Sunday, October 30, 2016

Nature of Proceeds of Life Insurance in relation to Income Tax

Nature of Proceeds of Life Insurance in relation to Income Tax
(as cited in EL ORIENTE FABRICA DE TABACOS, INC. vs. JUAN POSADAS)

"..proceeds of life insurance paid on the death of the insured are in fact capital, and cannot be taxed as income.."

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Tax Credit vs. Tax Deduction

Tax Credit vs. Tax Deduction
(as explained in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, GR No. 159647, April 15, 2005)

Friday, October 21, 2016

Philippine National Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 206019, March 18, 2015


Facts:

Gotesco entered into a loan agreement with PNB on April 7, 1995. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage of a six-hectare property known as Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex. Gotesco subsequently defaulted on its loan obligations and PNB foreclosed the mortgaged. On October 20, 2000, Gotesco filed a civil case against PNB before the RTC of Pasig, Branch 168 for the annulment of the foreclosure proceedings, specific performance and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction.

As PNB prepared to consolidate its ownership over the foreclosed property, PNB withheld and remitted to the BIR withholding taxes amounting to P74,400,028.49, or 6% of the bid price.

Realizing that it made a mistake, PNB filed an administrative claim for refund of excess withholding taxes on October 27, 2005. The next day, PNB filed its petition for review for the claim for refund before the tax court.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Cargill vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015

Facts:
Cargill, a VAT-registered domestic corporation, filed two petitions in the Court of Tax Appeals for the refund of unutilized input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales.

On June 27, 2003, Cargill filed an administrative claim for refund of unutilized input taxes with the BIR. Three days after, on June 30, 2003, Cargill filed the first petition with the Court of Tax Appeals.

The second petition was filed on May 31, 2005, which was the same date when Cargill filed an administrative claim with the BIR.

Issue:
Whether or not Cargill’s petitions for refund of unutilized input VAT before the CTA should be dismissed on the ground of prematurity?

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Applied Food Ingredients Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 184266, November 11, 2013

APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY, INC., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. NO. 184266, NOVEMBER 11, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioner Applied Food Ingredients Company, Inc. (AFIC) alleged that from September 1998 to December 31, 2000, it paid an aggregate sum of input taxes of P9,528,565.85 for its importation of food ingredients, as reported in its Quarterly VAT Return. Subsequently, these imported food ingredients were exported between the periods of April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. AFIC claimed that the export sales which transpired from April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 were “zero-rated” sales pursuant to Section 106 (A) (2)(a)(1) of the NIRC of 1997.

On March 26, 2002 and June 28, 2002, AFIC filed two separate applications for issuance of tax credit certificates amounting to a total of P9,528,565.85. Without waiting for the Commissioner's decision, AFIC elevated the case before the CTA on July 24, 2002.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Rules for claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized input credit VAT (From Commissioner vs. Visayas Geothermal Power Company, G.R. No. 181276)

The rules for the filing of a claim for refund or tax credit of unutilized input credit VAT are as follows:

1. The taxpayer has two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made within which to file an administrative claim before the CIR for a refund of the creditable input tax or the issuance of a tax credit certificate, regardless of when the input VAT was paid, according to Section 112(A) of the NIRC and Mirant(G.R. 172129).

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Visayas Geothermal Power Company, Inc. – G.R. No. 181276, November 11, 2013

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Visayas Geothermal Power Company, Inc. – G.R. No. 181276, November 11, 2013

Facts:

Respondent Visayas Geothermal Power Company, Inc. (VGPCI) is engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity. Due to Republic Act No. 9136, effective June 26, 2001, VGPCI’s sales of generated power becamse zero-rated and were no longer subject to VAT at 10%.