities whose exemption under special
laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory
effectively subjects such transactions to a zero rate. Again, as applied to the
tax base, such rate does not yield any tax chargeable against the
purchaser. The seller who charges zero output tax on such transactions can
also claim a refund of or a tax credit certificate for the VAT previously
charged by suppliers.
The decision went on to say (under the subheading Zero Rating and
Exemption):
Applying the destination principle to the exportation of goods, automatic
zero rating is primarily intended to be enjoyed by the seller who is directly
and legally liable for the VAT, making such seller internationally competitive
by allowing the refund or credit of input taxes that are attributable to export
sales. Effective zero rating, on the contrary, is intended to benefit the
purchaser who, not being directly and legally liable for the payment of the
VAT, will ultimately bear the burden of the tax shifted by the suppliers.
(Emphasis supplied.)
[CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines), GR No. 153866, 11 Feb. 2005.]
certain exempt entities, such as the NPC, from the burden of indirect tax so
as to encourage the development of particular industries. Before, as well as
after, the adoption of the VAT, certain special laws were enacted for the
benefit of various entities and international agreements were entered into by
the Philippines with foreign governments and institutions exempting sale of
goods or supply of services from indirect taxes at the level of their suppliers.
Effective zero-rating was intended to relieve the exempt entity from being
burdened with the indirect tax which is or which will be shifted to it had there
been no exemption. In this case, petitioner is being exempted from paying
VAT on its purchases to relieve NPC of the burden of additional costs that
petitioner may shift to NPC by adding to the cost of the electricity sold to the
latter.
[San Roque Power Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 180345, 25 Nov. 2009.]
108(B)(4) Sale of Services to Persons Engaged in International Shipping or
Air Transport Operations
108(B)(5) Sale of Services for Export-Oriented Enterprise
108(B)(6) Transport of Passengers and Cargo by Air or Seal Vessels from the
Philippines to a Foreign Country
108(B)(7) Sale of Power Generated through Renewable Sources of Energy
Sec. 109, Exempt Transactions
Q: Distinguish between an exempt transaction and an exempt party.
10
* Section 109(U) of the 1997 Tax Code provides that transactions involving
services rendered by banks, non-bank financial intermediaries performing
quasi-banking functions, and other non-bank financial intermediaries shall
be VAT-exempt. The case of First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v. CIR pertained
to a taxable period prior to the adoption of the present wording of Section
109(U) of the 1997 Tax Code. However, the decision is relevant in that it
discussed the tax treatment of a pawnshop business. The Supreme Court
held that pawnshops are non-bank financial intermediaries.
[First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 174134, 30 July 2008.]
(1) the taxpayer is engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zerorated;
(2) the taxpayer is VAT-registered;
(3) the claim must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable
quarter when such sales were made;
(4) the input taxes are due or paid;
(5) the input taxes are not transitional input taxes;
(6) the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in
the succeeding quarters;
(7) the input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zerorated sales;
(8) in certain types of zero-rated sales, the acceptable foreign currency
exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with
BSP rules and regulations [Sections 106(A)(2)(a)(1) and (2); Section 106(B);
Sections 108(B)(1) and (2)]; and
(9) where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and
taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely
attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately
allocated on the basis of sales volume.
[Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 166732, 27 Apr. 2007; San
Roque Power Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 180345, 25 Nov. 2009.]
Q: In claims for VAT refund/credit, what is the reckoning point for the two-year
prescriptive period?
* In 2007, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Atlas Consolidated
Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR which essentially held that in
claims for VAT refund/credit, the prescriptive period for filing administrative
and judicial claims shall be two years reckoned from the date of filing of
the VAT quarterly return.
A year later, in the highly publicized case of CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao
Corporation, the Supreme Court changed its mind and ruled that the twoyear prescriptive period in claims for VAT refund/credit must be counted not
from the date of filing of the VAT quarterly return, but from the close of the
taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made.
[Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, GR Nos.
141104 & 148763, 8 June 2007; CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, GR No.
172129, 12 Sept. 2008.]
112(B) Cancellation of VAT Registration
112(C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes Shall Be Made
Q: When are administrative and judicial claims for VAT refund/credit filed?
claims for VAT refund/credit must be filed within the two-year prescriptive
period.
In 2010, the Supreme Court came out with the controversial case of CIR v.
Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. which mandated compliance of
administrative and judicial claims with both the two-year prescriptive period
[Section 112(A)] and the 120-30 day period rule [Section 112(C)]. Otherwise,
claims would be adjudged as either filed out of time or prematurely filed.
[Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR, GR Nos.
141104 & 148763, 8 June 2007; CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.,
GR No. 184823, 6 Oct. 2010.]
112(D) Manner of Giving Refund
Sec. 113, Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered
Persons
* Section 113(B)(2)(c) of the 1997 Tax Code provides that certain information
must be indicated on the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt, and that if the
sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term zero-rated
sale shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Divisions of the Court of Tax Appeals,
the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc, and the Supreme Court has conflicting
opinions on whether the term zero-rated sale must be written, stamped, or
imprinted.
However, as enunciated in recent cases, the term zero-rated sale must be
imprinted, and not merely written or stamped. Otherwise, such claims for
VAT refund/credit substantiated by non-conforming VAT invoices or VAT
official receipts shall be disallowed.
[Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines, GR No.
1708090, 8 Feb. 2010; JRA Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 177127, 11 Oct.
2010; Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corporation v. CIR,
GR No. 174212, 20 Oct. 2010; Microsoft Philippines, Inc., v. CIR, GR No.
180173, 6 Apr. 2011.]
113(C) Accounting Requirements
113(D) Consequences of Issuing Erroneous VAT Invoice or VAT Official
Receipt
113(E) Transitional Period
Sec. 114, Return and Payment of Value-Added Tax
114(A) In General
114(B) Where to File the Return and Pay the Tax
13
TAX 2 SYLLABUS
DEAN LILY K. GRUBA
S/Y 2011-2012
14