CASE TITLE FACTS HELD IMPORTANT DOCTRINE

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF A SOUND TAX SYSTEM

CHAVEZ V. ONGPIN Chavez tax payer and real estate owner assails EO 73 (x) impose new nor increase taxes.  Fiscal adequacy which is one of the characteristics of a sound tax
constitutionality of E.O 73 (directs that collection of real To continue collecting based on valuation several years system requires that sources of revenue must be GERTRUDE
/ ALEEZAH adequate toR.meet
REGADO
property taxes should be based on the assessed 1984 real ago in disregard of increase in value of real property is government expenditure
property values instead of 1979 . Excessive increase of not in consonance with a sound tax system
real property tax by 100% to 400% on improvement and up
to 100% on land
Unconstitutional: imposes additional 1% tax on all property
(x) meet requirement of due process (publication, notice of
hearing and opportunity to be heard)
AM JUR 40
ART VI SEC 28 CONSTI
Section 28.
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,
directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

SISON V. ANCHETA Suit for declaratory relief or prohibition on validity of Sec 1
of BP 135 .
Claim: Arbitrary class legislation, oppressive and capricious
in character.
Transgression of both equal protection and due process
clause as well as rule on uniformity of taxation
Undue discrimination against imposition of higher tax upon
income arising from exercise of profession
COMM. V. ALGUE Algue, domestic corp engaged in engineering nd
construction claiming a P75,000 deduction which
represented payments for promotional fees to various
persons. Algue was appointed as an agent of the PSEDC.
Algue eventually received P126,000 commission and it was
from this commission that the P75,000 promotional fees
were paid to these several person who aided algue in the
formation of VOICP.
CIR claimed that the payments were not allowable
deductions
ABAKADA GURO V. On July 2005, RA 9337 took effect. The law increased the
EXEC SEC. ERMITA VAT on the sale of goods and properties, imported goods
It is enough that the classification rests on substantial
distinctions that make real differences
Classification is the susceptibility of the income to the
application if the generalized rules removing all
deductible items from taxpayers within the class and
fixing a set of reduced tax rates to be applied to all
There is ample justification for the BP to adopt the gross
system of income taxation to compensation income.
Amount considered as allowable deduction even though
most of the payees were neither employees nor
stockholders
They are considered as ordinary and necessary expense
on carrying on any trade or business .
Algue successfully proved the payment of fees were
necessary and reasonable in light of the efforts exerted
by the payees in inducing investors and prominent
businessmen to venture in the enterprise.
 The doctrine of due process clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need
 Power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty (J.Malcolm) It is the strongest
of all powers of the government. However the power to tax is not
unconfined. There are restrictions. The power to tax is not the power to
destroy while this court sits (CJ Marshal)
 Due process clause
- Arbitrary when it finds no support, or not for a public purpose.
 Equal Protection clause
- Discrimination finds no support in reason. Laws operate equally
and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or
that all persons must be treated in the same manner
 Uniformity
 Consti : Uniform and equitable. Achieved when it operates with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. The rule
does not call for perfect uniformity
 Taxes is the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected
without unnecessary hindrance.
 On the other hand, it must be made in accordance with law as any
arbitrariness will negate the very reason for the government itself. It is
therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of
the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation
which is the promotion of common good may be achieved.
 Rationale of taxation. Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.
Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive
power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to
surrender part of one’s hard earned income, every person who is able
must contribute his share to running the government. The government
for its part is expected to respond in form of tangible and intangible
benefits intended to improve the lives of the people. This symbiotic
relationship is the rationale of taxation.

BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
a. Powers and Duties of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
b. Exclusive and original power to interpret tax laws, subject to review by Sec of Finance
c. Assess & collect
CASE TITLE FACTS
CIR V. PASCOR The BIR examined the books of account of Pascor Realty and Devt Corp for
REALTY DEV CORP years 1986, 1987 and 1988, from which a tax liability of 10.5 Million Pesos
was found. Based on the recommendations of the examiners, the CIR filed
an information with the DOJ for tax evasion against the officers of Pascor.
Upon receipt of the subpoena, the latter filed an urgent request for
reconsideration/reinvestigation with the CIR, which was immediately denied
upon the ground that no formal assessment has yet been issued by the
Commisioner. Pascor elevated the CIR's decision to the CTA on a petition for
review. The CIR filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
of CTA as there was no formal assessment made against the respondents.
The CTA dismissed the motion, hence this petition.
ISSUE: Is a formal assessment necessary in the filing of a criminal
complaint?
MEANING OF ASSESSMENT
MARCOS II V. CA Bongbong Marcos sought for the reversal of the ruling of the Court of
Appeals to grant CIR's petition to levy the properties of the late Pres. Marcos
to cover the payment of his tax delinquencies during the period of his exile in
the US. The Marcos family was assessed by the BIR after it failed to file
estate tax returns. However the assessment were not protested
administratively by Mrs. Marcos and the heirs of the late president so that
they became final and unappealable after the period for filing of opposition
has prescribed. Marcos contends that the properties could not be levied to
cover the tax dues because they are still pending probate with the court, and
settlement of tax deficiencies could not be had, unless there is an order by
the probate court or until the probate proceedings are terminated.
Petitioner also pointed out that applying Memorandum Circular No. 38-68,
HELD
 No. Section 222 of the NIRC states that an assessment is not
necessary before a criminal charge can be filed. This is the
general rule. Private respondents failed to show that they are
entitled to an exception. Moreover, the criminal charge need
only be supported by a prima facie showing of failure to file a
required return. This fact need not be proven by an
assessment.
 The issuance of an assessment must be distinguished from
the filing of a complaint. Before an assessment is issued,
there is, by practice, a pre-assessment notice sent to the
taxpayer. The taxpayer is then given a chance to submit
position papers and documents to prove that the assessment
is unwarranted. If the commissioner is unsatisfied, an
assessment signed by him or her is then sent to the taxpayer
informing the latter specifically and clearly that an
assessment has been made against him or her.
 In contrast, the criminal charge need not go through all these.
The criminal charge is filed directly with the DOJ. Thereafter,
the taxpayer is notified that a criminal case had been filed
against him, not that the commissioner has issued an
assessment. It must be stressed that a criminal complaint is
instituted not to demand payment, but to penalize the
taxpayer for violation of the Tax Code.
 No. The deficiency income tax assessments and estate tax
assessment are already final and unappealable -and-the
subsequent levy of real properties is a tax remedy resorted to by
the government, sanctioned by Section 213 and 218 of the
National Internal Revenue Code. This summary tax remedy is
distinct and separate from the other tax remedies (such as Judicial
Civil actions and Criminal actions), and is not affected or
precluded by the pendency of any other tax remedies instituted by
the government.
 The approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a settlement
tribunal over the deceased's estate is not a mandatory
requirement in the collection of estate taxes. On the contrary,
under Section 87 of the NIRC, it is the probate or settlement court
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
DOCTRINE
 An assessment contains not only a
computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand
for payment within a prescribed period. It also
signals the time when penalties and interests
begin to accrue against the taxpayer.
 To enable the taxpayer to determine his
remedies thereon, due process requires that it
must be served on and received by the
taxpayer. Accordingly, an affidavit, which was
executed by revenue officers stating the tax
liabilities of a taxpayer and attached to a
criminal complaint for tax evasion, cannot be
deemed an assessment that can be questioned
before the Court of Tax Appeals.
 The issuance of an assessment must be
distinguished from the filing of a complaint.
Before an assessment is issued, there is, by
practice, a pre-assessment notice sent to the
taxpayer. The taxpayer is then given a chance
to submit position papers and documents to
prove that the assessment is unwarranted. If
the commissioner is unsatisfied, an
assessment signed by him or her is then sent
to the taxpayer informing the latter specifically
and clearly that an assessment has been made
against him or her. In contrast, the criminal
charge need not go through all these
 "Sec. 3. Powers and duties of the Bureau.-The
powers and duties of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue shall comprehend the assessment and
collection of all national internal revenue taxes,
fees, and charges, and the enforcement of all
forfeitures, penalties, and fines connected therewith,
including the execution of judgments in all cases
decided in its favor by the Court of Tax Appeals and
the ordinary courts. Said Bureau shall also give
effect to and administer the supervisory and police
power conferred to it by this Code or other laws."
 Thus, it was in Vera vs. Fernandez[12] that the court
recognized the liberal treatment of claims for taxes

