This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is now settled that for purposes of determining their tax liability, pawnshops are treated as non-bank financial intermediaries.[11] | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[31] we ruled that: x x x Since petitioner is a non-bank financial intermediary, it is subject to 10% VAT for the tax years 1996 to 2002; however, with the levy, assessment and collection of VAT from non-bank financial intermediaries being specifically deferred by law, then petitioner is not liable for VAT during these tax years. But with the full implementation of the VAT system on non-bank financial intermediaries starting January 1, 2003, petitioner is liable for 10% VAT for said tax year. And beginning 2004 up to the present, by virtue of R.A. No. 9238, petitioner is no longer liable for VAT but it is subject to percentage tax on gross receipts from 0% to 5%, as the case may be. (Emphasis in the original text) | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On the issue of whether pawnshops are liable to pay VAT, the Court, in First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[21] held: In fine, prior to the [passage of the] EVAT Law [in 1994], pawnshops were treated as lending investors subject to lending investor's tax. Subsequently, with the Court's ruling in Lhuillier, pawnshops were then treated as VAT-able enterprises under the general classification of "sale or exchange of services" under Section 108 (A) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended. R.A. No. 9238 [which was passed in 2004] finally classified pawnshops as Other Non-bank Financial Intermediaries. | |||||