Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP v. CIR

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 195175 2015-08-10	CIR v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY SERENO, C.J.
A summary of rules on prescriptive periods involving claims for the refund of input VAT was provided in Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[14] as follows: Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods Involving VAT
	GR No. 185666 2015-02-04	NIPPON EXPRESS CORP. v. CIR PEREZ, J.
The same disposition was declared in Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[28] which, for emphasis, further provided a Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods Involving VAT as a guide for all parties concerned, to wit: We summarize the rules on the determination of the prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code, as follows:
	GR No. 183421 2014-10-22	CIR v. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA SERENO, C.J.
In Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[9] this Court has reiterated: Notwithstanding a strict construction of any claim for tax exemption or refund, the Court in San Roque recognized that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 constitutes equitable estoppel in favor of taxpayers. BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review." This Court discussed BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 and its effect on taxpayers, thus:
	GR No. 205055 2014-07-18	CIR v. TEAM SUAL CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
We adopt the above-mentioned findings of fact of the CTA Special First Division, as affirmed by the CTA EB. Whether TSC complied with the substantiation requirements of Section 112 of the NIRC and RR 3-88 is a question of fact,[19] which could only be answered after reviewing, examining, evaluating, or weighing all over again the probative value of the evidence before the CTA, which this Court does not have reason to do in the present petition for review on certiorari. The findings of fact of the CTA are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.[20] Since by the very nature of its functions, the CTA has developed an expertise on this subject, the Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions reached by them, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[21]
	GR No. 185432 2014-06-04	MIRAMAR FISH COMPANY v. CIR PEREZ, J.
In Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ,[25] the Second Division of this Court, in applying therein the ruling in the San Roque case, provided a Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods Involving VAT as a guide for all parties concerned, to wit: We summarize the rules on the determination of the prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code, as follows:
	GR No. 169778 2014-03-12	CIR v. SILICON PHILIPPINES PEREZ, J.
In the more recent consolidated cases of Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[32] the Second Division of this Court, in applying therein the ruling in the San Roque case, provided a Summary of Rules on Prescriptive Periods Involving VAT as a guide for all parties concerned, to wit: We summarize the rules on the determination of the prescriptive period for filing a tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT as provided in Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code, as follows:
	GR No. 184360 & 184361 2014-02-19	SILICON PHILIPPINES v. CIR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, a tax credit or refund, like tax exemption, is strictly construed against the taxpayer.[36] The taxpayer claiming the tax credit or refund has the burden of proving that he is entitled to the refund by showing that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the 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.[37] Noncompliance with the mandatory periods, nonobservance of the prescriptive periods, and nonadherence to exhaustion of administrative remedies bar a taxpayer's claim for tax refund or credit, whether or not the CIR questions the numerical correctness of the claim of the taxpayer.[38] For failure of Silicon to comply with the provisions of Section 112(C) of the NIRC, its judicial claims for tax refund or credit should have been dismissed by the CTA for lack of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 183880 2014-01-20	CIR v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY PERALTA, J.
(1) An administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. (2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction. (3) A judicial claim must be filed with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR's decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period without any action from the CIR. (4) All taxpayers, however, can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, as an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional 120+30 day periods.[10]
	GR Nos. 198729-30 2014-01-15	CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Prescinding from San Roque in the consolidated case Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Mindanao I Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[17] this Court has ruled thus: Notwithstanding a strict construction of any claim for tax exemption or refund, the Court in San Roque recognized that BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 constitutes equitable estoppel in favor of taxpayers. BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 expressly states that the "taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review." This Court discussed BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 and its effect on taxpayers, thus: