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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    BPI Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    This case involves a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos filed by BPI Family Savings Bank. In its 1989 income tax return, BPI declared a total refundable amount of 297,492 pesos, including the 112,491 pesos claimed, but said this would be applied as a tax credit for the following year. BPI then filed for a refund of 112,491 pesos, alleging it did not apply the amounts to its 1990 return due to business losses. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed for failure to present the 1990 return as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled it could take judicial notice of an earlier Tax Court decision involving BPI's 1990 taxes, which found BPI suffered losses that year.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    92 views2 pages
    This case involves a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos filed by BPI Family Savings Bank. In its 1989 income tax return, BPI declared a total refundable amount of 297,492 pesos, including the 112,491 pesos claimed, but said this would be applied as a tax credit for the following year. BPI then filed for a refund of 112,491 pesos, alleging it did not apply the amounts to its 1990 return due to business losses. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed for failure to present the 1990 return as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled it could take judicial notice of an earlier Tax Court decision involving BPI's 1990 taxes, which found BPI suffered losses that year.

    Original Description:

    BPI vs CA Digest

    Original Title

    BPI vs CA 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?

    This case involves a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos filed by BPI Family Savings Bank. In its 1989 income tax return, BPI declared a total refundable amount of 297,492 pesos, including the 112,491 pesos claimed, but said this would be applied as a tax credit for the following year. BPI then filed for a refund of 112,491 pesos, alleging it did not apply the amounts to its 1990 return due to business losses. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed for failure to present the 1990 return as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled it could take judicial notice of an earlier Tax Court decision involving BPI's 1990 taxes, which found BPI suffered losses that year.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    oabeljeanmonique
    This case involves a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos filed by BPI Family Savings Bank. In its 1989 income tax return, BPI declared a total refundable amount of 297,492 pesos, including the 112,491 pesos claimed, but said this would be applied as a tax credit for the following year. BPI then filed for a refund of 112,491 pesos, alleging it did not apply the amounts to its 1990 return due to business losses. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed for failure to present the 1990 return as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled it could take judicial notice of an earlier Tax Court decision involving BPI's 1990 taxes, which found BPI suffered losses that year.

    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

    BPI Family Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals, et.al.

    ,
    G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000

    Facts:

    This case involves a claim for tax refund in the amount of P112,491.00 representing petitioner's
    tax withheld for the year 1989.

    It appears from the foregoing 1989 Income Tax Return that petitioner had a total refundable
    amount of P297,492 inclusive of the P112,491.00 being claimed as tax refund in the present
    case. However, petitioner declared in the same 1989 Income Tax Return that the said total
    refundable amount of P297,492.00 will be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year.

    petitioner filed a written claim for refund in the amount of P112,491.00 with the respondent
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue alleging that it did not apply the 1989 refundable amount of
    P297,492.00 (including P112,491.00) to its 1990 Annual Income Tax Return or other tax
    liabilities due to the alleged business losses it incurred for the same year.

    Without waiting for respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the claim for refund,
    petitioner filed a petition for review with respondent Court of Tax Appeals, seeking the refund of
    the amount of P112,491.00.

    The respondent Court of Tax Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition on the ground that
    petitioner failed to present as evidence its corporate Annual Income Tax Return for 1990 to
    establish the fact that petitioner had not yet credited the amount of P297,492.00 (inclusive of the
    amount P112,491.00 which is the subject of the present controversy) to its 1990 income tax
    liability.

    Issue: WON the court can take judicial notice of the earlier decision

    Ruling: Yes. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, for its part, failed to controvert petitioner's claim.
    In fact, it presented no evidence at all. Because it ought to know the tax records of all taxpayers,
    the CIR could have easily disproved petitioner's claim. To repeat, it did not do so.

    Petitioner also calls the attention of this Court, as it had done before the CTA, to a Decision
    rendered by the Tax Court in CTA Case No. 4897, involving its claim for refund for the year
    1990. In that case, the Tax Court held that "petitioner suffered a net loss for the taxable year
    1990 . . . ." 18 Respondent, however, urges this Court not to take judicial notice of the said
    case. 19

    As a rule, "courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
    cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
    notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before
    the same judge." 20
    Be that as it may, Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters
    ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. In this case, the Court notes that
    a copy of the Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the Petition for Review filed
    before this Court. Significantly, respondents do not claim at all that the said Decision was
    fraudulent or nonexistent. Indeed, they do not even dispute the contents of the said Decision,
    claiming merely that the Court cannot take judicial notice thereof.

    You might also like