Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 196415 2015-12-02	CIR v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals,[59] we allowed offsetting of taxes in a tax refund case because there was an existing deficiency income and business tax assessment against the taxpayer. We said that "[t]o award such refund despite the existence of that deficiency assessment is an absurdity and a polarity in conceptual effects" and that "to grant the refund without determination of the proper assessment and the tax due would inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings or suits."[60]
	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[34] Taxes being the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents[35] the present amnesty tax law must be strictly construed against herein respondent which claims tax incentives granted to it by mere presidential proclamation. It is likewise settled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[36]
	GR No. 180356 2010-02-16	SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS v. CIR VELASCO JR., J.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals,[14] however, granted the offsetting of a tax refund with a tax deficiency in this wise: Further, it is also worth noting that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration alleging bringing to said court's attention the existence of the deficiency income and business tax assessment against Citytrust. The fact of such deficiency assessment is intimately related to and inextricably intertwined with the right of respondent bank to claim for a tax refund for the same year. To award such refund despite the existence of that deficiency assessment is an absurdity and a polarity in conceptual effects. Herein private respondent cannot be entitled to refund and at the same time be liable for a tax deficiency assessment for the same year.
	GR No. 156946 2009-07-15	SECRETARY OF FINANCE v. ORO MAURA SHIPPING LINES BRION, J.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Tariff and customs duties are taxes constituting a significant portion of the public revenue which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been ordained to perform for the welfare of its constituents.[28] Hence, their prompt and certain availability is an imperative need[29] and they must be collected without unnecessary hindrance.[30] [Emphasis supplied.]
	GR No. 178759 2008-08-11	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF CUSTOMS CORONA, J.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Tariff and customs duties are taxes constituting a significant portion of the public revenue which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been ordained to perform for the welfare of its constituents.[29] Hence, their prompt and certain availability is an imperative need[30] and they must be collected without unnecessary hindrance.[31] Clearly, and perhaps for that reason alone, the submission of the IEIRD cannot be left to the exclusive discretion or whim of the importer.
	GR NO. 165027 2006-10-16	PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the third requisite of litis pendentia, again, the petitioner failed to meet the same. This Court deems it necessary to quote the very wordings of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 29 April 2004, as follows: Moreover, a judgment in the criminal cases, to our mind, will not be determinative of the civil case upon which the principle of res judicata will operate. A judgment in the criminal cases will only lead to either conviction or acquittal of the accused officers of the petitioner as the crime only attaches to them but will not in anyway affect the liability of the petitioner as it is a distinct and separate juridical person. Nor do we believe that a finding on the efficacy of the TCCs will change the dire situation in which the Government finds itself in as the tax and the customs duties remain unpaid. The fate of the TCCs for whatever it's worth is already fait accompli. It is not disputed by the parties concerned that the subject TCCs have already been cancelled by the [DOF] for which reason the twin suits have been brought. It is on this basis too, that petitioner filed a [C]omplaint for [E]stafa against Devmark's officers before the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City. Hence, it is absurd for the petitioner to anchor its complaint on the alleged worthlessness of the TCCs only to argue in the present action that the same must await final determination in the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan.[28] Attention must be given to the fact that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents.[29] It is also settled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[30] So then, the determination of the validity or invalidity of the TCCs cannot be regarded as a prejudicial issue that must first be resolved with finality in the Criminal Cases filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Government should not and must not await the result of the criminal proceedings in the Sandiganbayan before it can collect the outstanding customs duties and taxes of the petitioner for such will unduly restrain the Government in doing its functions. The machineries of the Government will not be able to function well if the collection of taxes will be delayed so much so if its collection will depend on the outcome of any criminal proceedings on the guise that the issue of collection of taxes is a prejudicial issue that need to be first resolved before enforcing its collection.
	GR No. 119286 2004-10-13	PASEO REALTY v. CA TINGA, J,
The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, i.e., that the facts stated therein are true and correct.[25] Without the tax return, it is error to grant a refund since it would be virtually impossible to determine whether the proper taxes have been assessed and paid.