Tax2 Digested 1 6

8/13/2019 Tax2 Digested 1 6

1/8

ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Petitioner, versus,COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Respondent.

FACTS:

Under Section 100 of the Tax Code of the Philippines, petitioner is a zero-rated al!e Added Tax

"AT# person for $ein% an exporter of copper concentrates. Accordin% to petitioner, on &an!ar' (0, 1))*,it filed its AT ret!rn for the fo!rth +!arter of 1)), shoin% a total inp!t tax of P/,/,)/.* and an

excess AT credit of P*(,/,()1./0 and, on &an!ar' (, 1))/, it applied for a tax ref!nd or a tax creditcertificate for the latter a2o!nt ith respondent Co22issioner of 3nternal Re4en!e "C3R#. 5n the sa2edate, petitioner filed the sa2e clai2 for ref!nd ith the Co!rt of Tax Appeals "CTA#, clai2in% that theto-'ear prescripti4e period pro4ided for !nder Section (0 of the Tax Code for clai2in% a ref!nd as

a$o!t to expire. The C3R failed to file his anser ith the CTA6 th!s, the for2er declared the latter indefa!lt.

CTA rendered its 7ecision89den'in% petitioners clai2 for ref!nd d!e to petitioners fail!re toco2pl' ith the doc!2entar' re+!ire2ents prescri$ed !nder Section 1/ of Re4en!e Re%!lations ;o. -, as a2ended $' Re4en!e Re%!lations ;o. -, dated April , 1). The CTAs 7ecision andResol!tion ere +!estioned in the CA. hether or not petitioner 2a' clai2 tax ref!nd.

itho!t the export doc!2ents, the p!rchase in4oicereceipts s!$2itted $' thepetitioner as proof of its inp!t taxes cannot $e 4erified as $ein% directl' attri$!ta$le to the %oods so

exported.Taxation is a destr!cti4e poer hich interferes ith the personal and propert' ri%hts of the

people and taDes fro2 the2 a portion of their propert' for the s!pport of the %o4ern2ent. And, sincetaxes are hat e pa' for ci4ilized societ', or are the life$lood of the nation, the la frons a%ainst

exe2ptions fro2 taxation and stat!tes %rantin% tax exe2ptions are th!s constr!ed strictissi2i @!ris a%ainstthe taxpa'er and li$erall' in fa4or of the taxin% a!thorit'. A clai2 of ref!nd or exe2ption fro2 tax
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/159471.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/159471.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/159471.htm#_ftn4


2/8

pa'2ents 2!st $e clearl' shon and $e $ased on lan%!a%e in the la too plain to $e 2istaDen. =lseisestated, taxation is the r!le, exe2ption therefro2 is the exception.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is here$' DENIEDfor lacD of 2erit. The 7ecision and Resol!tionof the Co!rt of Appeals, dated April 1), (001 and A!%!st /, (00, respecti4el', are here$' AFFIRMED.

PHILAM ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., versus, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

;ATUR=:

These are to consolidated Petitions for Re4ie819!nder R!le * of the R!les of Co!rt, seeDin% tore4ie and re4erse the 7ece2$er 1), (00( 7ecision 8(9of the Co!rt of Appeals "CA# in CA-ER SP ;o.

/)1) and its &an!ar' 0, (00* 7ecision89in CA-ER SP ;o. 0(.

FACTS:

Petitioner, for2erl' Phila2 F!nd Gana%e2ent, 3nc., is a do2estic corporation d!l'or%anized and existin% !nder the las of the Rep!$lic of the Philippines. 3t acts as the in4est2ent

2ana%er of $oth Philippine F!nd, 3nc. "PF3# and Phila2 Hond F!nd, 3nc. "PHF3#, hich are open-endin4est2ent co2panies8,9 in the sale of their shares of stocDs and in the in4est2ent of the proceeds of these

sales into a di4ersified portfolio of de$t and e+!it' sec!rities. Hein% an in4est2ent 2ana%er, petitionerpro4ides 2ana%e2ent and technical ser4ices to PF3 and PHF3. Petitioner is, liDeise, PF3s and PHF3sprincipal distri$!tor hich taDes char%e of the sales of said co2panies shares to prospecti4e in4estors.P!rs!ant to the separate 829ana%e2ent and 8d9istri$!tion a%ree2ents $eteen the 8p9etitioner and PF3 and

