Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

STATE LAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
The Court reminds the CIR that substantial justice, equity and fair play take precedence over technicalities and legalisms. The government must keep in mind that it has no right to keep the money not belonging to it, thereby enriching itself at the expense of the law-abiding citizen[29] or entities who have complied with the requirements of the law in order to forward the claim for refund. Under the principle of solution indebiti provided in Article 2154 of the Civil Code, the CIR must return anything it has received.[30]
	GR No. 206526 2015-01-28	WINEBRENNER v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In its March 22, 2013 Decision,[6] the CTA-En Banc affirmed the Amended Decision of the CTA-Division. It stated that before a cash refund or an issuance of tax credit certificate for unutilized excess tax credits could be granted, it was essential for petitioner to establish and prove, by presenting the quarterly ITRs of the succeeding years, that the excess CWT was not carried over to the succeeding taxable quarters considering that the option to carry over in the succeeding taxable quarters could not be modified in the final adjustment returns (FAR). Because petitioner did not present the first, second and third quarterly ITRs for CY 2004, despite having offered and submitted the Annual ITR/FAR for the same year, the CTA-En Banc stated that the petitioner failed to discharge its burden, hence, no refund could be granted. In justifying its conclusions, the CTA-En Banc cited its own case of Millennium Business Services, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Millennium)[7] wherein it held as follows: Since the burden of proof is upon the claimant to show that the amount claimed was not utilized or carried over to the succeeding taxable quarters, the presentation of the succeeding quarterly income tax return and final adjustment return is indispensable to prove that it did not carry over or utilized the claimed excess creditable withholding taxes. Absent thereof, there will be no basis for a taxpayer's claim for refund since there will be no evidence that the taxpayer did not carry over or utilize the claimed excess creditable withholding taxes to the succeeding taxable quarters.
	GR No. 179632 2011-10-19	SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION v. CIR ABAD, J.
The principle of solutio indebiti should govern this case since the BIR received something that it was not entitled to. Thus, it has to return the same. The government should not use technicalities to hold on to money that does not belong to it.[6] Only a preponderance of evidence is needed to grant a claim for tax refund based on excess payment.[7]
	GR No. 181298 2011-01-10	BELLE CORPORATION v. CIR DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner insists that it is entitled to a refund as the ruling in Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [37] relied upon by the CA in denying its claim has been overturned by BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [38] AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [39] Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [40] and State Land Investment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. [41] In these cases, the taxpayers were allowed to claim refund of unutilized tax credits. [42] Similarly, in this case, petitioner asserts that it may still recover unutilized tax credits via a claim for refund. [43]
	GR No. 174157 2010-10-20	CIR v. MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES CARPIO, J.
We are not unaware of our ruling in another case allowing refund for excess tax payment in 1997 despite the taxpayer's selection of the carry-over and credit option, following Section 69 of the 1977 NIRC.[15] However, the issue of the applicability of the 1997 NIRC was never raised in that case. In the present case, the applicability of Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC over Section 69 of the 1977 NIRC was squarely raised as the core issue. In two other cases where the applicability of Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC was also squarely raised, the Court applied the irrevocability of the option clause under Section 76 to deny, as here, claims for refund without prejudice to the application of the overpayments to the taxpayers' liability in the succeeding tax cycles.[16] We held in the leading case of Philam Asset Management, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:[17]
	GR No. 180345 2009-11-25	SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To resolve the issue, this Court must re-examine the facts and the evidence offered by the parties. It is an accepted doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. However, this rule does not apply where the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered would justify a different conclusion.[23]