Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tax Case Digest
Tax Case Digest
Issue:
Whether the CTA is correct in its decision that the vessel should not be forfeited
Ruling:
Yes. Sec 2530(a) in unmistakable terms provides that a vessel engaged in smuggling “in a port of
entry” cannot be forfeited.
Issue:
whether a municipality can pass an ordinance which imposes franchise tax
Ruling:
no. Under the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, a municipality is bereft of authority to levy
and impose franchise tax on franchise holders within its territorial jurisdiction. That authority
belongs to provinces and cities only. A franchise tax levied by a municipality is, thus, null and
void. The nullity is not cured by the subsequent conversion of the municipality into a city
Issue:
Whether the assessment had become final and executory
Ruling:
No. In local taxation, an assessment for deficiency taxes made by the local government unit may
be protested before the local treasurer without necessity of payment under protest. But if
payment is made simultaneous with or following a protest against an assessment, the taxpayer
may subsequently maintain an action in court, whether as an appeal from assessment or a claim
for refund, so long as it is initiated within thirty (30) days from either decision or inaction of the
local treasurer on the protest.
Issue:
Whether public hearing and publication is necessary for the enactment of Ordinance No. 88-11-
36
Ruling:
Yes. The taxes and fees imposed by Tax Ordinance 88-11-36 are on a tax base similar to those
authorized in the local tax code but not specifically enumerated and on a tax base or subject
which are not similar or comparable to any tax base or subject specifically mentioned in the
Local tax code. Hence, public hearing and publication is necessary for its enactment.
6. Phil Ports Authority v City of Davao [gr no 190324, June 06, 2018]
Facts:
Petitioner received a letter from the City Assessor of Davao for the assessment and collection of
real property taxes against its administered properties. The petitioner appealed the assessment
but its appeal were denied by the LBAA and subsequently by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals. A warrant for levy was issued against the properties of the petitioner. The petitioner
filed a petition for review with the CTA and also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging
that the City of Davao’s taxation of its property were without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether the CA has jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief
Ruling:
No. When a tax case is pending on appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Tax
Appeals has the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin the levy of taxes and the auction of a taxpayer's
properties in relation to that case.
10. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. v CIR G.R. No. 198146, August 8, 2017
Facts:
Petitioner is a GOCC and its main purpose is to manage orderly sale, disposition, and
privatization of the NPC general assets. It sold power plants through public bidding and was
assessed by the BIR and asked to pay deficiency VAT for the sale of the power plants. The
Petitioner filed with the DOJ a petition for the adjudication of the dispute with the BIR to resolve
the issue of whether the sale should be subject to VAT. The BIR now contends that the DOJ has
no jurisdiction since the dispute involves tax laws.
Issue:
Whether the DOJ has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
Yes. This case involves a dispute between the Petitioner, a GOCC, and the BIR, a government
office. Under Presidential Decree No. 24224(PD 242), all disputes and claims solely between
government agencies and offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall
be administratively settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General, or
the Government Corporate Counsel, depending on the issues and government agencies
involved. As regards cases involving only questions of law, as in this case, it is the Secretary of
Justice who has jurisdiction.
11. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. v CTA G.R. No. 193625, August 30, 2017
Facts:
Petitioner filed for a claim of refund or tax credit of alleged unutilized input VAT before the BIR
on Sept. 26, 2002. After 4 days, or on Sept 30, 2002, without any act of BIR, Petitioner elevated
the matter and file a judicial claim before the CTA.
Issue:
Whether the CTA acquire jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
No. From the submission of the complete documents to support the claim, the CIR has a period
of one hundred twenty (120) days to decide on the claim. If the CIR decides within the 120-day
period, the taxpayer may initiate a judicial claim by filing within 30 days an appeal before the
CTA. The 120-day waiting period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Being filed only after 4
days, Petitioner’s judicial claim was filed prematurely and, thus, without cause of action. Hence,
the CTA has no jurisdiction over the claim.
Issue:
Whether a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available as a
remedy to the BIR
Ruling:
A writ of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Under the Rules of Court, the remedy
against a final judgment or order is an appeal. For cases before the CTA, a decision rendered by
a division of the CTA is appealable to the CTA En Banc. Section 2 of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
the CTA also states that the CTA En Banc has exclusive appellate jurisdiction relative to the
review of the court divisions' decisions or resolutions on motion for reconsideration or new trial,
in cases arising from administrative agencies such as the BIR.