CIR vs.

Primetown, GR 162155

CORONA, J.:

FACTS:

Gilbert Yap, Vice Chair of Primetown applied on March 11,

1999 for a refund or credit of income tax which Primetown
paid in 1997. He claimed that they are entitled for a refund
because they suffered losses that year due to the increase
of cost of labor and materials, etc. However, despite the
losses, they still paid their quarterly income tax and
remitted creditable withholding tax from real estate sales to
BIR. Hence, they were claiming for a refund. On May 13,
1999, revenue officer Elizabeth Santos required Primetown
to submit additional documents to which Primetown
complied with. However, its claim was not acted upon which
prompted it to file a petition for review in CTA on April 14,
2000. CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed beyonf the
2-year prescriptive period for filing a judicial claim for tax
refund according to Sec 229 of NIRC. According to CTA, the
two-year period is equivalent to 730 days pursuant to Art 13
of NCC. Since Primetown filed its final adjustment return on
April 14, 1998 and that year 2000 was a leap year, the
petition was filed 731 days after Primetown filed its final
adjusted return. Hence, beyond the reglementary period.
Primetown appealed to CA. CA reversed the decision of CTA.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petition was filed within the two-year

period
HELD:

Pursuant to EO 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987,

a year shall be understood to be 12 calendar months. The
SC defined a calendar month as a month designated in the
calendar without regard to the number of days it may
contain. The court held that Administrative Code of 1987
impliedly repealed Art 13 of NCC as the provisions are
irreconcilable. Primetown is entitled for the refund since it is
filed within the 2-year reglementary period