Deutsche Bank vs. CIR G.R. No.

188550
Bearing in mind the rationale of tax treaties, the period of application for the availment of tax treaty relief
as required by RMO No. 1-2000 should not operate to divest entitlement to the relief as it would constitute
a violation of the duty required by good faith in complying with a tax treaty. Section 229 of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provides the taxpayer a remedy for tax recovery when there has been an
erroneous payment of tax.
Duty Free Philippines vs. BIR G.R. No. 197228
The enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 9282, which took effect on 23 April 2004, elevated the rank of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to the level of a collegiate court, making it a coequal body of the Court of
Appeals (CA).
Samar-I Electric Cooperative vs. CIR G.R. No. 193100
Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) sets the three (3)-year prescriptive period to
assess; Exceptions.While petitioner is correct that Section 203 sets the three-year prescriptive period to
assess, the following exceptions are provided under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, viz.: SEC. 222.
Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes.(a) In the case of a false or
fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a
proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within
ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission. Provided, That in a fraud assessment
which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil
or criminal action for the collection thereof. (b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section
203 for the assessment of the tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its
assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. The period so agreed
upon may be extended by subsequent written agreement made before the expiration of the period
previously agreed upon. (c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of
limitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in
court within five (5) years following the assessment of the tax. (d) Any internal revenue tax, which has
been assessed within the period agreed upon as provided in paragraph (b) hereinabove, may be collected by
distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within the period agreed upon in writing before the expiration
of the five (5)-year period. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreements
made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon. (e) Provided, however, That nothing in
the immediately preceding Section and paragraph (a) hereof shall be construed to authorize the examination
and investigation or inquiry into any tax return filed in accordance with the provisions of any tax amnesty
law or decree. (Emphasis supplied) In the case at bar, it was petitioners substantial underdeclaration of
withholding taxes in the amount of P2,690,850.91 which constituted the falsity in the subject returns
giving respondent the benefit of the period under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997 to assess the correct
amount of tax at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission.
CIR vs. Pilipinas Shell G.R. No. 192398
Sec. 196 of the NIRC show it pertains only to sale transactions where real property is conveyed to a
purchaser for a consideration. The phrase "granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed" is
qualified by the word "sold" which means that documentary stamp tax under Section 196 is imposed on the
transfer of realty by way of sale and does not apply to all conveyances of real property. The fact that
Section 196 refers to words "sold", "purchaser" and "consideration" undoubtedly leads to the conclusion
that only sales of real property are contemplated therein.
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines vs. City of Manila G.R. No. 197561
It could not have been the intention of the law to burden the taxpayer with going through the process of
execution under the Rules of Civil Procedure before it may be allowed to avail its tax credit as affirmed by
a court judgment.

Team Energy vs. CIR G.R. No. 197760

The taxpayer can file his administrative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate 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 of Internal Revenue (CIR) will then have 120 days from such
filing to decide the claim. If the CIR 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 Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). In other words,
the taxpayer may within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the
expiration of the one hundred twenty day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the [CTA]
CIR vs. Mindanao II G.R. No. 191498
Thetaxpayercanfiletheappealinoneoftwoways:(1)filethejudicialclaimwithinthirtydaysafterthe
Commissionerdeniestheclaimwithinthe120dayperiod,or(2)filethejudicialclaimwithinthirtydays
fromtheexpirationofthe120dayperiodiftheCommissionerdoesnotactwithinthe120dayperiod. The
30dayperiodtoappealisbothmandatoryandjurisdictional.
CityofManilavs.CuerdoG.R.No.175723
The CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order
issued by the RTC in a local tax case. In order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its
appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In
transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be
assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not
indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the
transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.

PHILIPPINEAIRLINES,INC.vs.COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,G.R.No.198759
(2013).
Section204(c)oftheNIRCprovidesthatitisthestatutorytaxpayerwhichhasthelegalpersonalitytofilea
claim forrefund.Accordingly,incasesinvolvingexcise taxexemptionsonpetroleum productsunder
Section135,theCourthasconsistentlyheldthatitisthestatutorytaxpayerwhoisentitledtoclaimatax
refund based thereon and not the party who merely bears its economic burden. However, the
abovementionedruleshouldnotapplytoinstanceswherethelawclearlygrantsthepartytowhichthe
economicburdenofthetaxisshiftedanexemptionfrombothdirectandindirecttaxes.Inwhichcase,the
lattermustbeallowedtoclaimataxrefundevenifitisnotconsideredasthestatutorytaxpayerunderthe
law.Inthiscase,PALsfranchisegrantsitanexemptionfrombothdirectandindirecttaxesonitspurchase
ofpetroleumproducts.Hence,PALhasthelegalpersonalitytofiletheclaimforrefundforthepassedon
excisetaxesbecauseofitsfranchise.
SMI-ED PHILIPPINES TECHNOLOGY, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
G.R. No. 175410, November 12, 2014
The Supreme Court ruled that in an action for the refund of taxes allegedly erroneously paid, the Court of
Tax Appeals may determine whether there are taxes that should have been paid is not assessment. It is
incidental to determining whether there should be a refund.