Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. MIRANT

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In his Dissenting Opinion[9] which was concurred in by Justice Fabon-Victorino, Justice Castañeda expressed the view that the CTA-En Banc should have reinstated the CTA-Division's original decision because in the cases of Philam Asset Management Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Philam);[10] State Land Investment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (State Land);[11] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PERF Realty Corporation (PERF Realty);[12] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation (Mirant),[13] this Court already ruled that requiring the ITR or the FAR for the succeeding year in a claim for refund had no basis in law and jurisprudence. According to him, the submission of the FAR of the succeeding taxable year was not required under the law to prove the claimant's entitlement to excess or unutilized CWT, and by following logic, the submission of quarterly income tax returns for the subsequent taxable period was likewise unnecessary. He found no justifiable reason not to follow the existing rulings of this Court.
	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
On July 27, 2011, the CTA-Division reversed itself. In an Amended Decision,[4] it denied the entire claim of petitioner. It reasoned out that petitioner should have presented as evidence its first, second and third quarterly ITRs for the year 2004 to prove that the unutilized CWT being claimed had not been carried over to the succeeding quarters. Thus:
	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In his Dissenting Opinion[9] which was concurred in by Justice Fabon-Victorino, Justice Castañeda expressed the view that the CTA-En Banc should have reinstated the CTA-Division's original decision because in the cases of Philam Asset Management Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Philam);[10] State Land Investment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (State Land);[11] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PERF Realty Corporation (PERF Realty);[12] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation (Mirant),[13] this Court already ruled that requiring the ITR or the FAR for the succeeding year in a claim for refund had no basis in law and jurisprudence. According to him, the submission of the FAR of the succeeding taxable year was not required under the law to prove the claimant's entitlement to excess or unutilized CWT, and by following logic, the submission of quarterly income tax returns for the subsequent taxable period was likewise unnecessary. He found no justifiable reason not to follow the existing rulings of this Court.
	GR No. 185728 2013-10-16	CIR v. TEAM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Thus, we are in accord with the findings of the CTA First Division and the CTA En Banc that respondent complied with the substantiation requirements for refund of creditable withholding tax. Here, respondent was able to establish the fact of withholding by submitting a copy of the withholding tax certificates duly issued by MPagC and MSC, as the withholding agent, indicating the name of the payor and showing the income payment basis of the tax withheld and the amount of the tax withheld. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, it is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source to be presented and to testify personally as to the authenticity of the certificates. The copies of the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source when found by the duly commissioned ICPA to be faithful reproductions of the original copies would suffice to establish the fact of withholding. This was our ruling in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation,[17] where this Court had agreed with the conclusion of the CTA En Banc stating that
	GR No. 168331 2012-10-11	UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES AB v. CIR PERALTA, J.
From the aforequoted provision, it is clear that once a corporation exercises the option to carry-over, such option is irrevocable "for that taxable period." Having chosen to carry-over the excess quarterly income tax, the corporation cannot thereafter choose to apply for a cash refund or for the issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount representing such overpayment.[7]