This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We have long recognized that the method of withholding tax at source is a procedure of collecting income tax which is sanctioned by our tax laws.[66] The withholding tax system was devised for three primary reasons: first, to provide the taxpayer a convenient manner to meet his probable income tax liability; second, to ensure the collection of income tax which can otherwise be lost or substantially reduced through failure to file the corresponding returns and third, to improve the government's cash flow.[67] This results in administrative savings, prompt and efficient collection of taxes, prevention of delinquencies and reduction of governmental effort to collect taxes through more complicated means and remedies.[68] | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The CTA, citing Section 10 of Revenue Regulations 6-85 and Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals,[5] determined the requisites for a claim for refund, thus:1) That the claim for refund was filed within the two (2) year period as prescribed under Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code; | |||||
|
2008-01-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Substantial justice, equity and fair play are on the side of petitioner. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it, thereby enriching itself at the expense of its law-abiding citizens.[9] Under the principle of solutio indebiti provided in Art. 2154, Civil Code,[10] the BIR received something "when there [was] no right to demand it," and thus, it has the obligation to return it.[11] Heavily militating against respondent Commissioner is the ancient principle that no one, not even the state, shall enrich oneself at the expense of another. Indeed, simple justice requires the speedy refund of the wrongly held taxes.[12] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals[17] instructs:A refund claimant is required to prove the inclusion of the income payments which were the basis of the withholding taxes and the fact of withholding. However, detailed proof of the truthfulness of each and every item in the income tax return is not required. That function is lodged in the commissioner of internal revenue by the NIRC which requires the commissioner to assess internal revenue taxes within three years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return. In San Carlos Milling Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court held that the internal revenue branch of government must investigate and confirm the claims for tax refund or credit before taxpayers may avail themselves of this option. The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid; that is, the facts stated therein are true and correct. In fact, even without petitioner's tax claim, the commissioner can proceed to examine the books, records of the petitioner-bank, or any data which may be relevant or material in accordance with Section 16 of the present NIRC. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2005-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Besides, "tax refunds x x x are construed strictly against the taxpayer."[48] Petitioner has failed to meet the burden of proof required in order to establish the factual basis of its claim for a tax refund. | |||||
|
2004-10-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In this case, petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence to prove its claim for refund is fatal to its cause. After all, it is axiomatic that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer.[28] | |||||