the BIR's Notices of Levy on the Marcos properties were issued beyond the
allowed period, and are therefore null and void.
MERALCO The late Juan Maniago (substituted by his wife and children) submitted to the
SECURITIES CORP CIR confidential information against the Meralco Securities Corp (MSC)
V. SAVELLANO alleging tax evasion for 1962-1966 based on income tax payment of only
25% of the dividends it received from Meralco, equivalent to short changing
of the government of income tax due from 75% of the dividends.
• The CIR found that no deficiency corporate income tax was due from the
MSC since under the then Sec. 24[a] of the NIRC that “in the case of
dividends received by a domestic or foreign resident corporation liable to
(corporate income) tax under this Chapter . . . .only 25% shall be returnable
for the purposes of the tax imposed.”
• The CIR denied Maniago’s claim for informer’s reward on a non-existent
deficiency.
• Maniago filed for mandamus in the CFI of Manila to compel the CIR to
impose the alleged deficiency tax assessment on the MSC and to award to
him the corresponding informer’s reward under the provisions of RA 2338.
• The CIR argues that under the NIRC, he is clothed with discretionary
power whether to impose the alleged tax deficiency assessment against the
which is bidden not to authorize the executor or judicial
administrator of the decedent's estate to deliver any distributive
share to any party interested in the estate, unless it is shown a
Certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the
estate taxes have been paid. This provision disproves the
petitioner's contention that it is the probate court which approves
the assessment and collection of the estate tax.
 On the issue of prescription, the omission to file an estate tax
return, and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the
assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioner's cause, as
under Sec.223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the
tax may be assessed at anytime within 10 years after the
omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy
upon real property within 3 years (now 5 years) following the
assessment of the tax.
 Since the estate tax assessment had become final and
unappealable by the petitioner's default as regards protesting the
validity of the said assessment, there is no reason why the BIR
cannot continue with the collection of the said tax.
Mandamus only lies to enforce the performance of a ministerial act and
NOT to control the performance of a discretionary power. Purely
administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with
by the courts. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a usurpation of
executive functions.
2) Judge Savellano has no jurisdiction because it is the CTA who has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the CIR in cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation to the NIRC or
other law or part of law administered by the BIR. The issue of whether
to impose a deficiency tax assessment on MSC is covered by
“disputed assessments” or “other matters arising under the NIRC.
3) Informer’s reward is contingent upon the payment and collection of
unpaid or deficiency taxes. Considering then that respondent judge
may not order by mandamus the CIR to issue the assessment against
MSC when no such assessment has been found to be due, no
deficiency taxes may therefore be assessed and collected against
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
charged against the estate of the decedent. Such
taxes, we said, were exempted from the application
of the statute of non-claims, and this is justified by
the necessity of government funding, immortalized
in the maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the
government. Vectigalia nervi sunt rei publicae -
taxes are the sinews of the state.
 Such liberal treatment of internal revenue taxes in
the probate proceedings extends so far, even to
allowing the enforcement of tax obligations against
the heirs of the decedent, even after distribution of
the estate's properties.
 Claims for taxes, whether assessed before or after
the death of the deceased, can be collected from
the heirs even after the distribution of the properties
of the decedent. They are exempted from the
application of the statute of non-claims. The heirs
shall be liable therefor, in proportion to their share in
the inheritance."[13]
 From the foregoing, it is discernible that the
approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a
settlement tribunal over the deceased is not a
mandatory requirement in the collection of estate
taxes. It cannot therefore be argued that the Tax
Bureau erred in proceeding with the levying and
sale of the properties allegedly owned by the late
President, on the ground that it was required to
seek first the probate court's sanction. There is
nothing in the Tax Code, and in the pertinent
remedial laws that implies the necessity of the
probate or estate settlement court's approval of the
state's claim for estate taxes, before the same can
be enforced and collected.
The power to assess a tax by the CIR against a taxpayer
is discretionary and cannot be compelled by
mandamus.

