This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-09-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Hence, Chevron has filed the Motion for Reconsideration, submitting that it was entitled to the tax refund or tax credit because ruling promulgated on April 25, 2012 in Pilipinas Shell,[15] on which the CTA En Banc had based its denial of the claim of Chevron, was meanwhile reconsidered by the Court's First Division on February 19, 2014.[16] | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Inasmuch as the Fiscal Incentive Review Board (FIRB) Resolution No. 24-87 issued on June 14, 1987, RESTORED the duty and tax exemptions enjoyed by Electric Cooperatives established pursuant to PD 269 (Sec. 39) which were previously withdrawn, and that the said Resolution No. 24-87 was issued in compliance with the mandate of Executive Order No. 93 which has been declared as a valid delegation of legislative power pursuant to the Maceda[7] case, there is no question that the herein defendant as an electric cooperative established under PD 269 is exempt from the payment of its realty taxes during the period covered by the herein complaint - 1985 to December 31, 1987. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The CTA En Banc held that excise taxes on domestic products are paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of the products from the place of production. The payment of an excise tax, being an indirect tax, can be shifted to the purchaser of goods but the statutory liability for such payment is still with the seller or manufacturer.[33] The CTA cited Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.:[34] | |||||
|
2008-09-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Under Section 13[4] of Republic Act No. (RA) 6395, the NPC's revised charter, NPC is exempt from all taxes. In Maceda v. Macaraig,[5] the Court construed the exemption as covering both direct and indirect taxes. | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Silkair nevertheless argues that it is exempt from indirect taxes because the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore grants exemption "from the same customs duties, inspection fees and other duties or taxes imposed in the territory of the first Contracting Party."[39] It invokes Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[40] which upheld the claim for tax credit or refund by the National Power Corporation (NPC) on the ground that the NPC is exempt even from the payment of indirect taxes. | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.[11] Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.[12] | |||||
|
2005-02-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| However, while the Local Government Code expressly repealed several laws, the Cockfighting Law was not among them. Section 534(f) of the Local Government Code declares that all general and special laws or decrees inconsistent with the Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly, but such clause is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the acts that are intended to be repealed.[43] It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that implied repeals are disfavored and will not be so declared unless the intent of the legislators is manifest.[44] As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and with knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is logical to conclude that in passing a statute it is not intended to interfere with or abrogate a former law relating to the same subject matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable but also clear and convincing as a result of the language used, or unless the latter Act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier.[45] | |||||