PHF3, $oth PF3 and PHF3 8a%ree9 to pa' the 8p9etitioner, $' a' of co2pensation for the latters ser4icesand facilities, a 2onthl' 2ana%e2ent fee fro2 hich PF3 and PHF3 ithhold the a2o!nt e+!i4alent to 8a9fi4e percent "I# credita$le tax8,9 p!rs!ant to the =xpanded >ithholdin% Tax Re%!lations. Petitioner filed its ann!al corporate inco2e tax ret!rn for the taxa$le 'ear 1)) representin% net

loss. Conse+!entl', it failed to !tilize the credita$le tax ithheld representin% the tax ithheld $'petitioners ithholdin% a%ents, PF3 and PHF3, on professional fees. Petitioner filed an ad2inistrati4e

clai2 for ref!nd ith the H3R Appellate 7i4ision for a2o!nt representin% !n!tilized excess tax credits forcalendar 'ear 1)). Thereafter, on &!l' (, 1))), a ritten re+!est as filed ith the sa2e di4ision forthe earl' resol!tion of petitioners clai2 for ref!nd. Respondent did not act on petitioners clai2 forref!nd6 hence, a Petition for Re4ie as filed ith the S!pre2e Co!rt on ;o4e2$er (), 1))) to toll the

r!nnin% of the to-'ear prescripti4e period.J

3SSU=:

>hether petitioner is entitled to a ref!nd of its credita$le taxes ithheld for taxa$le 'ears 1))and 1))


3/8

5n &!l' 1, 1)/, Section (* of =xec!ti4e 5rder "=5# ;o. chan%ed all net inco2eJphrases appearin% in Title 33 of the ;3RC of 1) to taxa$le inco2e.J Section ) of the ;3RC of1) hoe4er, as not a2ended.

5n &!l' (, 1), =5 ( ren!2$ered Section / of the ;3RC as Section /, hich asalso rearran%ed to fall !nder Chapter 10 of Title 33 of the ;3RC. Section ), hich had earlier $een

ren!2$ered $' P7 1))*, re2ained !nchan%ed.

Th!s, Section /) of the ;3RC of 1) as ren!2$ered as Section / !nder P7 106 later,as Section ) !nder P7 1))*6 then, as Section / !nder =5 (. Finall', after $ein% ren!2$ered andred!ced to the chaff of a %rain, Section /) as repealed $' =5 .

S!$se+!entl', Section /) reappeared in the ;3RC "or Tax Code# of 1)) as Section /.

GR No. 156637

This section applies to the first case $efore the Co!rt. 7ifferentl' n!2$ered in 1) $!t si2ilarl'

orded (0 'ears later "1))#, Section / offers to options to a taxa$le corporation hose total +!arterl'

inco2e tax pa'2ents in a %i4en taxa$le 'ear exceeds its total inco2e tax d!e. These options are "1# filin%for a tax refundor "(# a4ailin% of a tax credit.

The first option is relati4el' si2ple. An' tax on inco2e that is paid in excess of the a2o!nt d!e the

%o4ern2ent 2a' $e ref!nded, pro4ided that a taxpa'er properl' applies for the ref!nd.

The second option orDs $' appl'in% the ref!nda$le a2o!nt, as shon on the FAR of a %i4entaxa$le 'ear, a%ainst the esti2ated +!arterl' inco2e tax lia$ilities of the s!cceedin% taxa$le 'ear.

These to options !nder Section / are alternati4e in nat!re. The choice of one precl!des the other.