MSC. Judge Savellano ruled in favor of Maniago ordering the CIR to collect
and assess from MSC.
• Issue: WON the judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.
ENFORCE FORFEITURES, PENALTIES & FINES, EXECUTE DECISIONS OF CTA & ORDINARY COURTS
REPUBLIC V. CA A shipment of textile cloth arrived at Manila International Container Port (MICP)
and was
consigned to GQ Garments, Inc. However, the Clean Report of Findings (CRF)
mentioned that Agfha, Inc., is the consignee of the shipment.
• The Customs Intelligence Services (CIS) placed the shipment under Hold
Order since GQ could not be located and was thus suspected to be a fictitious
firm. Forfeiture proceedings based on the Tariff and Customs Code were
initiated.
• Agfha, through its president Wilson Kho, intervened and contended that Agfha
is the lawful owner of the subject shipment. The Collector of Customs came up
with a draft decision ordering the lifting of the warrant of seizure and detention.
• The CIIS opposed the draft decision, insisting that GQ was a fictitious
corporation and that even if it did exist, its president, John Barlin, had no
authority to waive the right over the subject shipment in favor of Agfha. The
Deputy Commissioner, relying on the comment of the CIIS, rejected the draft
decision of the Collector of Customs.
• GQ and Agfha filed a joint MR. The Commissioner of Customs, however,
disapproved the new draft decision and denied the release of the goods. So the
District Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the shipment.
• CTA granted the petition and ordered the release of the goods to Agfha.
• The Commissioner of Customs asserts that it did not presume fraud, rather the
events point to the existence of fraud.
• Agfha maintains that there was no intentional wrongful declaration by the
shipper to evade payment of any tax due.
• Issue: WON the forfeiture was proper.
AZNAR V. CIR Petitioner, as administrator of the estate of the deceased, Matias H. Aznar, seeks Issue: Whether or not the deceased Aznar filed false
a review and nullification of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals ordering the
petitioner to pay the government the sum of P227,691.77 representing
deficiency income taxes for the years 1946 to 1951. An investigation by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) ascertained the assets and liabilities of
the taxpayer and it was discovered that from 1946 to 1951, his net worth had
increased every year, which increases in net worth was very much more than the
income reported during said years. The findings clearly indicated that the
taxpayer did not declare correctly the income reported in his income tax returns
for the aforesaid years. Petitioner avers that according to the NIRC, the right of
the CIR to assess deficiency income taxes of the late Aznar for the years 1946,
1947, and 1948 had already prescribed at the time the assessment was made
on November 28, 1952; there being a five year limitation upon assessment and
collection from the filing of the returns. Meanwhile, respondents believe that the
prescription period in the case at bar that is applicable is under Sec. 332 of the
NIRC which provides that: "(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
MSC. Since no taxes are to be collected, no informer’s reward is due
to Maniago as the informer’s heirs.
The requisites for the forfeiture of goods under the Fraud must be specifically proven. Mere negligence does not
Tariff and Customs Code are: constitute fraud. In any case, regardless of existence of fraud, the
a) the wrongful making by the owner, importer, government is not estopped from collecting taxes
exporter or consignee of any declaration or affidavit,
or the wrongful making or delivery by the same
person of any invoice, letter or paper - on the import
or export of merchandise;
b) the falsity of such declaration, affidavit, invoice,
letter or paper; and
c) an intention on the part of the
importer/consignee to evade the payment of the
duties due.
2) Fraud must be proved to justify forfeiture. It must
be actual, amounting to intentional wrongdoing
with the clear purpose of avoiding the tax.
Forfeiture is not favored in law nor in equity. Mere
negligence is not equivalent to fraud.
3) What is involved in this case is an honest mistake,
not even directly attributable to private
respondent, which will not deprive the government of
its right to collect the proper tax.
The lower court's conclusion regarding the existence of fraudulent
or fraudulent income tax returns and subsequently, intent to evade payment of taxes was based merely on a presumption
whether the action has not prescribed. and not on evidence establishing a willful filing of false and fraudulent
returns so as to warrant the imposition of the fraud penalty. The fraud
Held: The petition is without merit.
contemplated by law is actual and not constructive. It must be
 The respondent CTA concluded that the very
"substantial under declarations of income for intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately
six consecutive years eloquently done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some legal
demonstrate the falsity or fraudulence of the right. Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not equivalent to the
income tax returns with an intent to evade fraud with intent to evade the tax contemplated by the law. It must
the payment of tax." amount to intentional wrong-doing with the sole object of avoiding the
 The ordinary period of prescription of 5 years tax. It necessarily follows that a mere mistake cannot be considered
within which to assess tax liabilities under
as fraudulent intent, and if both petitioner and respondent
Sec. 331 of the NIRC should be applicable to
normal circumstances, but whenever the Commissioner of Internal Revenue committed mistakes in making
government is placed at a disadvantage so entries in the returns and in the assessment, respectively, under the
as to prevent its lawful agents from proper inventory method of determining tax liability, it would be unfair to treat
assessment of tax liabilities due to false the mistakes of the petitioner as tainted with fraud and those of the

