Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185666 2015-02-04	NIPPON EXPRESS CORP. v. CIR PEREZ, J.
Finally for academic discussion, as regards the substantiation requirements, it is worthy to mention that in Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[38] the High Court ruled that under the law, a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties while a VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties, and every sale, barter or exchange of services. In other words, the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. Thus, the High Court concluded that VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used interchangeably.
	GR No. 185969 2014-11-19	AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES v. CIR PEREZ, J.
To finally settle this matter, this Court declared in KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[38] that the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller. Thus, the High Court concluded that VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly, neither does the law intend the two to be used interchangeably. Accordingly, we agree with the mling of the CTA in Division, as well as that of the CTA En Banc, insofar as to its discussion on the relevancy of the aforesaid substantiation requirements.
	GR No. 196907 2013-03-13	NIPPON EXPRESS CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In another reversal of opinion, the CTA En Banc set aside the March 24, 2009 Amended Decision and the June 16, 2009 Resolution of the CTA First Division and dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. In its May 13, 2011 Resolution,[14] the CTA En Banc held that the 120-day period under Section 112(D) of the NIRC, which granted the CIR the opportunity to act on the claim for refund, was jurisdictional in nature such that petitioner's failure to observe the said period before resorting to judicial action warranted the dismissal of its petition for review for having been prematurely filed, in accordance with the ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.[15] With respect to the use of official receipts interchangeably with sales invoices, the tax court cited the ruling of the Court in Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[16] which concluded that a VAT invoice and a VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to the same thing. A VAT invoice was the seller's best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt was the buyer's best evidence of the payment of goods and services received from the seller.
	GR No. 179961 2011-01-31	KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
Regarding Kepco's contention, that non-compliance with the requirement of invoicing would only subject the non-complying taxpayer to penalties of fine and imprisonment under Section 264 of the Tax Code, and not to the outright denial of the claim for tax refund or credit, must likewise fail. Section 264 categorically provides for penalties in case of "Failure or Refusal to Issue Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices, Violations related to the Printing of such Receipts or Invoices and Other Violations," but not to penalties for failure to comply with the requirement of invoicing. As recently held in Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[18] "Section 264 of the 1997 NIRC was not intended to excuse the compliance of the substantive invoicing requirement needed to justify a claim for refund on input VAT payments."
	GR No. 179961 2011-01-31	KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, in a string of recent decisions on this matter, to wit: Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[19] J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[20] Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corp. (formerly Hitachi Computer Products (Asia) Corporations) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[21] and Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[22] this Court has consistently held that failure to print the word "zero-rated" on the invoices or receipts is fatal to a claim for refund or credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales.