This document discusses three tax law cases related to the power of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and exemptions under relevant laws. The first case establishes that the CIR's decision on tax refunds is subject to the Court of Tax Appeals' jurisdiction. The second case interprets the documentary requirements for availing of a tax amnesty law. The third case finds that the income tax exemption for an inventor's products extends to the manufacturer and seller of those products.
Original Description:
case digest manila
Original Title
Consuelo Metal Corp. vs Planters Development Bank June 26 2008 G.R. NO. 152580
This document discusses three tax law cases related to the power of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and exemptions under relevant laws. The first case establishes that the CIR's decision on tax refunds is subject to the Court of Tax Appeals' jurisdiction. The second case interprets the documentary requirements for availing of a tax amnesty law. The third case finds that the income tax exemption for an inventor's products extends to the manufacturer and seller of those products.
This document discusses three tax law cases related to the power of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and exemptions under relevant laws. The first case establishes that the CIR's decision on tax refunds is subject to the Court of Tax Appeals' jurisdiction. The second case interprets the documentary requirements for availing of a tax amnesty law. The third case finds that the income tax exemption for an inventor's products extends to the manufacturer and seller of those products.
Exemption under RA 7459 Cases: Power of the CIR to Exemption under RA 7459 • Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) 1.) Power of the CIR 2.) Exemption under its (PAL) franchise. (PD 1590) Cases: Power of the CIR to Exemption under RA 7459 • COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS, (GR 203160) Interpretation of tax amnesty law Cases: Power of the CIR to Exemption under RA 7459 • SPLASH CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CTA CASE 8904) Exemption under RA 7459 Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) • Facts: The CIR through the Agent Banks imposed a withholding tax on the bank deposits of PAL which earned interest.
PAL then filed a request for
refund before the BIR who then failed to act on the request. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) • Facts: Due to the inaction of the BIR on its request PAL it elevated the case to the CTA.
Upon the elevation of the case before
the Courts the BIR denied the claim because it claimed that PAL failed to prove that it is entitled to a refund.
On the other hand the PAL claimed that
it did not have to do so since they were granted the exemption under its franchise. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) • Facts: CTA Special Division: Partially Granted: PAL is entitled to the refund for the withholding tax deducted by JP Morgan and Chase Bank because it is the only claim it was able to prove. CTA En Banc: They upheld the decision of the CTA Special Division and they also upheld the right of the CTA Special Division to hold a trial de novo. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) • Doctrine (Power of the CIR): The Commissioner has the power to decide on tax refunds, but his or her decision is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CTA. The failure of the CIR to act on a tax refund will be considered as a denial and will put the same under the jurisdiction of the CTA. The power of the Court of Tax Appeals to exercise its appellate jurisdiction does not preclude it from considering new evidence Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 206079-80) • Doctrine (Exemption under its (PAL) franchise. (PD 1590)): The PAL is exempted from paying withholding tax over its deposits which earned interest income in accordance with its franchise under PD 1590 and therefore it is not necessary for them to prove that they were actually exempted from paying the said taxes. The Congress has never envisioned to remove its exemption because despite the various changes in our tax laws the Congress has never expressly revoked the said exemption. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS, (GR 203160) • Facts: Covanta was assessed to have a deficiency in its value added tax and expanded withholding tax remittance by the BIR. Covanta then questioned the claim of the CIR and thereafter filed a letter of protest before the BIR who failed to act on the same. Due to the Agency’s inaction Covanta went on to the CTA and there manifested that they have availed of the tax amnesty granted under RA 9480. The CIR then argued that they cannot avail of the same because they failed to comply with the documentary requirements specifically their SALN. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS, (GR 203160) • Facts: CTA Second Division: Partially granted: They are ordered to pay a fraction of the amount being asked by the BIR. CTA en banc: Affirmed the decision of the CTA 2nd Division. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS, (GR 203160) • Doctrine (Interpretation of tax amnesty law): Although by nature a tax amnesty law is a tax exemption and as such it must be strictly construed against the person claiming the exemption or amnesty the same cannot disregard the plain text of the law. In this case the law is clear that as soon as the tax payer submits all the documentary requirements of the law they are already entitled to the tax amnesty and as to the contents of the said documents the tax payer enjoys a presumption of that it is true and correct and that it must be debunked by a 3rd person claiming otherwise. SPLASH CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CTA CASE 8904) • Facts: Splash is the seller of the products of Dr. Hortaleza which were subject to tax exemption under RA 7459 and it claimed the said tax exemptions as to the sale of the said products. The CIR on the other under claims that they are not covered by the exemption and thus their sale of the products were subject to taxation. SPLASH CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CTA CASE 8904) • Doctrine (Exemption under RA 7459): The exemption granted to the inventor under RA 7459 extends even to the manufacturer or seller of the said products, specifically its income when it comes to the sale of the products, even if the latter was not the inventor himself. That being said the same is still subject to the limitations and period of time provided under the law.