CIR v SM Prime Holdings, Inc.; G.R. No. 183505; 26 Feb 2010; 613 SCRA 774
FACTS: Respondents SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (SM Prime) and First Asia Realty Development Corporation (First Asia) are domestic corporations engaged in the business of operating cinema houses, among others. On various years, the BIR issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for deficiency VAT on cinema ticket sales against SM Prime (for taxable year 2000) and First Asia (for taxable years 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003). ISSUE(S): Whether or not the gross receipts derived by operators or proprietors of cinema/theater houses from admission tickets are subject to VAT. HELD: NO. When the VAT law was implemented, it exempted persons subject to…
CIR v Sony Philippines, Inc.; G.R. No. 178697; 17 Nov 2010; 649 Phil. 519
FACTS: In 1998, the CIR issued a Letter of Authority authorizing the examination of respondent’s books of accounts and other accounting records regarding revenue taxes for “the period 1997 and unverified prior years.” CIR disallowed Sony’s input VAT credits that should have been realized from the latter’s advertising expense on the ground that said expense was reimbursed by Sony International Singapore (SIS) in a form of a subsidy. The disallowance resulted in a deficiency VAT assessment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not there was a sale, barter or exchange between Sony and SIS. HELD: NO. There must be a sale, barter or exchange…
CIR v Magsaysay Lines, Inc.; G.R. No. 146984; 28 Jul 2006; 497 SCRA 63
FACTS:Pursuant to a government program of privatization, the National Development Company (NDC) decided to sell to private enterprise all of its shares in its wholly-owned subsidiary, the National Marine Corporation (NMC). It decided to sell in one lot its NMC shares and five (5) of its ships. ISSUE(S):Whether or not the sale by the NDC of five (5) of its vessels to the private respondents is subject to VAT. HELD:NO. VAT is levied only on the sale, barter or exchange of goods or services by persons who engage in such activities, in the course of trade or business. “Course of…
CIR v CA and Commonwealth Management and Services Corp.; G.R. No. 125355; 30 Mar 2000; 329 SCRA 237
FACTS: In 1992, the BIR issued an assessment to private respondent for deficiency VAT for taxable year 1988. Private respondent argued that the services it rendered relating to collections, consultative and other technical assistance, including functioning as an internal auditor, were on a “no-profit, reimbursement-of-cost basis only” and that it was not profit-motivated, thus not engaged in business. ISSUE(S): Whether or not private respondent was engaged in the sale of services and thus liable to pay VAT thereon. HELD: YES. It is immaterial whether the primary purpose of a corporation indicates that it receives payments for services rendered to its…
#LostStudent Blogger
Hi! It’s been a while since I’ve seriously updated this blog. So much has happened since I had stopped writing personal posts, primary of which was getting my ass into law school and finding myself drowning in all the legal terminologies and overwhelming pressure. I am now in my third year, which I believe could actually kill me before the school year is over. Nobody ever told me it’d be a whole new level of craziness!!! I find it harder to catch up on all of my readings. Well, truth be told, motivation and drive are coming in on short…
PNB v CA; G.R. No. 107508; 25 Apr 1996; 256 SCRA 491
FACTS: The Ministry of Education issued a check drawn against petitioner bank. The payee deposited the questioned check in its savings account with Capitol City Development Bank (Capitol) which in turn deposited the same in its account with respondent bank. After petitioner cleared the check, respondent bank credited Capitol for the amount. However, petitioner returned the check to PBCom and debited the latter’s account for the amount covered by the check because the check number was materially altered. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the alteration of the check number was material to its negotiability. HELD: What was altered is the serial…
International Corporate Bank v CA; G.R. No. 129910; 05 Sep 2006; 501 SCRA 20
FACTS: The Ministry of Education and Culture issued fifteen checks drawn against respondent bank which accepted them for deposit. After twenty-four hours from submission of the checks to respondent bank for clearing, petitioner bank paid the value of the checks and allowed the withdrawals of the deposits. However, respondent bank returned all the checks without clearing them because their serial numbers were altered. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the alteration of the checks’ serial number was material to their negotiability. HELD: NO. An alteration on the serial number of the check, an item which is not an essential requisite for negotiability,…
Gempesaw v CA; G.R. No. 92244; 09 Feb 1993; 218 SCRA 682
FACTS: To facilitate payment of debts to her suppliers, petitioner draws checks against her checking account with respondent bank as drawee. The checks are prepared and filled up by her trusted bookkeeper of eight years and submitted to petitioner for signature together with corresponding invoice receipts. Petitioner did not make any verification as to the correctness of the returned checks or to the payees’ actual receipt of the checks in payment. She later discovered that in the course of two years her bookkeeper had brought eighty-two checks with forged signatures of the payees to respondent bank which accepted them for…
Manila Lighter Trans., Inc. v CA; G.R. No. 50373; 15 Feb 1990; 182 SCRA 251
FACTS: Some forty-nine checks payable to petitioner were delivered to its collector. The checks bore the forged endorsement of its general manager and were negotiated by its accountant with an electronic store. The checks were deposited with respondent bank: three in the account of the electronic store, one in the account of its manager, and the rest in the personal account of its treasurer. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent bank was negligent in clearing and paying the checks with forged signature. HELD: NO. Since the petitioner was not a client of respondent Bank, the latter had no way of ascertaining…
Republic Bank v CA; G.R. No. 42725; 22 Apr 1991; 196 SCRA 100
FACTS: A check was drawn against an account with respondent bank. After it was delivered to the payee, the amount on its face was fraudulently altered and increased. Respondent bank learned of the material alteration in the amount of the check a month after it was paid, and only informed petitioner bank of it two months later. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner as collecting bank is relieved of liability to refund the amount paid by respondent drawee bank. HELD: YES. It is true that when an endorsement is forged, the collecting bank or last endorser, as a general rule, bears…