Taxation Law - page 6

FACTS: On 30 September 2004, respondent filed a claim for refund/credit of input VAT for the period 01 July 2002 to 30 September 2002 with the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On the same date, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the refund/credit of the same input VAT. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent’s administrative and judicial claims for tax refund/credit were filed within the two-year prescriptive period. HELD: NO. The administrative and the judicial claims were simultaneously filed on 30 September 2004. Obviously, respondent did not wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner corporation, a VAT-registered taxpayer, filed with the BIR its VAT return for the first quarter of 1992. It alleged that it likewise filed with the BIR the corresponding application for the refund/credit of its input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its  zero-rated sales. When its application for refund/credit remained unresolved by the BIR, petitioner corporation filed on 20 April 1994 its petition for Review with the CTA. A review of the records reveal that petitioner corporation’s application for refund/credit of its input VAT for the first quarter of 1992 was not only unsigned by…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 06 October 2005, respondent filed with the BIR an application for the refund or credit of accumulated unutilized creditable input taxes. It filed on 21 July 2006 a Petition for Review with the CTA, claiming inaction on the part of the CIR. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent’s judicial claim for refund or tax credit was timely filed. HELD: NO. The taxpayer can file an appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within thirty days after the Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day period; or (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days from…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent secured the services of Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan but opted not to immediately pay the VAT component of the progress billings from Mitsubishi for the period covering 07 April 1993 to 06 September 1996. It was only on 14 April 1998 when respondent paid Mitsubishi the VAT component for said progress billings. On 25 August 1998, it filed its quarterly VAT return for the second quarter of 1998 where it reflected an input VAT, including that which was paid on 14 April 1998. On 20 December 1999, respondent filed an administrative claim for refund of unutilized input VAT.…

Keep Reading

FACTS:Respondent is a servicing unit of American Express International, Inc. – Hongkong Branch (AmEx-HK) and is engaged primarily to facilitate the collections of AmEx-HK receivables from card members situated in the Philippines and payments to service establishments in the country. On 23 March 1999, it amended its quarterly VAT returns for the period January to December 1997. On 13 April 1999, it filed with the BIR a letter-request for the refund of its 1997 excess input taxes. ISSUE(S):Whether or not petitioner’s sale of service is VAT zero-rated. HELD:YES. Respondent met all three requirements for exemption from the destination rule. Its…

Keep Reading

FACTS:Petitioner, a domestic corporation registered as an Ecozone Export Enterprise at the Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone, filed on 05 August 2003 its Amended VAT Return declaring unutilized input tax from its domestic purchases of capital goods, other than capital goods and services, for the third and fourth quarters of 2002. On 14 June 2004, it filed with the BIR its Application for Tax Credits/Refund together with supporting documents. Due to the alleged inaction of the respondent, petitioner elevated its claim to the CTA on 08 July 2004 by petition for review. The CTA in Division however on 10 March…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent is a domestic corporation whose principal office is located at the Special Export Processing Zone, Laguna Technopark, Biñan, Laguna. On 11 November 1998, it filed two separate applications for tax credit/refund of VAT input taxes paid for the period January to March 1997 and April to June 1997, respectively. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent is entitled to the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for unutilized input taxes paid on domestic purchase of capital goods and services for the period covering January to June 1997. HELD: YES. While an ecozone is geographically within the Philippines, it is…

Keep Reading

FACTS:In response to reports of smuggling of petroleum and petroleum products and to ensure the correct taxes are paid and collected, petitioner Secretary of Finance – pursuant to his authority to interpret tax laws and upon the recommendation of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue signed RR 2-2012 on 17 February 2012. The RR requires the payment of VAT and excise tax on the imporation of all petroleum and petroleum products coming directly from abroad and brought into the Philippines, including the freeport and economic zones (FEZs). It then allows the credit or refund of any VAT or excise tax paid…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent is a resident foreign corporation registered in and operating from the Philippine Export Zone Authority (PEZA) to engage in the manufacture of recording components primarily used in computers for export. On 04 October 1999, it filed an administrative claim for refund of VAT input taxes covered by its VAT returns for the period 01 April 1998 to 30 June 1999. The CIR did not act upon said administrative claim, prompting respondent to elevate the case to the CTA. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent is not subject to VAT and therefore entitled to refund or credit for VAT taxes…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Upon finding some discrepancies between MEDICARD’s Income Tax Returns (ITR) and VAT Returns, the CIR issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) against MEDICARD for deficiency VAT. It posited the taxable base of HMOs for VAT purposes is its gross receipts without any deduction under Section 4.108.3(k) of Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 16-2005. MEDICARD ratiocinated that under its contract with its corporate clients, it expressly provides that 20% of the membership fees per individual, regardless of the amount involved, already includes the VAT of 10%/20% excluding the remaining 80% because MEDICARD would earmark this latter portion for medical utilization of…

Keep Reading