Pointers in Taxation Law

2016 Bar Examinations

Professor Victoria V. Loanzon
With the assistance of Atty. Sid Angelo Bautista
Admitted to the Practice of Law, May 2016
I. General Principles
Q. What is the nature of the taxing power of government?
A. The power to tax is inherent to the state but constitutional provisions limit the exercise
thereof. Taxes are mandatory impositions and not a contract between the state and the
taxpayer (in invitum) because consent, which is an essential element of contract, is absent. It
has the power to destroy as it puts restraint on personal and property rights.
Q. What is the two-fold nature of the power to tax?
A. The two-fold nature of the power of taxation is inherent power and legislative power. It is
inherent because it is an exercise of sovereign powers and not granted by the Constitution.
The primary purpose of taxation is to generate funds for the state to finance the needs of the
citizens and promote the common good. This is carried out by way of legislation.
Q. What are the relevant theories governing the states inherent power to tax?
A. Relevant Theories: Necessity Theory existence of government is a necessity, therefore it
has the right to compel citizens and property to pay taxes; Benefits Protection Theory
payment of taxes allows a citizen to enjoy benefits in an organized society; and Life Blood
Theory taxes constitute the lifeblood of the country and taxes support the operations of
government and the public services extended to the people.
Lifeblood Theory: Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. The Philippines has been struggling
to improve its tax efficiency collection for the longest time with minimal success.
Consequently, the Philippines has suffered the economic adversities arising from poor tax
collections, forcing the government to continue borrowing to fund the budget deficits.
(Western Mindanao Power Corp v. CIR, 2013)
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist
nor endure. (National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, (2003))
Benefits Protection Theory: The individual receives the equivalent of the tax in the form of
protection and benefit he receives from the government as such. Churchill and Tait vs.
Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580, No. 10572, December 21, 1915)
Necessity Theory: The power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty. It is a power emanating
from necessity. It is a necessary burden to preserve the States sovereignty and a means to
give the citizenry an army to resist an aggression, a navy to defend its shores from invasion, a
corps of civil servants to serve, public improvements designed for the enjoyment of the
citizenry and those which come within the States territory, and facilities and protection which
a government is supposed to provide. (Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc, vs. Commissioner of Int.
Rev., 13 SCRA 775, No. L-22074 April 30, 1965)

Q. What is the distinction between the power to tax and the exercise of police power?
A. When the purpose of the imposition of a royalty fee upon an oil company is not for the
purpose of generating revenue but a recognition that the oil industry is imbued with public
interest, then the royalty fee will be considered as a regulatory fee.
*Simply stated an imposition that is for revenue is generally a tax while an imposition that
has another purpose such as regulation is an exercise of police power. (Chevron v. BCDA and
CDC)
Q. What are the constitutional proscriptions in enacting tax laws?
A. All tax measures must originate from the House of Representatives but Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
The rule on taxation must be uniform and equitable; Congress shall evolve a progressive

