Tax Cases

A. CIR VSFLOR DE ISABELA GR NO.
211289
B. CIR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GR. NO. 209289
C.MACAROO LIM GAO JR VS CIR GR NO.222837
D. PSALM VS CIR GR NO. 198146
E. MEDICARD PHILIPPINES VS CIR GR. NO 222743
F. BANCO DE ORO VS REPUBLIC GR. NO. 198756
G.PILMICO MAURE FOOD CORP VS CIR GR. NO 175651
H MTBC VS CIR GR NO. 182582
I. CIR VS PHIL DAILYINQUIRER GR NO. 213943
J. CIR VS LANCASTER PHILS GR NO. 183408
K. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES INC VS CIR GR NO. 205995
L. CIR VS GOODYEAR PHILS GR. NO. 216130
************************************************************
1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, V. LA FLOR DELA ISABELA, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
- Thus, withholding tax assessments such as EWT and WTC clearly contemplate deficiency
internal revenue taxes. Their aim is to collect unpaid income taxes and not merely to impose a
penalty on the withholding agent for its failure to comply with its statutory duty. Further, a holistic
reading of the Tax Code reveals that the CIR's interpretation of Section 203 is erroneous.
Provisions of the NIRC itself recognize that the tax assessment for withholding tax deficiency is
different and independent from possie penalties that may be imposed for the failure of withholding
agents to withhold and remit taxes.
- application of section 203 and section 222

2. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES INC VS CIR GR NO. 205995
-Under Section 75 of the National Internal Revenue Code, corporations, in general, are required to make
quarterly income tax payments. In the event that the the sum of the quarterly payments exceeds the
total income tax due for the entire year, Section 76 provides two alternative options to the corporation
concerned:
Carry-over the excess credit; or
Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid.
If the taxpayer elects the carry-over option, such election is permanent; the corporation is precluded
from subsequently changing its mind and replacing its choice with the option of refund or tax credit. It is
known as the irrevocability rule.
What if the corporation opts for refund or tax credit, does the irrevocability rule also apply?
Once the taxpayer opts to carry over such excess creditable tax, after electing refund or issuance of tax
credit certificate, the carry-over option becomes irrevocable. Accordingly, the previous choice of a claim
for refund, even if subsequently pursued, may no longer be granted
The irrevocability rule applies only to the option of carry over and not to the option of cash refund/tax
credit.
The law is very clear. The irrevocability rule is limited only to the option of carry-over such that a
taxpayer is still free to change its choice after electing a refund of its excess tax credit. The law does not
prevent a taxpayer who originally opted for a refund or tax credit certificate from shifting to the carry-
over of the excess creditable taxes to the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years.
The Irrevocability Rule Applies to the Subsequent Election of the Option to Carry Over
Once the taxpayer opts to carry over such excess creditable tax, after electing refund or issuance of tax
credit certificate, the carry-over option becomes irrevocable. Accordingly, the previous choice of a claim
for refund, even if subsequently pursued, may no longer be granted.
Application of the Irrevocability Rule to UPSI-MI
Despite its initial option to refund its 2006 excess creditable tax, UPSI-MI subsequently indicated in its
2007 short period FAR that it carried over the excess creditable tax and applied the same against its 2007
income tax due. By doing so, UPSI-MI constructively chose the option of carry-over, for which reason, the
irrevocability rule forbade it to revert to its initial choice. It does not matter that UPSI-MI had not
actually benefited from the carry over on the ground that it did not have a tax due in the 2007 short
period. Neither may it insist that the insertion of the carry-over in the 2007 FAR was by mere mistake or
inadvertence. The irrevocability rule admits of no qualifications or conditions.
Hence, UPSI-MI is barred from recovering the subject excess creditable tax through refund or TCC.
However, the petitioner remains entitled to the benefit of carry-over and thus may apply the 2006
overpaid income tax as tax credit in succeeding taxae years until fully exhausted. This is because, unlike
the remedy of refund or tax credit certificate, the option of carry-over under Section 76 is not subject to
any prescriptive period.
.3. CIR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GR. NO. 209289

The SOJ has jurisdiction to decide the case.
Here, respondent filed a protest with the CIR to assail the tax assessment issued to respondent.
For failure of the CIR to act within 180 days from submission of the supporting documents,
respondent filed a petition for review before the CTA. Interestingly, the CIR filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for review on the ground that the CTA has no jurisdiction to resolve the said
matter since the SOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes between the government and
GOCCs pursuant to Section 6612 and 67,13Chapter 14, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987. As a result, the CTA dismissed the petition. When the SOJ assumed jurisdiction over the
petition for arbitration filed by the respondent, the CIR, completely changed its stand and claimed
that the SOJ has no jurisdiction over the case.
The petition should be dismissed for failure

of the CIR to exhaust administrative
remedies
Furthermore, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is mandated

that where a remedy before an administrative body is provided by statute, relief must be
sought by exhausting this remedy prior to bringing an action in court in order to give the
administrative body every opportunity to decide a matter that comes within its
jurisdiction. A litigant cannot go to court without first pursuing his administrative remedies;
otherwise, his action is premature and his case is not ripe for judicial determination. PD 242
Under Section 70,23 Chapter 14, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, it is provided that u
where the amount of the claim exceeds, one million pesos, the decision of the SOJ should be
appealed to the Office of the President (OP). Here, the value subject of the case is
P70,660,389.00. As such, the CIR should have first appealed the decision of the SOJ to the OP
rather than to file a Petition for Certiorari to the CA
Also, the petition for certiorari filed by the CIR before the CA is dismissie on the ground that the same is
not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy granted to the CIR.
It is well settled that a petition for certiorari can be availed of when a tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.26 As such, the same "may be resorted to
only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law."27
In the present case, there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which is
availae to the CIR, which is an appeal to the OP. The CIR, however, failed to avail the same through its
own fault

Tax Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tax Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A. CIR VSFLOR DE ISABELA GR NO.

B. CIR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GR. NO. 209289

C.MACAROO LIM GAO JR VS CIR GR NO.222837

D. PSALM VS CIR GR NO. 198146

E. MEDICARD PHILIPPINES VS CIR GR. NO 222743

F. BANCO DE ORO VS REPUBLIC GR. NO. 198756

G.PILMICO MAURE FOOD CORP VS CIR GR. NO 175651

H MTBC VS CIR GR NO. 182582

I. CIR VS PHIL DAILYINQUIRER GR NO. 213943

J. CIR VS LANCASTER PHILS GR NO. 183408

K. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES INC VS CIR GR NO. 205995

L. CIR VS GOODYEAR PHILS GR. NO. 216130

1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, V. LA FLOR DELA ISABELA, INC.,

agents to withhold and remit taxes.

- application of section 203 and section 222

Carry-over the excess credit; or

Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid.

Application of the Irrevocability Rule to UPSI-MI

.3. CIR VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE GR. NO. 209289

The petition should be dismissed for failure

Furthermore, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is mandated

You might also like