1.

CIR vs Team Philippines

 This case is about a claim for refund of unutilized creditable taxes withheld during the year
2001
 Respondent also filed a petition for review before the CTA to toll the running of the two-
year prescriptive period
 CTA granted the petition and ordered the refund or issue a tax credit based on the
documentary evidence presented such as ITR’s for taxable years 2001-2002 and certificate of
creditable tax withheld at source for taxable year 2001
 CTA in division denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit
 CIR appealed to CTA en banc who affirmed the CTA divisions ruling in toto, pronouncing that
there was no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusion spelled out therein.
 The Court in this case agrees with the conclusion of the CTA in Division and subsequent
affirmation of the CTA En Banc that respondent complied with all the requirements for the
refund of its unutilized creditable withholding taxes for taxable period ending 31 December
2001.
 The court a quo reasoned that respondent has indeed established its entitlement to a
refund/tax credit of its excess creditable withholding taxes in compliance with the following
basic requirements: (1) that the claim for refund (or issuance of a tax credit certificate) was
filed within the two-year prescriptive period prescribed under Section 204(C), in relation to
Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (2) that the fact of withholding is established
by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing
the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and (3) that the income upon
which the taxes were withheld was included in the return of the recipient.
 [Petitioner’s] arguments are untenable since the certificates presented were duly signed and
prepared under penalties of perjury, the figures appearing therein are presumed to be true
and correct. Thus, the testimony of the various agents/payors need not be presented to
validate the authenticity of the certificates.
 Nowhere in the case cited is proof of actual remittance of the withheld taxes to the
[petitioner] required before the taxpayer may claim for a tax refund/tax credit certificates.
 All told, respondent complied with all the legal requirements and it is entitled, as it opted, to
a refund of its excess creditable withholding tax for the taxable year 2001 in the amount of
P69,562,412.00.
 The petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Irrevocability Rule

In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income
taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited
against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable
years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due
for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered
irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate shall be allowed therefor.

2. CIR vs Nippon Express

 This case is about a claim for refund of unutilized input VAT in the amount of
P24,644,506.86 for the year 2002 before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
 on April 23, 2004, it filed a judicial claim for tax refund, by way of petition for review,
before the CTA
 For its part, petitioner the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) asserted, inter alia,
that the amounts being claimed by Nippon as unutilized input VAT were not properly
documented, hence, should be denied.
 Before receiving a decision , Nippon filed a motion to withdraw considering that BIR
already issued a tax credit certificate in the amount of P21,675,128.91
 CIR moved for recon, and filed its opposition to Nippon’s motion to withdraw, claiming
that: (a) the CTA Division had already resolved the factual issue pertaining to Nippon's
entitlement to a tax credit certificate, which, after trial, was proven to be only in the
amount of P2,614,296.84; (b) the issuance of the July 27, 2011 Tax Credit Certificate was
bereft of factual and legal bases, and prejudicial to the interest of the government; and
(c) Nippon's motion to withdraw was "tantamount to [a] withdrawal and abandonment
of its [motion for reconsideration also filed in this case.”]
 CTA Division granted Nippon's motion to withdraw and, thus, considered the case closed
and terminated.
 while it is true that the CTA Division has the prerogative to grant a motion to withdraw
under the authority of the foregoing legal provisions (Rule 50 of the Rules o f c o u r t ) ,
the attendant circumstances in this case should have incited it to act otherwise
 First, it should be pointed out that the August 10, 2011 Decision was rendered by the
CTA Division after a full-blown hearing in which the parties had already ventilated their
claims. Thus, the findings contained therein were the results of an exhaustive study of
the pleadings and a judicious evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties, as
well as the report of the commissioned certified public accountant.
 The primary reason, however, that militates against the granting of the motion to
withdraw is the fact that the CTA Division, in its August 10, 2011 Decision, had already
determined that Nippon was only entitled to refund the reduced amount of
P2,614,296.84 since it failed to prove that the recipients of its services were non-
residents "doing business outside the Philippines"; hence, Nippon's purported sales
therefrom could not qualify as zero-rated sales, necessitating the reduction in the
amount of refund claimed
CBK Power vs CIR

 The case refers to a claim of refund for excess tax for the reason that the Petitioner was
not able to avail of the preferential rate of 10 % for the foreign banks under a relevant
tax treaty
 Commissioner argued that CBK failed to obtain an International Tax Affairs Division
(ITAD) ruling pursuant to RMO – 12000 w/ respect to those transactions
 Commissioner also assails that CBK failed to exhaust admin remedies prior to its filing to
CTA First Division
 This is in adherence to the general principles of int’l law as part of the land, the time
honoured principle “pacta sunt servanda”
 The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must take precedence over the objective of
RMO No. 1-2000.
 noncompliance with tax treaties has negative implications on international relations, and
unduly discourages foreign investors.
 Just as Deutsche Bank was not faulted by the Court for not complying with RMO No. 1-
2000 prior to the transaction,46 so should CBK Power.
 Petition is granted

China Banking Corp. vs CIR

 The case is about a deficiency assessment from BIR

 Findings CBC is liable for deficiency on the sales of foreign bills of exchange to the
Central Bank.
 CTA ruled that a swap arrangement should be treated as telegraphic transfer subject to
documentary stamp tax
 CTA en banc dismissed motion petition for review and denied motion for recon
 Taxpayer filed petition under rule 45, reiterating the arguments it raised at the CTA level
and invoking for the first time the argument of prescription. Petitioner CBC states that
the government has three years from 19 April 1989, the date the former received the
assessment of the CIR, to collect the tax. Within that time frame, however, neither a
warrant of distraint or levy was issued, nor a collection case filed in court.
 Petition was granted on the ground that BIR’s right to collect the assessed DST is barred
by statute of limitations
 In this case, the records do not show when the assessment notice was mailed, released
or sent to CBC.
 Assuming therefore that 19 April 1989 is the reckoning date, the BIR had three years to
collect the assessed DST. However, the records of this case show that there was neither a
warrant of distraint or levy served on CBC's properties nor a collection case filed in court
by the BIR within the three-year period.
 The running of the statute of limitations was not suspended by the request for
reinvestigation. The fact that the taxpayer in this case may have requested a
 reinvestigation did not toll the running of the three-year prescriptive period. A request
for reinvestigation alone will not suspend the statute of limitations. The request should
first be granted, in order to effect suspension. (Collector v. Suyoc Consolidated, supra;
also Republic v. Ablaza, supra)
 In the present case, there is no showing from the records that the CIR ever granted the
request for reinvestigation filed by CBC.
 The Petition is GRANTED