G.R. No.

182737, March 02, 2016

SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING,

INC.), Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of designing, developing,

manufacturing and exporting integrated circuit components. It is a preferred pioneer
enterprise registered with the Board of Investments. It is likewise registered with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT taxpayer by virtue of its sale of goods and
services with a permit to print accounting documents like sales invoices and official
receipts.

Petitioner sought to recover the VAT it paid on imported capital goods for the 2nd, 3rd
and 4th quarters of 2001, therefore, it filed for a tax credit / refund to the CIR. However,
the Honorable Supreme Court has ruled that the judicial claims were filed beyond the
120+30 day period.

Issues:

 Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals has acquired jurisdiction over the case;

Held:

 No, the CTA did not acquire jurisdiction over the case ergo their rulings are not
decisions in contemplation of law. The Honorable Supreme Court stated that:

“Upon the filing of an administrative claim, respondent is given a period of 120 days
within which to (1) grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input
taxes; or (2) make a full or partial denial of the claim for a tax refund or tax credit.
Failure on the part of respondent to act on the application within the 120-day period
shall be deemed a denial.

Note that the 120-day period begins to run from the date of submission of complete
documents supporting the administrative claims. If there is no evidence showing that the
taxpayer was required to submit – or actually submitted – additional documents after the
filing of the administrative claim, it is presumed that the complete documents
accompanied the claim when it was filed.

Considering that there is no evidence in this case showing that petitioner made later
submissions of documents in support of its administrative claims, the 120-day period
within which respondent is allowed to act on the claims shall be reckoned from 16
October 1 and 4 September 2002.
The judicial claim shall be filed within a period of 30 days after the receipt of
respondent’s decision or ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day period, whichever
is sooner.

Aside from a specific exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the periods
provided by the law, any claim filed in a period less than or beyond the 120+30 days
provided by the NIRC is outside the jurisdiction of the CTA.”
 CIR v. NEXT MOBILE, INC. GR No. 212825. December 7, 2015

FACTS:

Respondent filed with the BIR taxes for 2001. Respondent, through Sarmiento, their
director of Finance, executed several waivers of the statute of limitations to extend the
prescriptive perios of assessment for taxes.

On 2005, respondent received from the BIR a PAN and a formal letter of demand to pay
deficiency income tax. The BIR denied respondent's protest.

With the CTA, it was held that the demand was beyond the three year prescription
period under the NIRC. That the case does not apply the 10 year prescripton period as
there was not false return by the respondent. Also, the waivers did not validly extend the
prescription because of irregularities.

ISSUE: Whether the period to pay has prescribed.

RULING: NO.

The SC held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with RMO
No. 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 in order to be valid. Sarmiento failed to show her authority
to the BIR to sign the waivers.

The BIR were also at fault having to neglect their ministerial duties.

Both parties knew the infirmities of the waivers but still continued. Respondents were
held in bad faith as after having benefited by the waivers by giving them more time to
pay, they used the waivers they made themselves when the consequences were not in
their favor.

The BIR's negligence amounts to malice and bad faith as they also knew the waivers
did not conform with RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.

As both parties are in bad faith, the SC granted the petition on the issue of the
nullification of the formal letter of demand to the CTA.