Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CS GARMENT v. CIR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 167679 2015-07-22	ING BANK N.V. v. CIR LEONEN, J.
Qualified taxpayers with pending tax cases may still avail themselves of the tax amnesty program under Republic Act No. 9480,[1] otherwise known as the 2007 Tax Amnesty Act. Thus, the provision in BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008 excepting "[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" from the benefits of the law is illegal, invalid, and null and void.[2] The duty to withhold the tax on compensation arises upon its accrual.
	GR No. 167679 2015-07-22	ING BANK N.V. v. CIR LEONEN, J.
In CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[68] this court has "definitively declare[d] . . . the exception '[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer' under BIR [Revenue Memorandum Circular No.] 19-2008 [as] invalid, [for going] beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law."[69] Thus:[N]either the law nor the implementing rules state that a court ruling that has not attained finality would preclude the availment of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. Both R.A. 9480 and DOF Order No. 29-07 are quite precise in declaring that "[t]ax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts" are the ones excepted from the benefits of the law. In fact, we have already pointed out the erroneous interpretation of the law in Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, viz:
	GR No. 165451 2014-12-03	LG ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES v. CIR LEONEN, J.
In the recent case of CS Garment Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[56] we declared that: While tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, it is also a well-settled doctrine that the rule-making power of administrative agencies cannot be extended to amend or expand statutory requirements or to embrace matters not originally encompassed by the law. Administrative regulations should always be in accord with the provisions of the statute they seek to carry into effect, and any resulting inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of the basic law. We thus definitively declare that the exception "[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" under BIR RMC 19-2008 is invalid, as the exception goes beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law.[57] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)