3ndeed, inPhilippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Co!rt r!led thata corporation 2!st si%nif' its intention -- hether to re+!est a tax refundor clai2 a tax credit-- $'

2arDin% the correspondin% option $ox pro4ided in the FAR. >hile a taxpa'er is re+!ired to 2arD itschoice in the for2 pro4ided $' the H3R, this re+!ire2ent is onl' for the p!rpose of facilitatin% tax

collection. 5ne cannot %et a tax refundand a tax creditat the sa2e ti2e for the sa2e excess inco2e taxespaid. Fail!re to si%nif' ones intention in the FAR does not 2ean o!tri%ht $arrin% of a 4alid re+!est for aref!nd, sho!ld one still choose this option later on. A tax credit sho!ld $e constr!ed 2erel' as an

alternati4e re2ed' to a tax ref!nd !nder Section /, s!$@ect to prior 4erification and appro4al $'respondent.

The reason for re+!irin% that a choice $e 2ade in the FAR !pon its filin% is to ease tax

ad2inistration, partic!larl' the self-assess2ent and collection aspects. A taxpa'er that 2aDes a choiceexpresses certaint' or preference and th!s de2onstrates clear dili%ence. Con4ersel', a taxpa'er that

2aDes no choice expresses !ncertaint' or lacD of preference and hence shos si2ple ne%li%ence or plaino4ersi%ht.

3n the present case, respondent denied the clai2 of petitioner for a ref!nd of excess taxes ithheld

in 1)), $eca!se the latter "1# had not indicated in its 3TR for that 'ear hether it as optin% for a creditor a ref!nd6 and "(# had not s!$2itted as e4idence its 1)) 3TR, hich co!ld ha4e $een the $asis for

deter2inin% hether its clai2ed 1)) tax credit had not $een applied a%ainst its 1)) tax lia$ilities. 3n the present case, altho!%h petitioner did not 2arD the ref!nd $ox in its 1)) FAR, neither did it

perfor2 an' act indicatin% that it chose a tax credit. 5n the contrar', it filed on Septe2$er 11, 1)), an


4/8

ad2inistrati4e clai2 for the ref!nd of its excess taxes ithheld in 1)). 3n none of its +!arterl' ret!rnsfor 1)) did it appl' the excess credita$le taxes. Under these circ!2stances, petitioner is entitled to a taxrefundof its 1)) excess tax credits.

GR No. 162004

As to the second case, Section / also applies. A2ended $' Rep!$lic Act "RA# ;o. *(*,otherise Dnon as the Tax Refor2 Act of 1)).J

The carr'-o4er option !nder Section / is per2issi4e. A corporation that is entitled to a tax refundora tax creditfor excess pa'2ent of +!arterl' inco2e taxes 2a' carr' o4er and credit the excess inco2etaxes paid in a %i4en taxa$le 'ear a%ainst the esti2ated inco2e tax lia$ilities of the s!cceedin% +!arters.5nce chosen, the carr'-o4er option shall $e considered irre4oca$le for that taxa$le period, and no

application for a tax refundor iss!ance of a tax credit certificateshall then $e alloed. Accordin% to petitioner, it neither chose nor 2arDed the carr'-o4er option $ox in its 1)) FAR. As

this option as not chosen, it see2s that there is nothin% that can $e considered irre4oca$le. 3n otherords, petitioner ar%!es that it is still entitled to a ref!nd of its 1)) excess inco2e tax pa'2ents. Thisar%!2ent does not hold ater. The s!$se+!ent acts of petitioner re4eal that it has effectively chosenthecarr'-o4er option.

>hether the F3F5 principle is applied or not, Section / re2ains clear and !ne+!i4ocal. 5nce thecarr'-o4er option is taDen, act!all' or constr!cti4el', it $eco2es irrevocable. Petitioner has chosen thatoption for its 1)) credita$le ithholdin% taxes. Th!s, it is no lon%er entitled to a taxrefundof P*),/.0, hich corresponds to its 1)) excess tax credit. ;onetheless, the a2o!nt ill not

$e forfeited in the %o4ern2ents fa4or, $eca!se it 2a' $e clai2ed $' petitioner as tax credits in thes!cceedin% taxa$le 'ears. >


5/8

>hether or not the CTAEn Banccorrectl' r!led that SPP as not entitled to a tax ref!nd orcredit.


