Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180290 2014-09-29	CIR v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONEN, J.
This court's ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asian Transmission Corporation,[27] citing the Court of Tax Appeals' explanation, is instructive: . . . proof of actual remittance by the respondent is not needed in order to prove withholding and remittance of taxes to petitioner. Section 2.58.3 (B) of Revenue Regulation No. 2-98 clearly provides that proof of remittance is the responsibility of the withholding agent and not of the taxpayer-refund claimant. It should be borne in mind by the petitioner that payors of withholding taxes are by themselves constituted as withholding agents of the BIR. The taxes they withhold are held in trust for the government. In the event that the withholding agents commit fraud against the government by not remitting the taxes so withheld, such act should not prejudice herein respondent who has been duly withheld taxes by the withholding agents acting under government authority. Moreover, pursuant to Section 57 and 58 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the withholding of income tax and the remittance thereof to the BIR is the responsibility of the payor and not the payee. Therefore, respondent . . . has no control over the remittance of the taxes withheld from its income by the withholding agent or payor who is the agent of the petitioner. The Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source issued by the withholding agents of the government are prima facie proof of actual payment by herein respondent-payee to the government itself through said agents.[28]
	GR No. 181459 2014-06-09	CIR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY PERALTA, J.
Finally, we ought to remind petitioner that the arguments it raised in support of its position have already been thoroughly discussed both by the CTA-First Division and the CTA En Banc. Oft-repeated is the rule that the Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[37] This Court recognizes that the CTA's findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence, or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court.[38] In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every respect.[39] It has been a long-standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the CTA, a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.[40]
	GR No. 183880 2014-01-20	CIR v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY PERALTA, J.
Moreover, it is doctrinal that the Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[12]
	GR No. 185728 2013-10-16	CIR v. TEAM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the third condition, both the CTA First Division and the CTA En Banc ruled that respondent has sufficiently established the fact of withholding by presenting the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source issued by MPagC and MSC for the year 2002. We find no cogent reason to deviate from these findings. Oft-repeated is the rule that the Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[15] After a thorough review of the case, we find no abuse or improvident exercise of authority on the part of the CTA in granting respondent's claim for tax refund.
	GR No. 175142 2013-07-22	BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION v. CIR PERALTA, J.
As a final point, it is doctrinal that the Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[17]