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?