Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 770 views

    Tax Case Digest: PB Com V. CIR (1999) : G.R. No. 112024

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    PB Com v. CIR (1999) concerned PB Com's request for a tax refund of creditable taxes withheld by lessees in 1985 and 1986 when it reported net losses those years. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that (1) PB Com could not rely on a Revenue Memorandum Circular extending the prescriptive period for filing refund claims from 2 to 10 years as the BIR cannot legislate rules contrary to statutes passed by Congress, and (2) PB Com was assumed to have opted to credit the excess payments to future tax liabilities rather than claim a refund as provided by law since remedies are alternative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tax Case Digest: PB Com V. CIR (1999) : G.R. No. 112024

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    770 views2 pages
    PB Com v. CIR (1999) concerned PB Com's request for a tax refund of creditable taxes withheld by lessees in 1985 and 1986 when it reported net losses those years. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that (1) PB Com could not rely on a Revenue Memorandum Circular extending the prescriptive period for filing refund claims from 2 to 10 years as the BIR cannot legislate rules contrary to statutes passed by Congress, and (2) PB Com was assumed to have opted to credit the excess payments to future tax liabilities rather than claim a refund as provided by law since remedies are alternative.

    Original Title

    42 Pbcom digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PB Com v. CIR (1999) concerned PB Com's request for a tax refund of creditable taxes withheld by lessees in 1985 and 1986 when it reported net losses those years. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that (1) PB Com could not rely on a Revenue Memorandum Circular extending the prescriptive period for filing refund claims from 2 to 10 years as the BIR cannot legislate rules contrary to statutes passed by Congress, and (2) PB Com was assumed to have opted to credit the excess payments to future tax liabilities rather than claim a refund as provided by law since remedies are alternative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    770 views2 pages

    Tax Case Digest: PB Com V. CIR (1999) : G.R. No. 112024

    Uploaded by

    Rex
    PB Com v. CIR (1999) concerned PB Com's request for a tax refund of creditable taxes withheld by lessees in 1985 and 1986 when it reported net losses those years. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that (1) PB Com could not rely on a Revenue Memorandum Circular extending the prescriptive period for filing refund claims from 2 to 10 years as the BIR cannot legislate rules contrary to statutes passed by Congress, and (2) PB Com was assumed to have opted to credit the excess payments to future tax liabilities rather than claim a refund as provided by law since remedies are alternative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Tax Case Digest: PB Com V.

    CIR (1999)
     PB Com v. CIR 
    G.R. No. 112024  January 28, 1999
    QUISUMBING, J.

    Lessons Applicable: Lifeblood Theory, Due process of law under the Constitution in Required in
    Taxation, BIR function, statute > RMC, State not estopped by mistake of its agents, Claim for refund
    in the nature of tax exemption, remedies of refund and tax credit are alternative

    Laws Applicable:

    FACTS:
     Petitioner PBCom reported on its annual Income Tax Return for the year 1985 and 1986
    a net loss of P 25, 317, 228 and P 14, 129 602 respectively.  But during both year,
    PBCom's lessees withheld creditable taxes of P 282 795.50 in 1985 and P 234, 077.69
    in 1986.
     August 7, 1987: PBCom requested a tax credit for the overpayment of taxes in the 1st
    and 2nd quarters.
     July 25, 1988: PBCom filed a claim for refund of creditable taxes withheld by lessees.
     Pending the investigation, it filed a Petition for Review before the CTA who denied its
    request for filing beyond the 2-year reglementary period provided by Sec. 292 and 295 of
    the NIRC and the claim for 1986 was denied based on the assumption that it was
    automatically credited for the succeeding year as shown in its 1986 adjusted final
    corporate annual tax return.  
     PBCom filed a Motion for Reconsideration and then a Petition for Review with
    the CA which affirmed the CTA's decision. 
     It raised the matter to the SC where it argues that it relief on Rev. Memorandum Circular
    No. 285 issued April 1, 1985 that provides that the prescriptive period for overpayment is
    NOT 2 years but 10 years under Art. 114 of the Civil Code
    ISSUE:
    1. W/N PBCom can rely on RMC No. 785 changing the prescriptive period from 2 to 10 years
    2. W/N PBCom can be assumed to assail of tax crediting

    HELD: petition is hereby DENIED


    1. No.
     Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation.  Due process of law under the Constitution does
    not require judicial proceedings in tax cases. This must necessarily be so because it is
    upon taxation that the government chiefly relies to obtain the means to carry on its
    operations and it is of utmost importance that the modes adopted to enforce the
    collection of taxes levied should be summary and interfered with as little as possible.  
     From the same perspective, claims for refund or tax credit should be exercised within the
    time fixed by law because the BIR being an administrative body enforced to collect
    taxes, its functions should not be unduly delayed or hampered by incidental matters.
     Sec. 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1977 (now Sec. 229, NIRC of
    1997) provides for the prescriptive period for filing a court proceeding with the CIR for
    the recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected  within 2 years after payment of tax
    (computed from the time of filing the Adjustment Return and final payment of the tax for
    the year), before any suit in CTA is commenced.  
     Through the issuance of RMC 7-85, the BIR did NOT simply interpret the law but
    legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by Congress
     RMCs are considered administrative ruling in the same of more specific and less
    specific and less general interpretations of tax laws issued by the CIR.  It is
    entitled great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such interpretation is not
    conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to be erroneous.  
     Art. 8 of the Civil Code 26 recognizes judicial decisions, applying or interpreting
    statutes as part of the legal system of the country. But administrative decisions
    do not enjoy that level of recognition.  
     Fundamental is the rule that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or
    errors of its officials or agents 
     Non-retroactivity of rulings by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not
    applicable in this case because the nullity of RMC No. 7-85 was declared by
    respondent courts and not by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
     Claim for refund is in the nature of a claim for exemption and should be construed in
    strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. 
    2. Yes.
     Sec. 69 of the 1977 NIRC (now Sec. 76 of the 1997 NIRC) provides that any excess of
    the total quarterly payments over the actual income tax computed in the adjustment or
    final corporate income tax return, shall either (a) be refunded to the corporation, or (b)
    may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the quarters of
    the succeeding taxable year. 
     Remedies are in the alternative, and the choice of one precludes the other.
     Since credit is opted, can no longer refund.

    You might also like