Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tax Digest
Tax Digest
CIR
G.R. No. 171251/March 5, 2912/J. Peralta (3rd Division)
Doctrine:
LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE -- Taxes are lifeblood of the government
and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. On
the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance
with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for
government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the
apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the
taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the
promotion of the common good, may be achieved. Thus, even
as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation,
it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised
reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Facts:
CIR issued Assessment Notice No. 0000047-93-407 against
Lascona Land for its alleged deficiency income tax in the amount
of P753,266,56, to which the latter filed a letter protest but was
denied by the CIR on ground that it cannot give due course to
petitioners request to cancel or set aside the assessment notice
for the reason that the case was not elevated to the CTA as
mandated by the provisions of the last paragraph of Sec. 228 of
the Tax Code.
Issue:
Whether the subject assessment has become final, executory
and demandable due to the failure of petitioner to file an appeal
before the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day
period pursuant to Sec. 228 of the NIRC.
Ruling:
Issues:
1. Whether the ordinances is within the QC government to
impose.
2. Whether the ordinance on SHT violates the rule on equal
protection of the law.
3. Whether the ordinance on Garbage Fee violates the rule on
double taxation.
Ruling:
The petition is partially granted.
The constitutionality and
legality of SHT is sustained for being consistent with Sec. 43 of
RA 7279. On the other hand, the ordinance on Garbage Fee is
declared unconstitutional and illegal.
Held:
1. Subject to the provisions of the Local Government Code and
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy, every LGU
is now empowered and authorized to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges which shall
accrue exclusively to the local government unit as well as to
apply its resources and assets for productive, developmental,
or welfare purposes, in the exercise or furtherance of their
governmental or proprietary powers and functions.
When
an
administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its
applicability needs nothing further that its bare issuance, for it
gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative
rules goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render lease cumbersome the implementation of the
law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it
behoves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected
a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before
the new issuance is given the force and effect of law.
Facts:
Petitioner issued CMO-27-2003 which classified wheat, for tariff
purposes, according to the following: (1) importer or consignee;
(2) country of origin; and (3) port of discharge. Depending on
these factors, wheat would be classified either as food grade,
with a tariff rate of 3%; and/or feed grade, with a tariff rate of
7%. The memorandum also provided for the proper procedure
for protest of valuation and classification review committee cases
wherein the release of the articles subject of protest requires the
importer to post a cash bond to cover the tariff differential. In
Ruling:
Petition is denied.
Held:
Excise tax, which apply to articles manufactured or produced in
the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other
disposition and to things imported into the Philippines, is
basically an indirect tax. While the tax is directly levied upon the
Held:
Sec. 112 (D) of the NIRC of 1997 categorically states that in case
of failure on the part of the respondent to act on the application
within the 120-day period prescribed by law, petitioner only has
30 days after the expiration of the 120-day period to appeal the
unacted claim with the CTA. Since petitioners judicial claim for
the aforementioned quarters for taxable year 2000 was filed
before the CTA only on 24 April 2002, which was way beyond the
mandatory 120+30 days to seek judicial recourse, such
noncompliance with the mandatory period of 30 days is fatal to
its refund claim on the ground of prescription. Consequently, the
CTA had no jurisdiction over the instant claim of petitioner as the
petition was belatedly filed.
judicial
claim
for
refund
was
Ruling:
Petition is partially granted.
Held:
For clarity and guidance, this Court deems it proper to outline the
rules laid down in San Roque with regard to claims for refund or
tax credit of unutilized creditable input VAT. They are as follows:
1. When to file an administrative claim with the CIR:
a. General rule Sec. 112(A) and Mirant within 2 years from
the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made.
b. Exception Atlas
Within 2 years from the date of payment of the output VAT, if
the administrative claim was filed from June 8, 2007
(promulgation of Atlas) to September 12, 2008 (promulgation
of Mirant).
2. When to file a judicial claim with the CTA:
a. General rule Sec. 112[D]; not Sec. 229
Issue:
Whether petitioner, as a taxpayer, have the legal standing to file
the instant petition.
Ruling:
The petition is dismissed.
Held:
A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise a
constitutional issue when it is established that public funds have
been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law or the
Constitution. Thus, payers action is properly brought only when
there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power.
Coming now to the instant case, it is readily apparent that there
is no exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power.
12. CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE & BUILDERS, INC. VS.
THE HON. EXEC. SEC. ALBERTO ROMULO, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 160756/March 9, 2010/J. Corona/En Banc
Doctrine:
LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE Taxes are lifeblood of the government.
Without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure.
The exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very
existence of the State whose social contract with its citizens
obliges it to promote public interest and the common good.
TAXATION INHERENT ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY and PURELY
LEGISLATIVE Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It
is a power that is purely legislative. Essentially, this means that
in the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the
nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate) for a particular
public purpose on persons or things within its jurisdiction. In
other words, the legislature wields the power to define what tax
shall be imposed, why it should be imposed, how much tax shall
be imposed, against whom (or what) it shall be imposed and
where it shall be imposed.
POWER TO TAX IS PLENARY AND UNLIMITED IN RANGE As a
general rule, the power to tax is plenary and unlimited in its
range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that the
principal check against its abuse is to be found only in the
responsibility of the legislature (which imposes the tax) to its
constituency who are to pay it. Nevertheless, it is circumscribed
by constitutional limitations. At the same time, like any other
statute, tax legislation carries a presumption of constitutionality.
Facts:
Petitioner CREBA assails the validity of the imposition of the
minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) for being violative of the
due process clause as it levies income tax even if there is no
realized gain. They also question the creditable withholding tax
(CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets
stating that: (1) they ignore the different treatment of ordinary
assets and capital assets; (2) the use of gross selling price or fair
market value as basis for the CWT and the collection of tax on a
per transaction basis (and not on the net income at the end of
the year) are inconsistent with the tax on ordinary real
properties; (3) the government collects income tax even when
the net income has not yet been determined; and (4) the CWT is
being levied upon real estate enterprises but not on other
enterprises, more particularly those in the manufacturing sector.
Issue:
objectionable.
Moreover, CREBA does not cite any actual,
specific, and concrete negative experiences of its members nor
does it present empirical data to show that the implementation
of the MCIT resulted in the confiscation of their property.
In sum, CREBA failed to support, by any factual or legal basis, its
allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory. The Court
cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of
its yokes. Taxation is necessarily burdensome because, by its
nature, it adversely affects property rights. The party alleging
the laws unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate the
supposed violations in understandable terms.
As to the issue on the validity of the imposition of CWT on
income from sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets,
the SC rules that it is not unconstitutional.
The contention that the assailed revenue regulations ignore the
different treatment by RA 8424 of ordinary assets and capital
assets is unmeritorious. Final Withholding Tax (FWT) is imposed
on the sale of capital assets. On the other hand, CWT is imposed
on the sale of ordinary assets. The inherent and substantial
differences between FWT and CWT disprove CREBAs contention
that ordinary assets are being lumped together with, and treated
similarly as, capital assets in contravention of the pertinent
provisions of RA 8424. The fact that the tax is withheld at source
does not automatically mean that it is treated exactly the same
way as capital gains. As aforementioned, the mechanics of the
FWT are distinct from those of the CWT.
The withholding
agent/buyers act of collecting the tax at the time of the
transaction by withholding the tax due from the income payable
is the essence of the withholding tax method of tax collection.