3. CBK Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIR- G.R. 193383 - 84, Jan.

14, 2015
CBK Power is primarily engaged in the development of hydro electric power generating
plants in Laguna and duly registered with BOI. To finance its projects, it obtained a
syndicated loan from several foreign banks. It withheld final taxes from its interest payments
to these banks but realized later that there are preferential rates under the relevant tax
treaties entered into by the Philippines with the respective countries resulting in over
withholding of taxes and accordingly it filed claim for erroneously withheld taxes for the
years 2001 & 2002.
Due to the failure to secure a BIR international tax affairs division (ITAD) ruling
relative to its claim for refund, its claim was denied by the CIR and affirmed by the CTA. CBK
appealed to the Supreme Court.
RULE: The court ruled that CBK’s failure to comply with the tax treaty relief requirement
should not deprive it of its tax treaty benefits.
The court cited the case of Deutsche Bank vs CIR where it ruled that the BIR should
not impose additional requirements that would negate the availment of the reliefs provided
for under international agreements, especially since the tax treaties do not provide for any
prerequisite at all for the availment of the benefits.
The court noted that the taxpayer should not be faulted for not complying with prior
ITAD filing ruling requirement since it could not have applied for a tax treaty relief precisely
because it erroneously paid the tax on the basis of the regular rate as prescribed by the tax
code. As stressed by the Supreme Court, the prior application requirement under Rev.
Memorandum Order No. 1-2000 then becomes illogical.
4. CIR vs. Nagase Phil. Corp. -CTA En Banc No. 1048 Jan. 29, 2015
FACTS: Nagase filed its income tax return for taxable year 2003 on April 14, 2004. It received
from CIR a formal assessment notice (FAN dated Sept 13, 2007). On Oct 10, 2007 Nagase
filed its protest to the FAN and received by CIR on Oct 11 2007. In its protest, Nagase
requested that the assessment be reconsidered and cancelled. In May 2008, Nagase filed a
petition for review with the CTA Division which cancelled the assessment. CIR appealed to
CTA EB and argued that Nagase requested for reinvestigation which led to the issuance of
the FAN only on Sept. 12, 2007.
RULE:
The CBA EB ruled that what was requested by Nagase was a reconsideration of the
assessment and not a reinvestigation. The CTA EB cited the case of CIR vs PGC which
differentiated between a “reconsideration” and a “reinvestigation”.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION – refers to a plea for a re-evaluation of an
assessment on the basis of existing records without need of additional evidence. It
 may involve bot a question of fact or law or both. This does not toll the running of
prescriptive period for collection of an assessed tax.
REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION – refers to a plea for re-evaluation of an
assessment on the basis of newly-discovered evidence that a taxpayer intends to
present in the investigation. It may also involve both a question of fact or law or both.
This suspends the running of the prescriptive period.
CTA EB ruled that since it was clear that what was requested by the taxpayer is a
reconsideration, this did not toll the prescriptive period to assess and the CIR’s right to
assess had already prescribed.
In this case CIR argued that Nagase requested for reinvestigation and it was this
reinvestigation which lead to the issuance of the FAN only on Sept 12 2007. However, CIR
failed to prove the same. The PAN and Nagase’s protest to the PAN were not presented in
evidence. The record shows that Nagase’s protest letter to the FAN which reads in part
“Nagase received your FAN on Sept 13 2007 or more than 3 years from and after April 15
2004” Thus, the assessment made by the CIR is void for being filed out of time.

5. CIR vs. Alpha Rigging & Moving System , CTA En Banc No. 1076, Jan. 8, 2015
FACTS: CIR in an appeal to CTA EB claims that an action to challenge collection procedures
on final and executory assessments should be limited only to collection procedure and that
the validity of assessment is a separate and distinct issue that can no longer be question.
Is the CIRs position tenable
RULE: CTA EB disagrees. As provided by law, an act creating the CTA, the jurisdiction of the
CTA over other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws or part of law administered by
the BIR is not limited to the timeliness and validity of the collection procedure itself. Hence,
the court can still look into the validity of the assessment. Clearly, a void assessment bears
no fruit and a warrant of distraint and or levy issued pursuant to a void assessment is
likewise null and void.

12. Armco-Marsteel Alloy Corp. vs CIR—CTA Case No. 4592, July 1, 1993
This case involves petitioner’s claim for refund or in the alternative tax credit

15. CIR vs. GCL Retirement Plan G.R. 95022 March 23, 1992