intent to evade tax or of a failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a
proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without
assessment, at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud
or omission". Petitioner argues said provision does not apply because the
taxpayer did not file false and fraudulent returns with intent to evade tax.
CIR V. BENIGNO 1989: Cibeles Insurance Corporation (CIC) authorized its then president,
TODA Benigno Toda, who also owned 99.99% of its outstanding capital stock, to sell
the Cibeles building and two parcels of land. Toda sold them to Altonaga for
P100M.
• On the same day, Altonaga sold the same properties to Royal Match, Inc. (RMI)
for P200M.
• These are evidenced by two Deeds of Sale notarized on the same day by the
same notary public.
• Altonaga paid 5% capital gains tax, or P10M.
• 1990: CIC filed an income tax return which declared its gain from the sale of
the property at P75M.
• That same year, Toda sold his CIC shares to Choa for P12,500,000, as
evidenced by a Deed of Sale
of Shares of Stock, which indicated Toda undertakes to hold Choa and CIC free
from any income tax liabilities of CIC for 1987, 1988 and 1989.
• 1994: Toda died. That same year, the BIR sent CIC a notice of unpaid tax
liabilities, alleging that Toda’s sale to Altonaga was a mere ploy in order to evade
paying taxes, and that the real buyer of the properties was RMI in the first place.
• According to the BIR, Toda sold the properties to Altonaga so that CIC would
not have to pay P79M as corporate income tax; that a fraudulent scheme was
deliberately perpetuated by covering up the additional gain of P100 million,
which resulted in the change in the income structure of the proceeds of the sale
of the two parcels of land and the building thereon to an individual capital gains
(5%), thus evading the higher corporate income tax rate of 35%. The income tax
return filed by CIC for 1989 with intent to evade payment of the tax was thus
false or fraudulent.
• The CIR alleges that there was indeed fraud as proven by the following:
1) The two sales were done simultaneously on 30 Aug 1989;
2) the Deed of Sale between Altonaga and RMI was notarized ahead of the
Deed of Sale
between CIC and Altonaga;
3) as early as May 1949, CIC received P40M from RMI for the property; and
• Now, CIR wants to hold Toda’s estate liable for the deficiency in income tax.
• The CTA denied the petition, stating that the CIR failed to prove fraud. The
subject transaction was mere tax avoidance.
• Issue: WON there was fraud in the sale among CIC, Altonaga, and RMI.
• Decision: YES.
returns, fraudulent return intended to evade
payment of tax, or failure to file returns, the
period of ten years from the time of the
discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission
even seems to be inadequate.
 There being undoubtedly false tax returns in
this case, We affirm the conclusion of the
respondent Court of Tax Appeals that Sec.
332 (a) of the NIRC should apply and that
the period of ten years within which to
assess petitioner's tax liability had not
expired at the time said assessment was
made.
1) All the three factors which point to tax evasion are
present in this case.
a) The end goal of the transaction was to pay less
taxes than what is due.
b) This was motivated by bad faith and willful intent.
c) It was done through an unlawful course of action.
The scheme to show multiple sales from CIC to
Altonaga, then from Altonaga to RMI cannot be held
as tax planning because it is tainted with fraud.
2) In this case, Altonaga was a mere conduit, and his
sole purpose was to be a tax shelter. Altonaga never
controlled the property and did not enjoy the normal
benefits and burdens of ownership. The sale to him
was merely a tax ploy, a sham, and without business
purpose and economic substance.
3) To allow CIC to lessen its tax liability by using
Altonaga as a tax shelter would circumvent the tax
laws.
4) To permit the true nature of the transaction to be
disguised by mere formalisms, which exist
solely to alter tax liabilities, would impair the effective
administration of tax policies. Because there is fraud,
the BIR assessed CIC within the reglementary period,
which is within 10 years from the discovery of the
fraudulent act or transaction.
5) Toda’s estate should be held liable for the deficient
income tax. It is clear from the Deed of
Sales of Shares of Stock that Toda held himself
personally liable for all of CIC’s income tax
liabilities for the fiscal years of 1987-1989.
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
respondent as made in good faith.
 Fraud in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty,
trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to
another, or by which an undue and unconscionable
advantage is taken of another.
 Here, it is obvious that the objective of the sale to Altonaga
was to reduce the amount of tax to be paid especially that
the transfer from him to RMI would then subject the income
to only 5% individual capital gains tax, and not the 35%
corporate income tax.
 Altonagas sole purpose of acquiring and transferring title of
the subject properties on the same day was to create a tax
shelter. Altonaga never controlled the property and did not
enjoy the normal benefits and burdens of ownership. The
sale to him was merely a tax ploy, a sham, and without
business purpose and economic substance. Doubtless, the
execution of the two sales was calculated to mislead the BIR
with the end in view of reducing the consequent income tax
liability.
 In a nutshell, the intermediary transaction, i.e., the sale of
Altonaga, which was prompted more on the mitigation of tax
liabilities than for legitimate business purposes constitutes
one of tax evasion.[31]
 Generally, a sale or exchange of assets will have an income
tax incidence only when it is consummated.[32] The
incidence of taxation depends upon the substance of a
transaction. The tax consequences arising from gains from a
sale of property are not finally to be determined solely by the
means employed to transfer legal title. Rather, the
transaction must be viewed as a whole, and each step from
the commencement of negotiations to the consummation of
the sale is relevant.
 A sale by one person cannot be transformed for tax
purposes into a sale by another by using the latter as a
conduit through which to pass title. To permit the true nature
of the transaction to be disguised by mere formalisms, which

EFFECT OF POLICE POWERS
OBTAIN INFORMATION ETC
SY PO V. CTA Po Bien Sing, the sole proprietor of Silver Cup Wine Factory (SCWF), engaged
in the business of manufacture and sale of compounded liquors. On the basis of
a denunciation against SCWF allegedly "for tax evasion amounting to millions of
pesos, Secretary of Finance directed the Finance-BIR--NBI team to investigate.
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
exist solely to alter tax liabilities, would seriously impair the
effective administration of the tax policies of Congress.[33]
 To allow a taxpayer to deny tax liability on the ground that
the sale was made through another and distinct entity when
it is proved that the latter was merely a conduit is to sanction
a circumvention of our tax laws. Hence, the sale to Altonaga
should be disregarded for income tax purposes.
Held: The law is specific and clear. The rule on “The Best Evidence Sec. 16. Power of the Commissioner of Internal
Obtainable” applies when a tax report required by law for the Revenue to make assessments.—
purpose of assessment is not available or when tax report is
incomplete or fraudulent. xxx xxx xxx

On the basis of the team's report of investigation, the respondent Commissioner
of Internal Revenue assessed Mr. Po Bien Sing deficiency income tax for 1966
to 1970 in the amount of P7,154,685.16 and for deficiency specific tax for
January 2,1964 to January 19, 1972 in the amount of P5,595,003.68
Petitioner protested the deficiency assessments. The BIR recommended the
reiteration of the assessments in view of the taxpayer's persistent failure to
present the books of accounts for examination.
Issue: WON the assessments have valid and legal basis.
The tax assessment by tax examiners are presumed correct and
made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty to prove otherwise.
In the absence of proof of irregularities in the performance of
duties, an assessment duly made by the BIR examiner and
approved by his superior officers will not be disturbed. All
presumptions are in favour of the correctness of tax assessments.
(b) Failure to submit required returns, statements,
reports and other documents. - When a report required
by law as a basis for the assessment of an national
internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming within the
time fixed by law or regulation or when there is reason to
believe that any such report is false, incomplete, or
erroneous, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall
assess the proper tax on the best evidence obtainable.
In case a person fails to file a required return or other
document at the time prescribed by law, or willfully or
otherwise, files a false or fraudulent return or other
documents, the Commissioner shall make or amend the
return from his own knowledge and from such
information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise, which shall be prima facie correct and
sufficient for all legal purposes.

The law is specific and clear. The rule on the "best

CIR V. HANTEX Hantex Trading Co is a company organized under the Philippines. It is engaged
TRADING in the sale of plastic products, it imports synthetic resin and other chemicals for
the manufacture of its products. For this purpose, it is required to file an Import
Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration (Consumption Entry) with the Bureau of
Customs under Section 1301 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Sometime in
October 1989, Lt. Vicente Amoto, Acting Chief of Counter-Intelligence Division of
the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), received confidential
information that the respondent had imported synthetic resin amounting to
P115,599,018.00 but only declared P45,538,694.57. Thus, Hentex receive a
subpoena to present its books of account which it failed to do. The bureau
cannot find any original copies of the products Hentex imported since the
originals were eaten by termites. Thus, the Bureau relied on the certified copies
 Central to the second issue is Section 16 of the NIRC of 1977,
as amended which provides that the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue has the power to make assessments and prescribe
additional requirements for tax administration and
enforcement.
 Among such powers are those provided in paragraph (b),
which provides that “Failure to submit required returns,
statements, reports and other documents. – When a report
required by law as a basis for the assessment of any national
internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming within the time
fixed by law or regulation or when there is reason to believe
that any such report is false, incomplete or erroneous, the
Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on the best
evidence obtainable.”
evidence obtainable" applies when a tax report required
by law for the purpose of assessment is not available or
when the tax report is incomplete or fraudulent.
The best evidence envisaged in Section 16 of the 1977
NIRC, as amended, includes the corporate and
accounting records of the taxpayer who is the subject of
the assessment process, the accounting records of other
taxpayers engaged in the same line of business,
including their gross profit and net profit sales.[67] Such
evidence also includes data, record, paper, document or
any evidence gathered by internal revenue officers from
other taxpayers who had personal transactions or from
whom the subject taxpayer received any income; and
record, data, document and information secured from
government offices or agencies, such as the SEC, the
Central Bank of the Philippines, the Bureau of Customs,
and the Tariff and Customs Commission.