system of taxation (tax rate and tax base are directly proportional as against proportional
system which has a fixed rate regardless of tax base; and regressive system where the tax rate
and tax base are inversely proportional).
The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are to be
preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized. (Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance, 1995)
The Constitution has delegated legislative power to the President to impose tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program.
Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques,
non-profit cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements, actually, directly and
exclusively (ADE) used for religious, charitable or educational purposes are tax exempt.
ADE means solely used for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution.
Note also that it is the use of property that determines exemption not the use of income
coming from such property. (Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, 2004)
Any law granting tax exemption must be approved by majority of all members of Congress.
All money collected for a special purpose (special levy or tax as contrasted to general tax)
shall be dedicated only for that purpose and any excess shall be transferred to the general fund
of the government.
All local government units may impose tolls (ex. use of roads), charges (ex. special
assessment for certain activities) and fees (ex. building permits, business permits) in line with
the principle of local autonomy; except for non-payment of community taxes/poll taxes, nonpayment of other taxes such as real property taxes may subject one to imprisonment.
While taxes are not subject to set-off or compensation and over payment when proven forces
the government to restore to the taxpayer the amount it overpaid (solutio indebiti).
Q. Can a non-profit, non-stock educational institution refuse to settle the assessment of a
local government for its building permit?
A. No. The DPWH implements the Building Code through the Building Officials of all local
government units. While there is incidental revenue to the local government unit, the
imposition of a Building Permit partakes of a regulatory nature. The imposition of Building
Permit fee is an exercise of police power to ensure compliance with the standards under the
Building Code to protect the public from any danger. (Angeles University Foundation v. City
of Angeles)
Q. When enacting tax measures, what general guidelines must the legislator consider?
A. In enacting tax measures the legislator must exert every effort to distribute the tax
burden between individuals or classes of population; in general, to redistribute resources
between individuals (to include some form subsidy by way of support to particular classes
like the senior citizens, the poor, the retired employees, the disabled); to provide basis for
fiscal policy; to modify patterns of consumption or employment (may have incentives or
factors to make them less attractive).
Q. What are general characteristics of tax measures?
A. Taxes are enforced and never voluntary (does not need consent of the taxpayer); exacted
pursuant to law (part of legislative power but limited by constitutional provisions; and must
originate from the House of Representatives); exaction is always in the form of money but
failure to pay may result to distraint and levy of properties; taxes are personal and cannot be
transferred or transmitted but the burden can be shifted (in case of indirect taxes like VAT),
purpose is to raise revenue for public/ governmental purpose; proceeds of tax collection
cannot be used for private purpose; levied by authority which has jurisdiction over the
following person, property, transaction, rights and privileges (which is the extent of
coverage/scope of powers).
Q. Discuss the normal tax cycle.
A. The Tax Cycle:
Levy Congress determines the persons, property or exercises to be taxed, amount to be
raised, rates to be imposed and manner of implementation.
Assessment and Collection The executive branch administers and implements all tax laws;
and enforces the levy.
Payment and/or Exercise of Remedies Compliance results in payment but resistance will
allow the government and the taxpayer to exercise both administrative and judicial remedies.

Q. What is the purpose of tax?

A. Fiscal when it raises funds or regulatory when it seeks to achieve social or economic goals.
Q. Who are liable for tax?
A. For direct taxes, same person absorbs the tax (ex. income tax, PTR, CTC) and burden to
pay cannot be shifted while in indirect taxes, tax is paid by the person other than the one upon
whom it is imposed, thus the burden can be shifted (ex. VAT). (Expect questions on VATexempt transactions and VATable transactions).
Q. What factors must be considered in imposing taxes?
A. Consider persons (natural and juridical) to be taxed; consider residence of the tax payer
(mobilia sequntur personam); consider threshold period and threshold amount; determine
situs of the tax to avoid double taxation; review reciprocity and comity principles under tax
treaties which may operate for a given tax incident.
Q. The employees of the Bureau of Customs assailed the constitutionality of the Attrition
Law on the following grounds: denial of due process, violative of the equal protection
clause, undue delegation of power, constitutes itself as a bill of attainder and threatens
their security of tenure. Will the case prosper?
A. No. The Attrition Bill is constitutional. There is a valid classification not violative of the
equal protection clause as the employees of BIR and BOC, being involved in revenue
collection, are different from other government employees. The law does not violate due
process and security of tenure; it is also not a bill of attainder as the underperformance is
indicated by a clear standard expressly provided and dismissal is subject to civil service
substantive and procedural rules. (BOCEA v. Sec. Teves)