6/8

ter2ination of the %ro!nd 4erification and relocation s!r4e'. Thereafter, Ro$ert C. Pan%'arihan, the Chiefof S!r4e' 7i4ision, ?GS, 7=;R, trans2itted to the RTC the report of =n%r. Alexander ?. &aco$ "=n%r.&aco$#, $ased on the 4erification and relocation s!r4e' he cond!cted in the presence of the respondentsand G5?7=M, hich fo!nd an encroach2ent or o4erlappin%. RTC handed don its &!d%2ent %rantin%

the respondents application for re%istration of ?ot $!t deferred the appro4al of re%istration of ?ot pendin% the se%re%ation of *,(* s+!are 2eter portion thereof hich as fo!nd to $elon% to

G5?7=M.

3SSU=:

>hether or not tax declarations and tax receipts are s!fficient e4idence to deter2ine onership of thepropert' in +!estion.


7/8

WHEREFORE,the petition is GRANTED. Accordin%l', the Septe2$er , (00 7ecision of theCo!rt of Appeals in CA-E.R. C ;o. *(0 is here$' REVERSED and SET ASIDEand another@!d%2ent entered den'in% the application for land re%istration of the s!$@ect properties.

HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE, n%'e(#) JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RA* DELESTE, RAULHECTOR DELESTE, %n! RUBEN ALE+ DELESTE, Petitioners, 4ers!s LAND BAN OF THEPHILIPPINES -LBP, %s represene! "# /s M%n%0er, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBPCOTABATO CIT*1 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR 2 REGION 34 OF COTABATO CIT*, THESECRETAR* OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM1 THE REGIONALDIRECTOR OF REGION + 2 CAGA*AN DE ORO CIT*, represene! "# MCMILLANLUCMAN, /n 5/s 6%p%6/# %s Pr7v/n6/%( A0r%r/%n Re87r' O88/6er -PARO 78 DAR L%n%7 !e(N7re1 LI&A BALBERONA, /n 5er 6%p%6/# %s DAR Mun/6/p%( A0r%r/%n Re87r' O88/6er -MARO1RE*NALDO BAGUIO, /n 5/s 6%p%6/# %s 5e Re0/ser 78 Dee!s 78 I(/0%n C/# %s n7'/n%( p%r#1 5ee'%n6/p%/7n p%en 57(!ers) FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO M. RICO, HEIRS OFDOMINGO V. RICO, HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M. VELORIA, ALICIA B.MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF TRAN9UILIANA

MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO CABALUNA, HEIRS OFCLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO BALORIO,%n! TITO BALER,Respondents.

FACTS:

The spo!ses Ere%orio ;ana2an "Ere%orio# and hen Ere%orio died in 1)*,


8/8

'et $een partitioned and distri$!ted to an' of the heirs of Ere%orio and 7eleste, the @!st co2pensation forthe expropriated portion of the s!$@ect propert' as deposited ith the 7e4elop2ent HanD of thePhilippines in 3li%an Cit', in tr!st for the RTC in 3li%an Cit'.

3SSU=:

>hether or not the ina$ilit' to pa' tax declarations is a %ro!nd not to notif' the petitioners of there%istration.

ith the fore%oin% dis+!isition, it $eco2es !nnecessar' to dell on the other iss!es raised $' theparties.

WHEREFORE, the Co!rt GRANTSthe petition and REVERSESand SETS ASIDEthe CAs5cto$er (, (00* and Septe2$er 1, (00 Resol!tions inCA-E.R. SP ;o. *1. The =2ancipation

Patents and 5ri%inal Certificates of Title co4erin% the s!$@ect propert', partic!larl' ?ot ;o. 1*0, iss!edin fa4or of pri4ate respondents are here$'declared NULLand VOID.

The 7AR is ordered to CANCELthe afore2entioned =2ancipation Patents and 5ri%inalCertificates of Title erroneo!sl' iss!ed in fa4or of pri4ate respondents.

;o prono!nce2ent as to costs.

Tax2 Digested 1 6

Documents

Transcript of Tax2 Digested 1 6