of the respondent’s Profit and Loss Statement for 1987 and 1988 on file with the
SEC, the machine copies of the Consumption Entries, Series of 1987, submitted
by the informer, as well as excerpts from the entries certified by Tomas and
Danganan. The case was submitted to the CTA which ruled that Hentex have tax
deficiency and is ordered to pay, per investigation of the Bureau. The CA ruled
that the income and sales tax deficiency assessments issued by the petitioner
were unlawful and baseless since the copies of the import entries relied upon in
computing the deficiency tax of the respondent were not duly authenticated by
the public officer charged with their custody, nor verified under oath by the EIIB
and the BIR investigators.
Issue: Whether or not the final assessment of the petitioner against the
respondent for deficiency income tax and sales tax for the latter’s 1987
importation of resins and calcium bicarbonate is based on competent evidence
and the law.
BACHE & CO. V. Fact: Respondent Commissioner, wrote a letter to respondent Judge Ruiz
RUIZ requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of
the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to all other pertinent provisions
thereof, and authorizing a Revenue Examiner to make and file the application for
search warrant which was attached to the letter. In the afternoon of the following
day, respondent De Leon and his witness, respondent Logronio, went to the
Court of First Instance of Rizal. They brought with them the following papers:
respondent Vera’s aforesaid letter-request; an application for search warrant
already filled up but still unsigned by respondent De Leon; an affidavit of
respondent Logronio subscribed before respondent De Leon; a deposition in
printed form of respondent Logronio already accomplished and signed by him
but not yet subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but still
unsigned by respondent Judge. At that time respondent Judge was hearing a
certain case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to
take the depositions of respondents De Leon and Logronio. After the session
had adjourned, respondent Judge was informed that the depositions had already
been taken. The stenographer, upon request of respondent Judge, read to him
her stenographic notes; and thereafter, respondent Judge asked respondent
Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be
false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. Respondent Judge
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
 This provision applies when the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue undertakes to perform her administrative duty of The law allows the BIR access to all relevant or material
assessing the proper tax against a taxpayer, to make a return records and data in the person of the taxpayer. It places
in case of a taxpayer’s failure to file one, or to amend a return no limit or condition on the type or form of the medium
already filed in the BIR. by which the record subject to the order of the BIR is
 The “best evidence” envisaged in Section 16 of the 1977
kept. The purpose of the law is to enable the BIR to get
NIRC, as amended, includes the corporate and accounting
records of the taxpayer who is the subject of the assessment at the taxpayers records in whatever form they may be
process, the accounting records of other taxpayers engaged in kept. Such records include computer tapes of the said
the same line of business, including their gross profit and net records prepared by the taxpayer in the course of
profit sales. business.[68] In this era of developing information-
 Such evidence also includes data, record, paper, document or storage technology, there is no valid reason to immunize
any evidence gathered by internal revenue officers from other companies with computer-based, record-keeping
taxpayers who had personal transactions or from whom the
capabilities from BIR scrutiny. The standard is not the
subject taxpayer received any income; and record, data,
document and information secured from government offices or form of the record but where it might shed light on the
agencies, such as the SEC, the Central Bank of the accuracy of the taxpayers return.
Philippines, the Bureau of Customs, and the Tariff and
Customs Commission.
 However, the best evidence obtainable under Section 16 of the
1977 NIRC, as amended, does not include mere photocopies
of records/documents.
 The petitioner, in making a preliminary and final tax deficiency
assessment against a taxpayer, cannot anchor the said
assessment on mere machine copies of records/documents.
Mere photocopies of the Consumption Entries have no
probative weight if offered as proof of the contents thereof. The
reason for this is that such copies are mere scraps of paper
and are of no probative value as basis for any deficiency
income or business taxes against a taxpayer.
Personal examination by the judge of the complainant
Held: Yes, A corporation is, after all, but an association of and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to
individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. determine the existence or non-existence of a
In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional probable cause, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of
the Constitution, and Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised
immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken
Rules of Court.
without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due
process of law, and is protected against unlawful discrimination. we An assessment based on evidence illegally seized
are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged through an illegal search warrant is
with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act UNENFORCEABLE.
of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers,
cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such
corporation, we do not wish to be understood as holding that a
corporation is not entitled to immunity, against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
 / ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
signed respondent de Leon’s application for search warrant and respondent
Logronio’s deposition, Search Warrant was then sign by respondent Judge and
accordingly issued. Three days later, the BIR agents served the search warrant
petitioners at the offices of petitioner corporation. Petitioners’ lawyers protested
the search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was
attached to the warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded with their search
which yielded six boxes of documents. Petitioners filed a petition with the Court
of First Instance of Rizal praying that the search warrant be quashed, dissolved
or recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be
issued, that the search warrant be declared null and void, and that the
respondents be ordered to pay petitioners, jointly and severally, damages and
attorney’s fees. On March 18, 1970, the respondents, thru the Solicitor General,
filed an answer to the petition. After hearing, the court, presided over by
respondent Judge, issued on July 29, 1970, an order dismissing the petition for
dissolution of the search warrant. Hence, Petitioners came to this Court.

Issue: Whether a corporation is entitled to protection against unreasonable

search and seizure?

BIR RULES AND REGULATIONS

CIR V. CA, ROH EO 41 was promulgated in 1986 declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes
AUTO PRODUCTS and also estate, donor, and business taxes for 1981-1985. ROH Auto Products availed of
PHIL. INC AND CTA the amnesty, and paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due. It also requested for the
cancellation of the deficiency tax notice, but the CIR denied it saying that the amnesty
coverage includes only assessments issued by the BIR after promulgation of EO 41 and
not assessments before its promulgation.
ROH appealed to the CTA who ruled in its favor, arguing that it sufficiently proved its burden
hence qualified. Further, the exceptions (those who cannot avail) under Section 4 do not
include assessments made prior to the promulgation of EO 41. ROH is not an exception.
Is the CIR interpretation correct or the CTA? (CTA)
The authority of the Minister of Finance cannot be Administrative rules and regulations are intended to
controverted neither can it be disputed that such rules carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law.
and regulations should deserve weight and respect by Executive Order No. 41 is quite explicit and requires
the courts. Much more fundamental than either of the hardly anything beyond a simple application of its
above, however, is that all such issuances must not provisions.
override, but must remain consistent and in harmony
with, the law they seek to apply and implement. An EO specifically providing for those who do not apply
Administrative rules and regulations are intended to to it cannot be interpreted further than what the law
carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law. intends.
Executive Order No. 41 is quite explicit and requires
hardly anything beyond a simple application of its
provisions.
EO 41 was specifically designed to be in the nature of a
general tax amnesty subject to SPECIFIC
EXCEPTIONS.
If it was intended not to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities
already assessed prior to promulgation, then the law
simply would’ve said so. The company does NOT fall
under the exceptions to the amnesty.
The interpretation of the CIR works against the purpose
of EO 41 to grant amnesties to those who were
encouraged not to pay taxes during revolution.