Q. How are tax measures interpreted?

A. As a general rule, tax statutes are construed strictly against the government and liberally
in favor of taxpayers; under the lifeblood theory, it frowns against exemptions and there
therefore the taxpayer has the burden of proof to show his claim (strictissimi juris); tax
amnesty is never presumed.
Miramar Fish Company, Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue., G.R. No. 185432,
June 4, 2014: A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax refund exemption, is
construed strictly against the taxpayer. One of the conditions for a judicial claim of refund or
credit under the VAT System is compliance with the 120+30 day mandatory and jurisdictional
periods.
CIR v. San Roque Power Corp and other consolidated cases, G.R No. 205543, June 30,
2014: The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot be the source of legal
rights or duties. Article 7 of the Civil Code enunciates this general rule, as well as its
exception. The Court said that although Section 4 of the 1997 Tax Code provides that the
"power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive
and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance,"
Section 7 of the same Code does not prohibit the delegation of such power. Thus, "the
Commissioner may delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of this
Code to any or such subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or
higher, subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and
regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the
Commissioner."
The Court further held that provisions of the NIRC particularly Section 112(A) and (C) must
be interpreted according to its clear, plain, and unequivocal language. The taxpayer can file
his administrative claim for refund or credit within the two-year prescriptive period. If
he files his claim on the last day of the two-year prescriptive period, his claim is still filed on
time. The Commissioner will have 120 days from such filing to decide the claim. If the
Commissioner decides the claim on the 120 th day, or does not decide it on that day, the
taxpayer still has 30 days to file his judicial claim with the CTA.
Q. May a private company refuse to grant a 20% senior for its services?

A. No. The validity of the 20% senior citizen discount and tax deduction scheme under RA
9257, as an exercise of police power of the State, has already been settled in Carlos Superdrug
Corporation. The discount given to senior citizens meets all the requirements under the
equal protection class. Senior citizens are likewise exempt from 12% VAT imposition.
(Manila Memorial Park, Inc and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat v. DSWD Secretary, 2013)
Q. What are the factors to consider in enacting revenue-raising measures?
A. Purpose is lawful, identify specific person, property or privilege to be taxed, specify
schedule of the rate to be imposed; distinguish if tax is direct or indirect; apportionment of the
tax to be collected; situs of taxation; and mode of levy/collection.
Q. What may be the subject matter of taxes?
A. Personal, capitation or poll fixed amount without regard to class;
Property subject to assessment based on area, location, use and normally distinguishes
between land and improvements which may include equipment;
Excise based on exercise of privileges or doing business (Expect questions on input/output
tax and zero rated transactions); and
Customs duties imposed on commodities exported or imported.
Q. May the provisions of a tax law be extended by implication?
A. Yes. It is well settled that where the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, it must
be given its literal application and applied without interpretation. The general rule of
requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with particular strictness to tax
laws and provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication. A careful reading of
the RMOs pertaining to the Voluntary Assessment Program (VAP) shows that the recording of
the information in the Official Registry Book of the BIR is a mandatory requirement before a
taxpayer may be excluded from the coverage of the VAP. (CIR v. Ariete et al, 2010)
Q. Is a claim for tax exemption tantamount to questioning the authority of the assessor?
A. No. A claim for tax exemption, whether full or partial, does not deal with the authority of
local assessor to assess real property tax. Such claim questions the correctness of the
assessment and compliance with the applicable provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7160 or
the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, particularly as to requirement of payment under
protest, is mandatory. (Camp John Hay Dev. Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
(CBAA), 2013)
Q. PEZA holds a special charter and created by law. The main objective of the law is to
provide a package of incentives to investors locating in areas identified as export
processing zones. Through the years, PEZA has established a number of these zones.
May PEZA be taxed as a corporate body?
A. No. Being an instrumentality of the national government, the PEZA cannot be taxed by
local government units. Although a body corporate vested with some corporate powers, the
PEZA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation taxable for real property taxes.
The PEZAs predecessor, the EPZA, it was declared non-profit in character with all its
revenues devoted for its development, improvement, and maintenance. Consistent with this
non- profit character, the EPZA was explicitly declared exempt from real property taxes under
its charter. Even the PEZAs lands and building whose beneficial use have been granted to
other persons may not be taxed with real property taxes. The PEZA may only lease its lands
and buildings to PEZA-registered economic zone enterprises and entities. These PEZAregistered enterprises and entities, which operate within economic zones, are not subject to
real property taxes. (CITY OF LAPU-LAPU vs. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE
AUTHORITY; PROVINCE OF BATAAN, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR ENRIQUE
T. GARCIA, JR., AND EMERLINDA S. TALENTO, IN HER CAPACITY AS
PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATAAN vs. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE
AUTHORITY, G.R No. 184203, G.R NO. 187583, November 26, 2014)
Q. What is the cross border doctrine of the VAT system?
A. The cross border doctrine states that no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of
goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority.
Accordingly, the sales made by suppliers from a customs territory to a purchaser located
within an ECOZONE will be considered as exportations. (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Toshiba Information Equipment (PHILS.) Inc., G.R. No. 150154, August 9,

