Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cir V Gonzales Facts
Cir V Gonzales Facts
Cir V Gonzales Facts
Facts:
LMCEC Argue that it cannot be held liable whatsoever for the alleged tax deficiency
which had become due and demandable; They also assail as invalid the assessment
notices which bear no serial numbers. LMCEC further averred that it had availed of the
Bureaus Tax Amnesty Programs (Economic Recovery Assistance Payment [ERAP]
Program and the Voluntary Assessment Program [VAP]) for 1998 and 1999; for 1997,
its tax liability was terminated and closed under Letter of Termination issued by
petitioner and signed by the Chief of the Assessment Division. LMCEC argued that
petitioner is now estopped from further taking any action against it and its corporate
officers concerning the taxable years 1997 to 1999. the grant of immunity from audit
from the companys availment of ERAP and VAP, which have a feature of a tax
amnesty, the element of fraud is negated the moment the Bureau accepts the offer of
compromise or payment of taxes by the taxpayer.
Issue:
WON Petitioner is now estopped from assessing any tax deficiency against
LMCEC after issuance of the aforementioned documents of immunity from
audit/investigation and settlement of tax liabilities?
Ruling:
NO, petitioner is NOT estopped from assessing any tax deficiency against
LMCEC after issuance of the aforementioned documents of immunity from
audit/investigation and settlement of tax liabilities. It is axiomatic that the State can
never be in estoppel, and this is particularly true in matters involving taxation. The errors
of certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize the governments
financial position.
CIR V PERF REALTY CORP
Facts:
For the year 1997, its tenants, Philamlife and Read-Rite, withheld and subsequently
remitted creditable withholding taxes in the total amount of P3,531,125.00. After
deducting creditable withholding taxes in the total amount of P3,531,125.00 from its
total income tax due of P2,250,621.00, PERF showed in its 1997 ITR an overpayment
of income taxes in the amount of P1,280,504.00. PERF filed an administrative claim
with the appellate division of the BIR for refund of overpaid income taxes in the amount
of P1,280,504.00.
CTA denied the petition of PERF on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The CTA
noted that PERF did not indicate in its 1997 ITR the option to either claim the excess
income tax as a refund or tax credit pursuant to Section 69[2] (now 76) of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)
Issue:
Won respondent Perf is entitled to tax refund considering the latters failure to
substantially establish its claim for refund?
Ruling:
1) That the claim for refund was filed within the two (2) year period as prescribed under
Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code;
2) That the income upon which the taxes were withheld were included in the return of
the recipient;
More so, the Tax Code allows the refund of taxes to a taxpayer that claims it in writing
within two years after payment of the taxes erroneously received by the BIR. Despite
the failure of petitioner to make the appropriate marking in the BIR form, the filing of its
written claim effectively serves as an expression of its choice to request a tax refund,
instead of a tax credit. To assert that any future claim for a tax refund will be instantly
hindered by a failure to signify ones intention in the FAR is to render nugatory the clear
provision that allows for a two-year prescriptive period.
Facts:
However, BOC, reclassified Import Entry No. C-33771-03 and Import Entry No. C-
67560-03 under Tariff Heading H.S. 2106.90 50 at 7% import duty rate. , Marina
appealed before the Commissioner challenging VCRCs reclassification.\
CTA Second Division ruled in favor of Marina[ the importation covered by Import Entry
Nos. C-33771-03 and C-67560-03 are reclassified under Tariff Harmonized System
Heading H.S. 2106.90 10 with an import duty rate of 1%.
The Commissioner insists that Marinas two importations should be classified under
Tariff Heading H.S. 2106.90 50 with an import duty rate of 7% because the
concentrates are ready for consumption by mere dilution with water.
Issue:
Won decision of the court of tax appeals second division holding that
respondents importation are covered by import entry nos. c-33771-03 and c-67560-03
are classified under tariff harmonized system heading h.s. 2106.90 10 with an import
duty rate of one percent (1%) is not correct?
Ruling:
After examining the records of the case, the Court is of the view that the import
duty rate of 1%, as determined by the CTA Second Division, is correct.
COVERAGE
H.S. 2106.90 10 1%
Covers flavouring materials, nes., of kind used in food and drink industries; other food
preparations to be used as raw material in preparing composite concentrates for making
beverages
Covers composite concentrate for simple dilution with water to make beverages
H.S. 2009. 19 00 7%
H.S. 2009.80 00 7%
Facts:
On December 12, 1993, a shipment containing bales of textile grey cloth arrived
at the Manila International Container Port (MICP). The Commissioner, however, held
the subject shipment because its owner/consignee was allegedly fictitious. AGFHA
intervened and alleged that it was the owner and actual consignee of the subject
shipment. After seizure and forfeiture proceedings took place, the District Collector of
Customs, MICP, rendered a decision ordering the forfeiture of the subject shipment in
favor of the government.
Thereafter, the subject shipment arrived at the Bureau of Customs, the Chief of the
Auction and Cargo Disposal Division of the MICP could not determine the status,
whereabouts and disposition of said shipment.
Issue:
1.Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals was correct in awarding the
respondent the amount of US$160,348.08, as payment for the value of the subject lost
shipment that was in the custody of the petitioner?
2. Won the BOC enjoys immunity from suit since it is invested with an inherent
power of sovereignty which is taxation and the State may not be sued without its
consent?
Ruling:
1. The Court agrees with the ruling of the CTA that AGFHA is entitled to recover the
value of its lost shipment based on the acquisition cost at the time of payment.
The Court held in a number of cases that the rate of exchange for the conversion
in the peso equivalent should be the prevailing rate at the time of payment.
2. No, The Commissioner cannot escape liability for the lost shipment of goods.
The circumstances of this case warrant its exclusion from the purview of
the state immunity doctrine As previously discussed, the Court cannot turn a
blind eye to BOC's ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of
respondent's goods. We are not likewise unaware of its lackadaisical attitude in
failing to provide a cogent explanation on the goods' disappearance, considering
that they were in its custody and that they were in fact the subject of litigation.
The situation does not allow us to reject respondent's claim on the mere
invocation of the doctrine of state immunity. Succinctly, the doctrine must be
fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative to take
undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it.