Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES v. CIR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205055 2014-07-18	CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
We likewise applied RR 3-88 in AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[17] and held that only preponderance of evidence as applied in ordinary civil cases is needed to substantiate a claim for tax refund.
	GR No. 194105 2014-02-05	CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION REYES, J.
TSC nevertheless claims that the Court's ruling in Aichi should only be applied prospectively; that prior to Aichi, the Court supposedly ruled that a taxpayer-claimant need not await the lapse of the 120-day period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC before filing a petition for review with the CTA as shown by the Court's ruling in the cases of Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[25] San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[26] and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[27]
	GR No. 196907 2013-03-13	NIPPON EXPRESS CORPORATION v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
The CTA En Banc later changed its position on September 22, 2010 when it issued its Amended Decision[11] granting petitioner's motion for reconsideration, setting aside its own June 11, 2010 Decision and affirming the March 24, 2009 Amended Decision of the CTA First Division. In view of the pronouncement of the Court in the case of AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[12] that Section 113 of the NIRC did not distinguish between a sales invoice and an official receipt, the CTA En Banc found petitioner's sales invoices to be acceptable proof to support its claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate representing its excess or unutilized input VAT arising from zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
In AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. CIR,[73] the Court stated: "x x x the CTA First Division, conceding that petitioner's transactions fall under the classification of zero-rated sales, nevertheless denied petitioner's claim 'for lack of substantiation,' x x x." The Court quoted the ruling of the First Division that "valid VAT official receipts, and not mere sale invoices, should have been submitted" by petitioner to substantiate its claim. The Court further stated: "x x x the CTA En Banc, x x x affirmed x x x the CTA First Division," and "petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied x x x, the present petition for review was filed." Clearly, the sole issue in this case is whether petitioner complied with the substantiation requirements in claiming for tax refund or credit. Again, nowhere in this case did the Court discuss, state, or rule that the filing dates of the administrative and judicial claims are inconsequential, as long as they are within the two-year prescriptive period.