2005)
Q. What is the Destination Principle of the VAT system?
A. The destination principle states that goods and services are taxed only in the country where
they are consumed (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International,
G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005)
Q. Can an entity located within an ECOZONE seek from BIR the refund of its
unutilized input taxes?
A. No. CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R. No. 190506, June 13, 2016: Under the destination principle and cross
border doctrine, sales of goods and services to Coral Bay Nickel Corporation, a PEZAregistered enterprise located in Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone (Ecozone) is subject to 0%
VAT. The proper party to seek the tax refunds or credits should be the sellers of the goods, not
the BIR. Thus, Coral Bay Nickel is not entitled to claim for refund of input VAT it paid on its
purchases of goods and services.
Q. When is there double taxation?
A. There is double taxation when the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter,
for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the
same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. (NURSERY CARE
CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B, INC.;
SUPPLIES STATION INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC. vs. ANTHONY
ACEVEDO, in his capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF
MANILA, G.R. NO. 180651, July 30, 2014)
Q. XYZ is a cigarette manufacturing company. The Bureau of Internal Revenue
assessed it separately for the raw materials it used for manufacturing its products and
for its finished products. Is the taxation of raw materials and the products resulting
therefrom considered double taxation?
A. No. Stemmed leaf tobacco is subject to the specific tax under Section 141 (b). It is a
partially prepared tobacco. The removal of the stem or midrib from the leaf tobacco makes the
resulting stemmed leaf tobacco a prepared or partially prepared tobacco. Since the Tax Code
contained no definition of partially prepared tobacco, then the term should be construed in
its general, ordinary, and comprehensive sense x x x. Finally, excise taxes are essentially
taxes on property because they are levied on certain specified goods or articles manufactured
or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption or for any other disposition,
and on goods imported. In this case, there is no double taxation in the prohibited sense
despite the fact that they are paying the specific tax on the raw material and on the
finished product in which the raw material was a part, because the specific tax is
imposed by explicit provisions of the Tax Code on two different articles or products: (1)
on the stemmed leaf tobacco; and (2) on cigar or cigarette. (LA SUERTE CIGAR &
CIGARETTE FACTORY vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R No. 125346, G.R Nos. 136328-29, G.R No. 144942, G.R No.
148605, G.R No. 158197, G.R. No. 165499, November 11, 2014)
Q. The City of Manila sought to enforce both Sections 14 and 21 of the Manila Revenue
Code claiming that the former is a tax on manufacturers, etc. while the latter applies to
business subject to excise, VAT or percentage tax. Will the imposition of both sections
amount to invalid double taxation?
A. Yes. There is in fact double taxation since both sections are being imposed on the same
subject matter (privilege of doing business within the city), for the same purpose, by the same
taxing authority, within the same taxing jurisdiction, for the same taxing period, and of the
same kind or character (a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts). NURSERY
CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B,
INC.; SUPPLIES STATION INC.; and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC. vs. ANTHONY
ACEVEDO, in his capacity as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF
MANILA, G.R. NO. 180651, July 30, 2014)
Q. What is a Final Withholding Tax?
A. Revenue Regulation No. 02-98: The final withholding tax (FWT) is the amount of
income tax that constitutes as a full and final payment of income tax due from the recipient of