CIRV CA, CTA AND Fortune Tobacco Corporation ("Fortune Tobacco"), engaged in the manufacture of different
FORTUNE brands of cigarettes, registered "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. BIR classified
TOBACCO CORP them as foreign brands since they were listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging
to foreign companies. However, Fortun changed the names of 'Hope' to 'Hope Luxury'and
'More' to 'Premium More,' thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand
category.
Issue: WON it was necessary for BIR to follow the legal
requirements when it issued its RMC
Held. YES. CIR may not disregard legal requirements in
the exercise of its quasi-legislative powers which
publication, filing, and prior hearing.
The act of reclassifying a cigarette and imposing a tax
based on an “interpretation” of the law amounts to a
legislative act and must conform to the rules on notice,
publication, and hearing.

A 45% Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands. Then Republic Act ("RA") No.
7654 was enacted – 55% for locally manufactured foreign brand while 45% for locally
manufactured brands. 2 days before the effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum
Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued by the BIR saying since there is no showing
who the real owner/s are of Champion, Hope and More, it follows that the same shall be
considered locally manufactured foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad
valorem tax - 55%. BIR sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco
addressed to no one in particular. Then Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail, a
certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93. CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax
deficiency amounting to P9,598,334.00.
Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA. 8 CTA upheld the position of
Fortune. CA affirmed.
CIR V. Burroughs Ltd. is a foreign corporation conducting business in the Philippines.
BURROUGHS • 1979: Burroughs applied with the BSP for authority to remit to its parent company abroad,
thus paying the 15% branch profit remittance tax based on the amount APPLIED for
remittance (this was a larger amount), instead of the amount ACTUALLY remitted (a lesser
amount), which would have yielded lesser taxes.
• Burroughs filed a petition for review to the CTA, which ordered the BIR to grant Burroughs
a tax credit equal to the difference between the tax he paid and what he should have have
paid (the lesser amount).
• The CIR appealed citing BIR rulings stating that such taxes must be based on the amount
APPLIED for remittance.
• Issue: WON a tax credit can be availed by Burroughs.
PBC V. CIR Petitioner, Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), a commercial banking corporation
duly organized under Philippine laws, filed its quarterly income tax returns for the first and
second quarters of 1985, reported profits, and paid the total income tax of P5,016,954.00
by applying PBCom's tax credit memos for P3,401,701.00 and P1,615,253.00, respectively.
Subsequently, however, PBCom suffered net loss of P25,317,228.00, thereby showing no
income tax liability in its Annual Income Tax Returns for the year-ended December 31,
1985. For the succeeding year, ending December 31, 1986, the petitioner likewise reported
a net loss of P14,129,602.00, and thus declared no tax payable for the year.
But during these two years, PBCom earned rental income from leased properties. The
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in
nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its
bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more
than what the law itself has already prescribed. BUT
when, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes
beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate
or render least cumbersome the implementation of the
law but substantially increases the burden of those
governed, the agency must accord, at least to those
directly affected, a chance to be heard, before that new
issuance is given the force and effect of law.
RMC 37-93 cannot be viewed simply as construing
Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in
fact and most importantly, been made in order to place
"Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" within
the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes
bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them
covered by RA 7654 which subjects mentioned brands
to 55% the BIR not simply interpreted the law; verily, it
legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due
observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing,
and of publication should not have been then ignored.
1) Any modification or revocation of any rule shall not be BIR Rulings are not given retroactive effect if it will be
retroactive if such will be prejudicial to the taxpayer prejudicial to the taxpayer.
EXCEPT:
a) Where the taxpayer deliberately misstates his
return/documents
b) Where the facts gathered by the BIR are different
from that on which the ruling is based.
c) Where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.
2) In this case, the rulings were promulgated after the
filing of Burroughs’ tax returns.
3) Burroughs does not fall under any of these exceptions
that could deprive him of his tax credit.
4) Burroughs’ basis was Section 24(b)(2) of the 1977
Tax Code: The 15% branch profit tax shall be imposed
on the branch profits ACTUALLY remitted abroad and
not on the total branch profits out of which the
remittance is to be made.
memorandum-circular of a bureau head could not
Ruling operate to vest a taxpayer with shield against judicial
RR 7-85 altering the 2-year prescriptive period imposed action. For there are no vested rights to speak of
by law to 10-year prescriptive period is invalid respecting a wrong construction of the law by the
Administrative issuances are merely interpretations and administrative officials and such wrong interpretation
not expansions of the provisions of law, thus, in case of could not place the Government in estoppel to correct or
inconsistency, the law prevails over them. Administrative overrule the same.
agencies have no legislative power.
“When the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue

