PHILIPPINE AIRLINES vs. CIR

I just killed a spider crawling on the wall. Any thoughts? Any sentient reader who has tendency for grievance clamoring for spider rights may do so first thing in the morning.

Lemme tell you somethin'.. I just finished watchin' two horror flicks. "Wrong Turn"? (those fu-kin inbreds?).. ugh! gross. I dunno, its always the girlfriend who'd say "just drive off!!, uhhgh step on the gas please!!" and the boyfriend saying "Well, somebody's gotta help him!!".  And believe me.. it's always the girl who usually got the right hunch and eventually ends up getting killed... the guy survives the whole balogney.. until 2 seconds before the end credits  what seems to be dead slashes him into dark blank screen Lol.. fuck whats up with that?

Oh!.. the case yeah...

Caltex imports jet-fuel and sells them to PAL, alright? So the commodity is a petroleum product, so pursuant to existing trade laws may excise tax na babayaran.  

Now what Caltex did actually was it avoided and shifted the burden of paying the Excise Tax to PAL thinking that in so doing will therefore also shift their claim for the Tax Refund from the BIR to PAL.

So parang sinabe ng Caltex sa PAL "O kayo na magbayad ng excise tax ang mahal ng freight-in eh, tutal maco-convert nyo naman yan monetary loss na yan into gain sa Tax Refund eh, medyo kapos kami ngayon eh" (haha dialogue ba?)  Eto naman si PAL "Walang problema!" not knowing that there's such thing as "Statutory Tax Payer" (which is Caltex, the one who imported the goods and by provision of law is the one bound to pay the excise tax) agreed to the arrangement. 

Comes the time to claim for the tax refund. Here comes PAL attempting to get a tax refund from the BIR but the CIR refused stating that the only person qualified to request for a tax refund is the Statutory Tax Payer which is the only one legally required by law to pay the taxes directly to the government. (E may batas pala eh.. Is it an expressed provision? I wonder if its strictly construed)

So were talking about legal personality to claim a tax refund here.  Patay na!  Moreso the Court of Tax Appeal (CTA) upheld the BIR ruling.

ISSUE:

So the question is: Can PAL claim for a tax refund even if it is not the  "Statutory Tax Payer" and therefore not possessing any legal personality for the claim.

HELD:

Answer:  YES.

Court said, while it is true that only Statutory Tax Payer may ask for a tax refund, however the rule does not apply when the law GRANTS EXEMPTION from DIRECT / INDIRECT TAXES.

PAL's CHARTER allows it to be exempted from both direct and indirect taxes. Therefore PAL has Legal Personality to claim the said Tax Refund. (e nasa exemption pala eh)

Lusot.. 

So PAL eventually wins this case. 

CIR vs. CA, CITY TRUST BANKING CORP.

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...

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.

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..