the income.
Q. CODE-NGO, assisted by RCBC requested for the approval of the Department of
Finance (DOF) in order for the Bureau of Treasurys (BOT) issuance of ten-year
zero coupon treasury certificates (T-notes). These T-Notes would initially be purchased
by a special purpose vehicle on behalf of CODE-NGO, repackaged and sold at a
premium to investors as PEACE Bonds. Thereafter, the BOT issued the T-notes to
RCBC on behalf of CODE-NGO. RCBC Capital, as the lead underwriter, sold the Peace
Bonds in the secondary market. Note that BDO purchased several PEACE Bonds on
different dates. However, the BIR issued a later ruling declaring that the PEACE Bonds,
being deposit substitutes, are subject to the 20% final withholding tax. Are these
PEACE Bonds subject to final withholding tax?
A. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the number of lenders is determinative of whether a debt
instrument should be considered a deposit substitute and consequently subject to the 20%
final withholding tax. From the point of view of the financial market, the phrase at any one
time for purposes of determining the 20 or more lenders would mean every transaction
executed in the primary or secondary market in connection with the purchase or sale of
securities. Where the financial assets involved are government securities like bonds, the
reckoning of the 20 or more lenders/investors is made at any transaction in connection with
the purchase or sale of the government bonds, such as: a) Issuance by the Bureau of Treasury
of the bonds to the Government Securities Eligible Dealers (GSEDs) in the primary market;
b) Sale and distribution by GSEDs to various lenders/investors in the secondary market; c)
Subsequent sale or trading by a bondholder to another lender/investor in the secondary
market usually through a broker or dealer; or d) Sale by a financial intermediary-bondholder
of its participation interests in the bonds to individual or corporate lenders in the secondary
market.
When, through any of the foregoing transactions, funds are simultaneously obtained from 20
or more lenders/investors, there is deemed to be a public borrowing and the bonds at that
point in time are deemed deposit substitutes. Consequently, the seller is required to withhold
the 20% final withholding tax on the imputed interest income from the bonds.
Q. What is the nature of Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)?
A. DST partakes of Excise : Liability for payment of DST is for account of the Seller
Fort Bonifacio Dev. Corp v. CIR, 2013. DST is an excise tax levied on the exercise by
persons of privileges conferred by law.
* note that this was asked in the 2014 bar even though excluded in the coverage
Philacor Credit Corp v. CIR, 2013: DST is due the person (1) making; (2) signing; (3)
issuing; (4) accepting; or (5) transferring the taxable documents.
Q. When is DST imposed?
DST is in the nature of an excise tax because it is imposed upon the privilege, opportunity or
facility offered at exchanges for the transaction of the business. DST is a tax on documents,
instruments, loan agreements, and papers evidencing the acceptance, assignment, or transfer
of an obligation, right or property incident thereto. DST is thus imposed on the exercise of
these privileges through the execution of specific instruments, independently of the legal
status of the transactions giving rise thereto. In a merger of two corporations, the transfer of
real properties not conveyed to or vested by means of any specific deed, instrument or writing
is not subject to DST.R.A No. 9243, entitled An Act Rationalizing the Provisions of the
Documentary Stamp Tax of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 was enacted and
took effect on April 27, 2004, which exempts the transfer of real property of a corporation,
which is a party to the merger or consolidation, to another corporation, which is also a party
to the merger or consolidation, from the payment of DST. (COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, G.R No.
192398, September 29, 2014)
Q. Is an electronic message with instruction to debit an account and pay a person
subject to DST?
A. No. On review with the Supreme Court, it held that an electronic message containing
instructions to debit their respective local or foreign currency accounts in the Philippines and