lessees withheld and remitted to the BIR withholding creditable taxes of P282,795.50 in
1985 and P234,077.69 in 1986. On August 7, 1987, petitioner requested the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, among others, for a tax credit of P5,016,954.00 representing the
overpayment of taxes in the first and second quarters of 1985.
Thereafter, on July 25, 1988, petitioner filed a claim for refund of creditable taxes withheld
by their lessees from property rentals in 1985 for P282,795.50 and in 1986 for
P234,077.69.
Pending the investigation of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner
instituted a Petition for Review on November 18, 1988 before the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA). The petition was docketed as CTA Case No. 4309 entitled: "Philippine Bank of
Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue."
The CTA decided in favor of the BIR on the ground that the Petition was filed out of time as
the same was filed beyond the two-year reglementary period. A motion for Reconsideration
was denied and the appeal to Court of Appeals was likewise denied. Thus, this appeal to
Supreme Court.
Issues:
a) Whether or not Revenue Regulations No. 7-85 which alters the reglementary period from
two (2) years to ten (10) years is valid.
b) Whether or not the petition for tax refund had already prescribed.
ABS-CBN V. CTA & The ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (herein shall be called the “Company”) was
CIR engaged in the business of telecasting local as well as foreign films acquired from foreign
corporations not engaged in trade or business with the Philippines. Under Section 24 (b) of
the National Revenue Code, a withholding tax of 30% (RA 2343). It was implemented
through Circular No. V-334. Pursuant to the foregoing, ABS-CBN dutifully withheld and
turned over to the BIR the amount of 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid by it to foreign
corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The last year that
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
issued RMC 7-85,
changing the prescriptive period of two years to ten
years on claims of excess quarterly income tax
payments, such circular created a clear inconsistency
with the provision of Sec. 230 of 1977 NIRC. In so
doing, the BIR did not simply interpret the law; rather it
legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by
Congress.
“It bears repeating that Revenue memorandum-circulars
are considered administrative rulings (in the sense of
more specific and less general interpretations of tax
laws) which are issued from time to time by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It is widely accepted
that the interpretation placed upon a statute by the
executive officers, whose duty is to enforce it, is entitled
to great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such
interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if
judicially found to be erroneous. Thus, courts will not
countenance administrative issuances that override,
instead of remaining consistent and in harmony with, the
law they seek to apply and implement.
“Further, fundamental is the rule that the State cannot be
put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or
agents. As pointed out by the respondent courts, the
nullification of RMC No. 7-85 issued by the Acting
Commissioner of Internal Revenue is an administrative
interpretation which is not in harmony with Sec. 230 of
1977 NIRC, for being contrary to the express provision
of a statute. Hence, his interpretation could not be given
weight for to do so would, in effect, amend the statute.
By implication of the above, claim for refund had already
prescribed.
Since the petition had been filed beyond the prescriptive
period, the same has already prescribed. The fact that
the final adjusted return show an excess tax credit does
not automatically entitle taxpayer claim for refund
without any express intent.
Can the CIR apply the law retroactively? (NO)
Has the power to assess the deficiency prescribed? (YES)
The prejudice to ABS of the retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 is beyond question. It was issued only in 1971, or
3 years after 1968, the last year ABS had withheld taxes under General Circular No. V-334. The assessment and demand on ABS to pay
deficiency withholding income tax was also made 3 years after 1968 for a period of time commencing in 1965. ABS was no longer in a
position to withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film rentals and no longer had any control
over them when the new Circular was issued. And in so far as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, petitioner does not
fall under them.

ABS-CBN withheld taxes pursuant to the foregoing Circular was in 1968.
RA 5431 amended Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code increasing the tax rate from 30 % to 35
% and revising the tax basis from “such amount” referring to rents, etc. to “gross income.”
The following was implemented by Circular No. 4-71.
Petitioner requested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of the assessment.
CIR V. BENGUET Benguet Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the exploration, development
CORP and operation of mineral resources, and the sale or marketing thereof to various entities. It
is a VAT registered enterprise.
The transactions in question occurred during the period between 1988 and 1991.
Under Sec. 99 of NIRC as amended by E.O. 273 s. 1987 then in effect, any person who, in
the course of trade or business, sells, barters or exchanges goods, renders services, or
engages in similar transactions and any person who imports goods is liable for output VAT
at rates of either 10% or 0% (zero-rated) depending on the classification of the transaction
under Sec. 100 of the NIRC.
In January of 1988, Benguet applied for and was granted by the BIR zero-rated status on
its sale of gold to Central Bank. On 28 August 1988 VAT Ruling No. 3788-88 was issued
which declared that the sale of gold to Central Bank is considered as export sale subject to
zero-rate pursuant to
Section 100 of the Tax Code, as amended by EO 273.
Relying on its zero-rated status and the above issuances, Benguet sold gold to the Central
Bank during the period of 1 August 1989 to 31 July 1991 and entered into transactions that
resulted in input VAT incurred in relation to the subject sales of gold. It then filed
applications for tax refunds/credits
corresponding to input VAT.
However, such request was not granted due to BIR VAT Ruling No. 008-92 dated 23
January 1992 that was issued subsequent to the consummation of the subject sales of gold
to the Central Ban`k which provides that sales of gold to the Central Bank shall not be
considered as export sales and thus, shall be subject to 10% VAT. BIR VAT Ruling No. 008-
92 withdrew, modified, and superseded all inconsistent BIR issuances.
Both petitioner and Benguet agree that the retroactive application of VAT Ruling No. 008-92
is valid only if such application would not be prejudicial to the Benguet pursuant Sec. 246 of
the NIRC.
CIR V. BWSC-Denmark, Mitsui Engineering and Mitsui and Co. formed a consortium and entered
BURSMEITERS & into a contract with NAPOCOR to operate the latter’s two power barges. BWSC established
WAIN BWSC-Mindanao which subcontracted the actual operation of the barges.
• • NAPOCOR paid the capacity and energy fees to the Consortium in a mixture of
SCANDINAVIAN
currencies, while the Consortium pays BWSC-Mindanao in foreign currency inwardly
remitted to the Philippines via banking system.
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by re-enactment clearly obtains in this case. It provides
that "the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive
construction. Note should be taken of the fact that this case involves not a mere opinion of the Commissioner or ruling rendered on a
mere query, but a Circular formally issued to "all internal revenue officials" by the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
This Court is not unaware of the well-entrenched principle that the Government is never estopped from collecting taxes because of mistakes or
errors on the part of its agents. In fact, utmost caution should be taken in this regard. But, like other principles of law, this also admits of
exceptions in the interest of justice and fair play. The insertion of Sec. 338-A into the National Internal Revenue Code, as held in the case of
Tuason, Jr. vs. Lingad, is indicative of legislative intention to support the principle of good faith. In fact, in the United States, from where Sec.
24 (b) was patterned, it has been held that the Commissioner of Collector is precluded from adopting a position inconsistent with one previously
taken where injustice would result therefrom, or where there has been a misrepresentation to payer.
Issues: (1) WON Benguet’s sale of gold to the Central Bank during the
period when such was classified by BIR issuances as zerorated could be taxed validly at a 10% rate after the
consummation of the transactions involved; (2) WON there was prejudice to Benguet Corp due to the new BIR VAT
Ruling.
Held: (1) NO. At the time when the subject transactions were consummated, the prevailing BIR regulations relied
upon by Benguet ordained that gold sales to the Central Bank were zero-rated. Benguet should not be faulted for
relying on the BIRs interpretation of the said laws and regulations.
While it is true, as CIR alleges, that government is not estopped from collecting taxes which remain unpaid on
account of the errors or mistakes of its agents and/or officials and there could be no vested right arising from an
erroneous interpretation of law, these principles must give way to
exceptions based on and in keeping with the interest of justice and fair play. (then the Court cited the ABS-CBN
case).
(2) YES. The adverse effect is that Benguet Corp became the unexpected and unwilling debtor to the BIR of the
amount equivalent to the total VAT cost of its product, a liability it previously could have recovered from the BIR in a
zero-rated scenario or at least passed on to the Central Bank had it known it would have been taxed at a 10% rate.
Thus, it is clear that Benguet suffered economic prejudice when it consummated sales of gold to the Central Bank
were taken out of the zero-rated category. The change in the VAT rating of Benguet’s transactions with the Central
Bank resulted in the twin loss of its exemption from payment of output VAT and its opportunity to recover input VAT,
and at the same time subjected it to the 10% VAT sans the option to pass on this cost to the Central Bank, with the
total prejudice in money terms being equivalent to the 10% VAT levied on its sales of gold to the Central Bank.
Even assuming that the right to recover Benguets excess payment of income tax has not yet prescribed, this relief
would only address Benguet’s overpayment of income tax but not the other burdens discussed above. Verily, this
remedy is not a feasible option for Benguet because the very reason why it was issued a deficiency tax assessment
is that its input VAT
was not enough to offset its retroactive output VAT. Indeed, the burden of having to go through an unnecessary and
cumbersome refund process is prejudice enough.
Issue: Are the receipts of Burmeister entitled to VAT For a service to be zero rated, the following conditions
zero-rated status? must be satisfied:
(1) Recipient non-resident corp doing trade outside the
Held: PARTIALLY. Respondent is entitled to the refund Philippines
prayed for BUT ONLY for the period covered prior to the (2) Service paid in foreign currency
filing of CIR’s Answer in the CTA. (3) BSP Rules and Reg
(4) Service not a processing, manufacturing, repacking

