Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015) Taxatio

n
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF TAXATION
(Constitutional Limitations)
It is already well-settled that although the power to tax is inherent in the State, the
same is not true for the LGUs to whom the power must be delegated by Congress
and must be exercised within the guidelines and limitations that Congress may
provide. In the case at bar, the sanggunian of the municipality or city cannot enact
an ordinance imposing business tax on the gross receipts of transportation
contractors, persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire,
and common carriers by air, land, or water, when said sanggunian was already
specifically prohibited from doing so. Any exception to the express prohibition
under Section 133(j) of the LGC should be just as specific and unambiguous. Section
21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code, as amended, is null and void for being beyond
the power of the City of Manila and its public officials to enact, approve, and
implement under the LGC. - City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, as Mayor of
the City of Manila, et al. vs. Hon. Angel Valera Colet, as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court of Manila (Br. 43), et al., G.R. No. 120051, December
10, 2014
TAX CREDIT OR REFUND
The tax burden for an indirect tax may be shifted to another. However, the tax
liability remains with the statutory taxpayer. As such, it is the statutory taxpayer
who is the proper party to question, or claim a refund or tax credit of an indirect tax.
- Silkair (Singapore) PTE. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 184398, February 25, 2010
Under the old rule, whether a PEZA-registered enterprise was exempt or subject to
VAT depended on the type of fiscal incentives availed of by the said enterprise. If
the PEZA-registered enterprise is paying the 5% preferential tax in lieu of all other
taxes, it cannot claim tax credit/refund for the VAT paid on purchases. Conversely, if
the taxpayer is availing of the income tax holiday, it can claim VAT credit. However,
upon the issuance by the BIR of RMC No. 74-99 on October 15, 1999, the Cross
Border Doctrine was clearly established. In effect, PEZA-registered enterprises are
VAT-exempt and no VAT can be passed on to them. Thus, any sale by a supplier from
the Customs Territory to a PEZA-registered enterprise as export sale should not be
burdened by output VAT; hence, it is now impossible to claim for a tax credit/refund.
- Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. vs. Commissioner Of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010
MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF CORPORATIONS
When the BIR had ruled that a purchase and sale agreement between two banks did
not result in their merger, and that the CIR had previously ruled that the same two
banks are not merged, the buyer bank is not liable for the deficiency DST of the
seller bank. - Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bank of Commerce, G.R.
No. 180529, November 13, 2013

Page 1 of 4

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015) Taxatio

n
DISSOLUTION OF A CORPORATION
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas placed Rural Bank of Tuba (RBTI) under receivership with
the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as the receiver. Accordingly, PDIC filed
a petition for assistance in the liquidation of RBTI which was approved by the trial
court. As an incident of the proceeding, BIR intervened as one of the creditors of
RBTI. BIR contends that a tax clearance is required before the approval of project of
distribution of the assets of a bank. In denying their contention, the Court held that
Section 52(C) of the Tax Code of 1997 is not applicable to banks ordered placed
under liquidation by the Monetary Board, and a tax clearance is not a prerequisite to
the approval of the project of distribution of the assets of a bank under liquidation
by the PDIC. - Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs. Bureau Of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172892, June 13, 2013
VAT (Transitional Input Tax)
The BIR cannot issue a revenue regulation contrary to what the NIRC provides such
when the said regulation limits the coverage of the provision in the NIRC. Such
revenue regulation shall not produce any effect and cannot be source of any right. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner Of Internal
Revenue, Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 8, and Chief Assessment
Division, Revenue Region No. 8, G.R. No. 158885, October 2, 2009
Section 112(A) and (C) must be interpreted according to its clear, plain, and
unequivocal language. The taxpayer can file his administrative claim for refund or
credit at anytime within the two-year prescriptive period. If he files his claim on the
last day of the two-year prescriptive period, his claim is still filed on time. The
Commissioner will have 120 days from such filing to decide the claim. If the
Commissioner decides the claim on the 120th day, or does not decide it on that
day, the taxpayer still has 30 days to file his judicial claim with the CTA. This is not
only the plain meaning but also the only logical interpretation of Section 112(A) and
(C). - San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 205543, June 30, 2014
The Court has consolidated these 3 petitions as they involve the same parties,
similar facts and common questions of law. This is not the first time that Fort
Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC) has come to this Court about these
issues against the very same respondents (CIR), and the Court En Banc has resolved
them in two separate, recent cases that are applicable here. It is of course
axiomatic that a rule or regulation must bear upon, and be consistent with, the
provisions of the enabling statute if such rule or regulation is to be valid. In case of
conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail. To
be valid, an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict, the
provisions of the enabling law. An implementing rule or regulation cannot modify,
expand, or subtract from the law it is intended to implement. Any rule that is not
consistent with the statute itself is null and void. To recapitulate, RR 7-95, insofar as
it restricts the definition of "goods" as basis of transitional input tax credit under
Section 105 is a nullity. - Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Revenue District Officer, Revenue
Page 2 of 4