pay a certain named recipient also residing in the Philippines is not transaction contemplated
under Section 181 of the Tax Code. They are also not bills of exchange due to their nonnegotiability. Hence, they are not subject to DST. (THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI
BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED-PHILIPPINE BRANCHES vs. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 166018 & 167728, June 4, 2014)
Q. National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) transferred its franchise to the newlycreated National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO). At the time of transfer,
NAPOCOR had pending franchise tax obligations to the local government. May the
liability to pay delinquent franchise tax be transferred to TRANSCO?
Q. Yes. A corporation that has been ordered to pay franchise tax delinquency but which
facilities, including its nationwide franchise, had been transferred to the National
Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) by operation of law during the time of the alleged
delinquency, cannot be ordered to pay as it is not the proper party subject to the local
franchise tax, the transferee being the one liable. (NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION
vs.
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT
OF
BATAAN,
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN OF BATAAN, PASTOR B. VICHUACO (IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATAAN) and THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN, G.R. No. 180654, April 21, 2014)
Q. What is the 120+30 Rule in a Claim for refund or credit of unutilized input tax under
Section 112 of NIRC?
A. Requisites first, administrative claim must be filed with BIR within two years after the
close of taxable quarter when zero-rated or effectively zero rated sales were made; second,
judicial claim must be made within 30 days from receipt of BIR decision on tax refund/credit
claim or if no action is received from the BIR within 120 days. (Mindanao Geothermal v.
CIR, 2013)
Nippon Express Corp v. CIR, 2013: Failure of BIR to act on a claim within 120 days will
allow the taxpayer to seek relief within 30 days from the lapse of said 120 day period.
CIR v. Visayas Geothermal Power Co., 2013: The failure to observe the 120-day period to
claim refund/credit is considered prematurely filed and CTA cannot take cognizance of the
judicial claim.
Northern Mindanao Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
185115, February 18, 2015: In case the BIR fails to act on a claim for refund within the 120day period prescribed by law, the taxpayer only has 30 days counted from the expiration of
the 120-day period to appeal the unacted claim with the CTA. A taxpayers non-compliance
with the mandatory period of 30 days is fatal to its refund claim on the ground of prescription.
Consequently, the CTA acquires no jurisdiction over the taxpayers claim as the petition was
belatedly filed.
Silicon Philippines v. CIR, 2 Mar 2016: Upon filing of the administrative claim, the BIR 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 claim. 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.
Whether the BIR rules in favor of or against the taxpayer or does not act at all on the
administrative claim within the period of 120 days from the submission of complete
documents, the taxpayer may resort to a judicial claim before the CTA. 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.
Q. What is the effect of the non-observance of the 120-day period?
A. Two claims for refund of the VAT were filed within the two-year prescriptive periods. The
taxpayer failed to comply with the 120-day period as it filed its judicial claim in C.T.A Case
No. 6792 four (4) days after the filing of the administrative claim. The Court held that only

C.T.A Case No. 6792 should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for being
prematurely filed.
However, the Court held that since C.T.A Case No. 6837, the judicial claim was filed a day
after the filing of the administrative claim, the same should be sustained based on equitable
estoppel having been filed i.e., from December 10, 2003 to October 6, 2010, when BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in place. The supposed jurisdictional defect, which would have
attended the filling of its judicial claim before the expiration of the 120-day period, was
cured. (COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL
POWER COMPANY, INC., G.R No. 190198, September 17, 2014)
Q. Is the 120+30 day rule always mandatory?
A. No. As an exception to the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period,
judicial claims filed between December 10, 2003 or from the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA489-03, up to October 6, 2010 need not wait for the lapse of the 120+30 day period in
consonance with the principle of equitable estoppel. Since Taganito filed its judicial claim
with the CTA on February 19, 2004, clearly within the period of exception of December 10,
2003 to October 6, 2010. Its judicial claim was, therefore, not prematurely filed and should
not have been dismissed by the CTA En Banc.
The SC ruled that the jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions or inaction of the CIR is only
appellate in nature and, thus, necessarily requires the prior filing of an administrative case
before the CIR under Section 112. A petition filed prior to the lapse of the 120-day period
prescribed under said Section would be premature for violating the doctrine on the
exhaustion of administrative remedies. There is, however, an exception to the mandatory and
jurisdictional nature of the 120+30 day period under BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, dated
December 10, 2003, expressly stated that the taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse
of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for
Review. (TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R. No. 198076, November 19, 2014 and G.R. No. 201195, November 26,
2014)
Q. What are the purposes of the aforementioned 120+30 periods?
A. Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code states the time requirements for filing a judicial
claim for the refund or tax credit of input VAT. The legal provision speaks of two periods: the
period of 120 days, which serves as a waiting period to give time for the CIR to act on
the administrative claim for a refund or credit; and the period of 30 days, which refers to
the period for filing a judicial claim with the CTA. It is the 30-day period that is at issue in
this case. (ROHM APOLLO SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES vs. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015)
Q. What is the purpose of the requirement for printing of sales invoices and official
receipts?
A. In Silicon Valley, Phils., Inc. v. CIR, 2011, the Supreme Court reiterated that the
requirement of [printing] the BIR permit to print on the face of the sales invoices and official
receipts is a control mechanism adopted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to safeguard the
interest of the government. Without producing the Authority to Print, the taxpayer cannot
claim any tax refund/tax credit.
Q. Differentiate a VAT invoice from a VAT receipt.
A. A VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties while
a VAT official receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties, and every sale,
barter or exchange of services. In other words, the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the
sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence of
the payment of goods or services received from the seller. (NIPPON EXPRESS
(PHILIPPINES) CORP v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No.
185666, February 4, 2015)
Q. What are the requirements for a tax refund or tax credit?
A. The Supreme Court reiterated that it is fatal if the taxpayer failed to print the word zerorated on the VAT invoices or official receipts in claims for a refund or credit of input VAT on
zero-rated sales, even if the claims were made prior to the effectivity of R.A 9337. A VAT
invoice is the sellers best proof of the sale of goods or services to the buyer, while a VAT

