Just another mommy blogger from Asia’s Latin City

Category archive

Legal Chyme - page 2

CIR v Smart Communications, Inc.; G.R. Nos. 179045-46; 25 Aug 2010

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS:Respondent on 25 May 2001 entered into three agreements for programming and consultancy services with Prism Transactive (M) Sdn. Bhd., a Malaysian corporation. On 25 September 2001, it filed its Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld for the Month of August 2001, including the 25% royalty tax it withheld from its payment to Prism. On 24 September 2003, respondent filed with the BIR, through the latter’s International Tax Affairs Division, an administrative claim for refund. ISSUE(S):Whether or not a withholding agent has a legal right to file a claim for tax refund. HELD:YES. First, a withholding agent is…

Keep Reading

CIR v Manila Electric Company; G.R. No. 181459; 09 Jun 2014

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Respondent obtained two loans from the Singapore branch of a German bank. Pursuant to the loan agreements, respondent paid/remitted to the BIR the corresponding 10% final withholding tax (FWT) on its interest payments on the loan covering the period from January 1999 to September 2003. It discovered sometime in 2001 that the bank is a foreign government-owned financing institution in Germany and confirmed with the BIR that the interest payments made to the German bank are exempt from the 10% FWT. On 13 July 2004, respondent filed with petitioner a claim for tax refund or issuance of tax credit…

Keep Reading

CIR v Goodyear Philippines, Inc.; G.R. No. 216130; 03 Aug 2016

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: On 15 October 2008, respondent filed an application for relief from double taxation before the International Tax Affairs division of the BIR to confirm that the redemption of respondent’s preferred shares owned by an American company was not subject to Philippine income tax. Nonetheless, respondent still withheld and remitted 15% final withholding tax (FWT) to the BIR on 03 November 2008. On 21 October 2010, respondent filed an administrative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) before the BIR. On 03 November 2010, it filed a judicial claim by way of petitioner for review before the…

Keep Reading

Systra Philippines, Inc. v CIR; G.R. No. 176290; 21 Sep 2007

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for the taxable year 2000 declaring unutilized tax credits and opting to carry over said excess tax credit to the succeeding taxable year 2001. It filed its Annual ITR for the taxable year 2001 also stating overpayment of withholding tax and indicating therein the option “To be issued a Tax Credit Certificate” relative to said excess tax credit. On 09 August 2002, petitioner instituted a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate with the BIR of its unutilized creditable withholding tax. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the exercise of the option…

Keep Reading

Belle Corp. v CIR; G.R. No. 181298; 10 Jan 2011

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS:Petitioner filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the taxable year ending 31 December 1997 reflecting an overpayment of income taxes. Instead of claiming the amount as a tax refund, petitioner decided to apply it as a tax credit to the succeeding taxable year by marking the tax credit option box in its 1997 ITR. For the taxable year 1998, petitioner’s amended ITR also showed an overpayment. On 12 April 2000, petitioner filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund, carried over the overpaid amount to taxable year 1999 and applied a portion thereof to its 1999 Minimum Corporate Income…

Keep Reading

CIR v PL Management International Phils., Inc.; G.R. No. 160949; 04 Apr 2011

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: In its 1997 income tax return filed on 13 April 1998, respondent declared a creditable withholding tax of P1.2M for taxable year 1997 to be claimed as tax credit in taxable year 1998. On 13 April 1999, respondent submitted its ITR for taxable year 1998 in which it reported a net loss. Due to its net-loss position, it was unable to claim the P1.2M tax credit. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent may claim a refund of the unutilized creditable withholding tax for taxable year 1997. HELD: NO. Inasmuch as the respondent already opted to carry over its unutilized creditable…

Keep Reading

CIR v Isabela Cultural Corp.; G.R. No. 135210; 11 Jul 2001

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS:Respondent received an assessment letter dated 09 February 1990 stating that it had delinquent taxes due. It subsequently filed its motion for reconsideration on 23 March 1990. In support of its request for reconsideration, it sent to the CIR additional documents on 18 April 1990. The next communication respondent received was already the Final Notice Before Seizure dated 10 November 1994. ISSUE(S):Whether or not the Final Notice Before Seizure constitutes the final decision of the CIR appealable to the CTA. HELD:YES. The Final Notice Before Seizure cannot but be considered as the CIR’s decision disposing of the request for reconsideration…

Keep Reading

Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v CTA and CIR; G.R. No. L-25289; 28 Jun 1974

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: An exchange of correspondence between petitioner and the CIR ensued on petitioner’s liability for deficiency franchise tax, after the latter issued against petitioner a warrant of distraint and levy in November 1961 to enforce the collection of said franchise tax plus surcharge. Petitioner requested a recomputation of the 29 April 1963 revised assessment it received on 08 May 1963. When the CIR denied its request, it appealed to the CTA on 01 August 1963. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner timely appealed to the CTA. HELD: NO. The letter of demand dated April 29, 1963 unquestionably constitutes the final action…

Keep Reading

CIR v Union Shipping Corp. and CTA; G.R. No. L-66160; 21 May 1990

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioner assessed private respondent for deficiency taxes due for years 1971 and 1972. Private respondent protested the assessment but petitioner instead issued on 25 November 1976 a Warrant of Distraint and Levy. The latter reiterated its request for reinvestigation of the assessment and for reconsideration of the summary collection through the Warrant of Distraint and Levy. Again without action on the request for reinvestigation and reconsideration of the Warrant, petitioner filed a collection suit against private respondent. Summons was issued against the latter on 28 December 1978. On 10 January 1979, private respondent filed its petition for review with…

Keep Reading

Bank of the Philippine Islands v CIR; G.R. No. 139736; 17 Oct 2005

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS:On 10 October 1989, the BIR issued an assessment against petitioner finding the latter liable for deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) on its 1985 sales of US currency to the Central Bank of the Philippines. Petitioner in a letter protested against the assessment, requesting for reconsideration. Petitioner did not receive any immediate reply to its protest letter. The BIR on 23 October 1992 served petitioner a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy for the assessed deficiency DST for taxable year 1985. On 11 September 1997, respondent received a letter dated 13 August 1997 and signed by respondent denying petitioner’s request for…

Keep Reading

1 2 3 4 … 45
error: Content is protected !!
Go to Top