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015) Taxatio

n
District No. 44, Taguig and Pateros, Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
175707, November 19, 2014
For failure of Silicon to comply with the provisions of Section 112(C) of the NIRC, its
judicial claims for tax refund or credit should have been dismissed by the CTA for
lack of jurisdiction. The Court stresses that the 120/30-day prescriptive periods are
mandatory and jurisdictional, and are not mere technical requirements. - Silicon
Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 173241, March 25, 2015
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS TAX
JEC contented that it overpaid documentary stamp tax but the court ruled that it
failed to prove such contention. A documentary stamp tax is in the nature of an
excise tax. It is not imposed upon the business transacted but is an excise upon the
privilege, opportunity or facility offered at exchanges for the transaction of the
business. It is an excise upon the facilities used in the transaction of the business
separate and apart from the business itself. Documentary stamp taxes are levied on
the exercise by persons of certain privileges conferred by law for the creation,
revision, or termination of specific legal relationships through the execution of
specific instruments. - Jaka Investments Corporation vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 147629, July 28, 2010
Documentary stamp tax is a tax on documents, instruments, loan agreements, and
papers evidencing the acceptance, assignment, sale or transfer of an obligation,
right or property incident thereto. It is in the nature of an excise tax because it is
imposed upon the privilege, opportunity or facility offered at exchanges for the
transaction of the business. It is an excise upon the facilities used in the transaction
of the business distinct and separate from the business itself. - Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. Manila Bankers' Life Insurance Corporation, G.R. No.
169103, March 16, 2011
An electronic message containing instructions to debit their respective local or
foreign currency accounts in the Philippines and pay a certain named recipient also
residing in the Philippines is not transaction contemplated under Section 181 of the
Tax Code. They are also not bills of exchange due to their non-negotiability. Hence,
they are not subject to DST. - The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Limited-Philippine Branches vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 166018 & 167728, June 4, 2014
JUDICIAL REMEDIES
The appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is not limited to cases
which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on matters
relating to assessments or refunds. The issue of prescription of the Bureau of
Internal Revenues (BIRs) right to collect taxes may be considered as covered by
the term other matters over which the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has appellate
jurisdiction.

Page 3 of 4

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008-2015) Taxatio

n
Requisites before the Period to Enforce Collection may be Suspended (a) that the
taxpayer requests for reinvestigation, and (b) that petitioner grants such request. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010
PNB has not demonstrated any cogent reason for the SC to take an exception and
excuse PNBs blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a petition for review.
Furthermore, the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement. One
cannot escape the rigid observance of this rule by claiming oversight, or in this
case, lack of foresight. Neither can it be trifled with as a mere technicality to suit
the interest of a party. Verily, the periods for filing petitions for review and for
certiorari are to be observed religiously. Just as the losing party has the privilege to
file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the right to
enjoy the finality of the decision. - Philippine National Bank vs. Commissioner
Of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172458, December 14, 2011

Page 4 of 4