• • BWSC-Mindanao sought clarification on its tax implications. BIR told them that if
they choose to be VAT + Paid by Foreign currency + BSP Rules = 0% rated!
• • BWSC-Mindanao chose this and availed of the Voluntary Assessment Program
and availed of tax credits. Denied!
Is BWSC-Mindanao entitled to the refund as wrongly paid? (NO)
NON-RETROACTIVITY OF BIR RULING 0% VAT
/ ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
The claim has no merit since the consortium, which was of goods
the recipient of services rendered by Burmeister, was (5) VAT-Registered
deemed doing business within the Philippines since its
15-year O&M with NPC can not be interpreted as an Fact that the members of a company are principally
isolated transaction. foreign does NOT mean it is doing business outside
PHP.
In addition, the services referring to ‘processing, GR – Exports are 0%
manufacturing, repacking’ and ‘services other than those EXC – Services done to foreign companies but done
in (1)’ of Sec. 102 both require (i) payment in foreign here.
currency; (ii) inward remittance; (iii) accounted for by the
BSP; AND (iv) that the service recipient is doing
business outside the Philippines. The Court ruled that if
this is not the case, taxpayers can circumvent just by
stipulating payment in foreign currency.
The refund was partially allowed since Burmeister
secured a ruling from the BIR allowing zero-rating of its
sales to foreign consortium. However, the ruling is only
valid until the time that CIR filed its Answer in the CTA
which is deemed revocation of the previously-issued
ruling. The Court said the revocation can not retroact
since none of the instances in Section 246 (bad faith,
omission of facts, etc.) are present.
INCOME TAX
CASE TITLE FACTS HELD DOCTRINE
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Person / ALEEZAH GERTRUDE R. REGADO
2. Shares of Stock
3. Taxpayer
4. Taxable year
5. Fiscal year
6. Paid or incurred/paid or accrued

FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC Filipinas Synthetic Fiber was assessed a deficiency
FIBER CORP V. CA withholding tax at source in the total amount of P829k from
1974 to 1975. The bulk of the deficiency consisted of
interest and compromise penalties for alleged late payment
of withholding taxes due.
• • CIR – The liability to withhold and pay income
tax withheld at source from payments due to a foreign
corporation is at the time of accrual and NOT at time of
actual remittance. Synthetic failed to pay the withholding
tax on interest, royalties, and guarantee fee at the time of
accrual
• • SYNTHETIC – Withholding taxes on interest of
income and royalties were paid to the gov’t when they were
actually remitted abroad. Whatever amount has accrued in
the books, the withholding tax due is paid upon remittance.
Is it upon remittance OR accrual? (ACCRUAL)
B. TAXABLE INCOME
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAXATION
INDIVIDUALS
Section 53 of the NIRC is silent as to when the duty to withhold taxes
arise. In the provision, however, the withholding tax liability of the agent
is explicitly expressed and makes the agent personally liable for the  Section 53 (c) he is held
income tax. personally liable for the tax he
• • Phil Guaranty v. CIR – Law sets no condition for personal is duty bound to withhold;
liability of withholding agent to attach. Reason is to compel the agent to
withhold the tax under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. He is the AGENT of the whereas, the Commissioner of
taxpayer in the payment of the tax to the government and is the agent Internal Revenue and his
of the GOV’T in the collection of it for its remittance. deputies are not made liable to
• • Accrual Basis – Income is reportable when all the events
have occurred that fix the taxpayer’s right to receive the income + law.
amount can be determined with reasonable accuracy. Thus, it is the  Since there was a definite
right to receive income and NOT the actual receipt that determines clear liability and imminent
when to include the amount in gross income.
certainty that it was going to
There was definite liability + clear and imminent certainty that at the earn income it should already
maturity of the loans, the foreign corporation was going to earn income
in an ascertained amount, so much that Filipinas already deducted as
be taxable.
business expense the said amount as interests due to the foreign  Moreover, petitioner is
corporation. Having written-off the amounts as business expenses in its estopped for he has already
book, it has taken advantage of the benefit provided in the law for
allowing for deductions from gross income. It has represented to the
claimed deductions as there
BIR that the amounts deducted were incurred as business expense in were incurred as a business
the form of interest and royalties paid to the foreign corporations. It is expense in the form of interest
ESTOPPED now.
and royalties paid.

KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS

TYPES AND RATES OF INCOME

ESTATES AND TRUST

CIR V. VISAYAN Visayan Electric established a pension fund known as the “Employees
ELECTRIC Reserve for Pensions.” The fund is for the benefit of present and future
employees in the event of retirement, accident, or disability. This fund was
later invested by the company in stocks of San Miguel Brewery, for which
dividends have been regularly received. These dividends were NOT
declared for tax purposes.
The Auditor General alleged that since the company retained full control of
Investment of fund is NOT business op – It is
NOT income hence not part of the income tax
given in its legislative franchise -It is also not
incidental to the operations of the company. What is
exempt under the legislative franchise are receipts,
revenues, and profits of the COMPANY.
The intention to create a trust in favor of the
For a trust fund to be exempt:
(1) Definite Plan
(2) Good faith
(3) Impossible to divert to other purposes
(4) Solely for the benefit of employees