I used to know a girl from Citytrust. I met her through telebabad. She'd ring our phone at night and not speak a single word. She just wanted to hear my voice. I'd pick it up "hello"..."helloow"...................... "helloooooooooooOOOOOOOO!!!! Ump!!!" (ringtone) but before it ended I caught a girl chuckle. That's how we got to know each other, damn it.
BTW theres no Citytrust anymore. No that's Citybank you're talking about. Citytrust I think have merged and is now BPI. Anyway. Here's the case...
BTW theres no Citytrust anymore. No that's Citybank you're talking about. Citytrust I think have merged and is now BPI. Anyway. Here's the case...
Respondent corporation Citytrust filed a refund of overpaid taxes with the BIR by which the latter denied on the ground of prescription.
Citytrust filed a petition for review before the CTA. The case was submitted for decision based solely on the pleadings and evidence submitted by the respondent because the CIR could not present any evidence by reason of the repeated failure of the Tax Credit/Refund Division of the BIR to transmit the records of the case, as well as the investigation report thereon, to the Solicitor General.
Tsk tsk tsk. I think we have here a clear case of errors committed by the government it self through its agents. And I know what you're gonna say... you'll say the government can't be estopped. I doubt that.. the government can still be estopped... but not in taxation I guess.. that's money matters were talkin' about folks.
Tsk tsk tsk. I think we have here a clear case of errors committed by the government it self through its agents. And I know what you're gonna say... you'll say the government can't be estopped. I doubt that.. the government can still be estopped... but not in taxation I guess.. that's money matters were talkin' about folks.
CTA rendered the decision ordering BIR to grant the respondent's request for tax refund amounting to P 13.3 million.
ISSUE:
Failure of the CIR to present evidence to support the case of the government, should the respondent's claim be granted?
HELD:
Not yet.
It is a long and firmly settled rule of law that the Government is not bound by the errors committed by its agents. In the performance of its governmental functions, the State cannot be estopped by the neglect of its agent and officers.
Although the Government may generally be estopped through the affirmative acts of public officers acting within their authority, their neglect or omission of public duties as exemplified in this case will not and should not produce that effect.
The court said "Nowhere is the afore stated rule more true than in the field of taxation. It is axiomatic that the Government cannot and must not be estopped particularly in matters involving taxes."
I think it's the whole 'LIFEBLOOD balogny' somethin' somethin at work here again...
Like they say right?.... Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents.
And so the errors of certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize the Government's financial position, especially in the case at bar where the amount involves millions of pesos the collection whereof, if justified, stands to be prejudiced just because of bureaucratic lethargy.
Thus, the court said, it is proper that the case be remanded back to the CTA for further proceedings and reception of evidence.
Tatamad-tamad kasi eh..
