1. BRIXTON INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs CIR

FACTS:

Petitioner received a FLD/FAN from the BIR Regional Director for its alleged deficiency income tax and VAT. The Regional Director thereafter sent a letter to the petitioner revising the assessment. The petitioner then filed for petition for review in the CTA.

CTA DIVISION: dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction

Motion for Reconsideration filed by Brixton: denied

ISSUE: whether or not the filing of petition for review was proper

HELD: No, the petition was prematurely filed

RATIO:

Under section 228 of the NIRC, the taxpayer who protests an assessment has two remedies, either to appeal within 30 days from receipt of decision or within 30 days after the lapse of the 180 days inaction of the CIR. In this case, the letter was not the decision that the NIRC contemplated, therefore it is not an appealable decision and the CIR still has 5 months to render a decision when petitioner filed its petition for review.

2. CIR vs SONOMA SERVICES INCORPORATED

FACTS:

Respondent filed an Annual ITR and thereafter a filed for refund for its overpaid creditable withholding tax for the year 2008. Due to the inaction of the BIR, respondent filed a petition for review in the CTA division

CTA DIVISION: ordered the refund

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the BIR was denied but petitioner allowed already the refund

ISSUE: whether respondent was entitled for refund

HELD: Yes

RATIO: already moot and academic as the BIR already granted its refund

3. CIR vs HERMANO (SAN) MIGUEL FEBRES CORDERO MEDICAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION

FACTS:

Respondent received a PAN on January 5, 2009 dated December 12, 2008. Respondent filed a protest against the PAN on January 20, 2009. Respondent then received a FAN on January 21, 2009 for deficiency EWT. On February 19, 2009 Respondent filed a protest to FAN alleging that it failed to comply with section 228 of the NIRC and that the period to assess for deficiency EWT for the period of June 2004 to May 2005 has already prescribed under section 203 of the NIRC

BIR: denied protest, respondent filed for petition for review

BIR argues that1. A withholding tax assessment is not a tax but a penalty and is therefore not covered by the 3

year period of prescription to collect taxes2. Assuming argumenti that withholding tax is an internal revenue tax, she has 10 years to assess

respondent since the latter filed a false return

RESPONDENT:1. The 3 year period to assess it for deficiency EWT covering the taxable period June 2004 to May

2005 has already prescribed2. It did not file a false or fraudulent return

ISSUE: whether or not the FLD/FAN is valid

CTA DIVISION: granted

Motion for Reconsideration filed by BIR: denied, petitioner filed a petition for review in the CTA

HELD: Invalid

RATIO:

A taxpayer is given 15 days to respond to the PAN within 15 days from receipt thereof and upon the lapse of the 15 day period without any response from the taxpayer, the latter shall be considered in default and the BIR shall issue a formal letter of demand and assessment notices.

Here, respondent received a copy of the PAN dated December 12, 2008 on January 5, 2009. Respondent has 15 days or until January 20, 2009 within which to file a reply. In this case, the FLD/FAN were already prepared by the BIR even before the lapse of the 15 day period within which the petitioner could file a reply or protest to the PAN.

4. CIR vs AXIA POWER HOLDINGS

FACTS:

Respondent filed for refund arising from its closure of business in the BIR. However, due to the inaction of the BIR, it filed a petition for review.

BIR argues that:

1. Claim for refund not fully substantiated by proper document2. The absence of any entry in the “creditable tax withheld” column in respondent’s 2009 income

tax return would mean that no part of the gross income reported therein were ever subjected to creditable withholding tax

RESPONDENT:

1. The non-presentation of the quarterly income tax returns/annual income tax return does not affect its claim for refund

2. There is no basis in stating that failure to fill up the “creditable tax withheld” column would necessarily mean that respondent failed to declare the income upon which the taxes were withheld as part of the gross income

CTA DIVISION: granted

ISSUE: whether or not respondent is entitled to tax refund

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the BIR: denied, BIR filed for petition for review

HELD: dismissed

RATIO:

1. Requiring that the ITR or FAR of the succeeding year to be presented to the BIR in requesting a tax refund has no basis in law and jurisprudence

2. Failure of the taxpayer to fill up the entry in the “creditable tax withheld” column is not fatal to its claim for refund since there is no law nor jurisprudence that requires it

5. CIR vs CE CASECNAN WATER AND ENERGY INC.

FACTS:

Respondent filed for refund for its unutilized input VAT for the 1 st to 4th quarters of 2010 and it did not carry over its unutilized input VAT in the succeeding quarter. Due to the inaction of the BIR, respondent filed a petition for review

CTA DIVISION: granted refund, BIR filed MR

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the BIR: denied, BIR filed a petition for review

BIR argues that:

1. Respondent failed to substantiate its claim for refund

ISSUE: whether or not respondent is entitled for refund for unutilized input VAT

HELD: Yes

RATIO:

1. Based on the evidence submitted, respondent has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund of its unutilized input VAT

2. Respondent likewise upon filing its claim for refund also submitted supporting documents

6. NTC vs MUNICIPALITY OF LABRADOR PANGASINAN

FACTS:

Petitioner received an assessment notice for local taxes due for the year of 2009 on the respondent municipality. For allegedly failing to file a protest thereto, the respondent filed for collection of local business tax

CTA DIVISION: ordered petitioner to pay local business tax

Motion for Reconsideration: denied, NTC filed a petition for review

NTC argues that:

1. It did not receive the assessment notice for the year20092. The protest filed for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 are sufficient protests for year 2009

ISSUE: whether or not its protest for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 is sufficient compliance

HELD: No

RATIO:

1. Under sec. 195 of the LGC, the protest must be filed within 60 days from receipt of assessment notice therefore the protest for 2006-2008 is invalid for the local business tax due on 2009

2. Petitioner received the assessment notice based on the receipt signed by its representative

7. CIR vs PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

FACTS:

Respondent filed for refund for its unutilized input VAT during the first quarter of 2010. However due to the inaction of the BIR, it filed a petition for review.

CIR argues that:

1. The words “zero rated” were not imprinted on the face of the sales invoices

CTA DIVISION: granted the petition for review and ordered refund

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the BIR: denied, CIR filed for petition for review

ISSUE: whether or not the claim for refund is valid

HELD: Yes

RATIO:

As seen from the invoices that were presented, all but one has “zero rated” imprinted on them, therefore the respondent is entitled for refund except with respect to the invoice not imprinted with “zero rated”