Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 188016 2015-01-14	REPUBLIC v. TEAM BERSAMIN, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[15] the Court, citing the pronouncement in Philam Asset Management, Inc., points out that Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is clear and unequivocal in providing that the carry-over option, once actually or constructively chosen by a corporate taxpayer, becomes irrevocable. The Court explains: Hence, the controlling factor for the operation of the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option; and once it had already done so, it could no longer make another one. Consequently, after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its excess tax credit to the following taxable period, the question of whether or not it actually gets to apply said tax credit is irrelevant. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is explicit in stating that once the option to carry over has been made, "no application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor."
	GR No. 189440 2014-06-18	CIR v. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the present case, the respondent filed its administrative claim on May 30, 2003. The petitioner CIR therefore had only until September 27, 2003 to decide the claim, and following the petitioner's inaction, the respondent had until October 27, 2003, the last day of the 30-day period to file its judicial claim. However, the respondent filed its judicial claim with the CTA only on March 31, 2004 or 155 days late. Clearly, the respondent's judicial claim has prescribed and the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the claim. Well to remember, the right to appeal to the CTA from a decision or "deemed a denial" decision of the CIR is merely a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. The exercise of such statutory privilege requires strict compliance with the conditions attached by the statute for its exercise.[22] The respondent failed to comply with the statutory conditions and must thus bear the consequences. Further, well settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits, just like tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer.[23] The burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.
	GR Nos. 198729-30 2014-01-15	CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits, just like tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer.[26] The burden is on the taxpayer to show strict compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.[27]
	GR No. 184266 2013-11-11	APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
At the outset, bearing in mind that tax refunds or credits - just like tax exemptions - are strictly construed against taxpayers,[10] the latter have the burden to prove strict compliance with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
This Court cannot brush aside the grave issue of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120-day period just because the Commissioner merely asserts that the case was prematurely filed with the CTA and does not question the entitlement of San Roque to the refund. The mere fact that a taxpayer has undisputed excess input VAT, or that the tax was admittedly illegally, erroneously or excessively collected from him, does not entitle him as a matter of right to a tax refund or credit. Strict compliance with the mandatory and jurisdictional conditions prescribed by law to claim such tax refund or credit is essential and necessary for such claim to prosper. Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits, just like tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer.[51] The burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.
	GR No. 168331 2012-10-11	UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES AB v. CIR PERALTA, J.
To avoid confusion, this Court has properly explained the phrase "for that taxable period" in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands.[8] In said case, the Court held that the phrase merely identifies the excess income tax, subject of the option, by referring to the "taxable period when it was acquired by the taxpayer." Thus: x x x Section 76 remains clear and unequivocal. Once the carry-over option is taken, actually or constructively, it becomes irrevocable. It mentioned no exception or qualification to the irrevocability rule.
	GR No. 171742 2011-06-15	CIR v. MIRANT MENDOZA, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bankof the Philippine Islands, [25] the Court, citing the aforequoted pronouncement in Philam Asset Management, Inc., points out that Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is clear and unequivocal in providing that the carry-over option, once actually or constructively chosen by a corporate taxpayer, becomes irrevocable. The Court explains: Hence, the controlling factor for the operation of the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option; and once it had already done so, it could no longer make another one. Consequently, after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its excess tax credit to the following taxable period, the question of whether or not it actually gets to apply said tax credit is irrelevant. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is explicit in stating that once the option to carry over has been made, "no application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor."
	GR No. 160949 2011-04-04	CIR v. PL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES BERSAMIN, J.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[13] the Court, citing the aforequoted pronouncement in Philam Asset Management, Inc., points out that Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is clear and unequivocal in providing that the carry-over option, once actually or constructively chosen by a corporate taxpayer, becomes irrevocable. The Court explains: Hence, the controlling factor for the operation of the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option; and once it had already done so, it could no longer make another one. Consequently, after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its excess tax credit to the following taxable period, the question of whether or not it actually gets to apply said tax credit is irrelevant. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is explicit in stating that once the option to carry over has been made, "no application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor."