This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| GF questions the validity of Revenue Regulations No. 6-66, claiming that it is not a correct interpretation of Section 118(A) of the NIRC, and insisting that the gross receipts should be based on the "net net" amount the amount actually received, derived, collected, and realized by the petitioner from passengers, cargo and excess baggage. It further argues that the CAB approved fares are merely notional and not reflective of the actual revenue or receipts derived by it from its business as an international air carrier.[14] GF also insists that its construction of "gross receipts" to mean the "net net" amount actually received, rather than the CAB approved rates as mandated by Revenue Regulations No. 6-66, has been validated by the issuance of Revenue Regulations No. 15-2002 which expressly superseded the former. | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| GF itself is adamant that it does not seek the retroactive application of Revenue Regulations No. 15-2002.[17] Even if it were inclined to do so, it cannot insist on the application of the said rules because tax laws, including rules and regulations, operate prospectively unless otherwise legislatively intended by express terms or by necessary implication.[18] Although GF does not dispute that Revenue Regulations No. 6-66 was the applicable rule covering the taxable period involved, it puts in issue the wisdom of the said rule as it pertains to the definition of gross receipts. | |||||