This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its Comment,[6] filed on July 28, 2014, ALPI made a survey of recent Court decisions that applied the San Roque case. It argued that in Republic v. GST Philippines,[7] CIR v. Visayas Geothermal,[8] Team Energy Corp. v. CIR,[9] Proctor & Gamble v. CIR,[10] and Visayas Geothermal v. CIR,[11] the Court applied BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because the judicial claims for VAT refund in these cases were filed within the interim period from December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010; and yet, the taxpayer claimants did not expressly state that they relied or claimed to be misled by the said BIR Ruling. Thus, ALPI concluded there was no need to specifically invoke BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 before a taxpayer could benefit from it. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It bears reiterating that the application for a tax treaty relief from the BIR should merely operate to confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to the relief.[49] Since CBK Power had requested for confirmation from the ITAD on June 8, 2001 and October 28, 2002[50] before it filed on April 14, 2003 its administrative claim for refund of its excess final withholding taxes, the same should be deemed substantial compliance with RMO No. 1-2000, as in Deutsche Bank. To rule otherwise would defeat the purpose of Section 229 of the NIRC in providing the taxpayer a remedy for erroneously paid tax solely on the ground of failure to make prior application for tax treaty relief.[51] As the Court exhorted in Republic v. GST Philippines, Inc.,[52] while the taxpayer has an obligation to honestly pay the right taxes, the government has a corollary duty to implement tax laws in good faith; to discharge its duty to collect what is due to it; and to justly return what has been erroneously and excessively given to it.[53] | |||||