receipt is the buyers best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the
seller. The requirement of imprinting the word zero-rated proceeds from the rule-making
authority granted to the Secretary of Finance by the NIRC for the efficient enforcement of the
same Tax Code and its amendments. A VAT-registered person whose sales are zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated, Section 112(A) specifically provides for a two-year prescriptive period
after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made within which such taxpayer
may apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax.
(CARGILL PHILIPPINES, INC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015)
Q. May a claim of refund prosper if the VAT invoices do not indicate the transactions as
zero-rated?
A. No. The Court stressed that the failure to indicate the words zero-rated on the invoices
and receipts issued by a taxpayer would result in the denial of the claim for refund or tax
credit.
(EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015)
Q. In a claim for refund of excess income tax payments resulting from unutilized
creditable withholding taxes, is the taxpayer required to present in evidence its
quarterly income tax return of the subsequent year to prove that excess income tax
payment was indeed not carried over to the succeeding year?
A. No. According to the Supreme Court, subsequent quarterly income tax returns are not
indispensable. What Sec. 76 of the Tax Code requires is to prove the prima facie entitlement
to a claim, including the fact of not having carried over the excess credits to the subsequent
quarters or taxable year. It does not say that to prove such a fact, succeeding quarterly ITRs
are absolutely needed. This simply underscores the rule that any document, other than
quarterly ITRs may be used to establish that indeed the non-carry over clause has been
complied with, provided that such is competent, relevant and part of the records.
(Winebrenner & Iigo Insurance Brokers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 748
SCRA 591, G.R. No. 206526 January 28, 2015)
Q. May the BIR impose conditions not included in a tax treaty for the application of tax
relief?
A. No. A tax treaty is an agreement that provides for a uniform treatment of a taxable event
between agreeing countries. The Court reiterated that the purpose of a tax treaty is it is used
to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting parties in order to help the
taxpayer avoid international juridical double taxation. Double taxation is the imposition of
comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject
matter and for identical periods
Thus the Court held that the BIR cannot impose additional requirements that would negate the
availment of relief provided under international agreements. (Deutsche Bank v. CIR, 2013)
Q. Are persons selling aviation fuel exempt from paying taxes for selling their fuel to
international air carriers?
A. Under the basic international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the state has the duty to
fulfill its treaty obligations in good faith. This entails harmonization of national legislation
with treaty provisions. Section 135 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code embodies the
countrys compliance with its undertakings under the 1944 Chicago Convention on
International Aviation (Chicago Convention), Article 24 (9) of which has been interpreted to
prohibit taxation of aircraft fuel consumed for international transport, and various bilateral
air service agreements not to impose excise tax on aviation fuel purchased by international
carriers from domestic manufacturers or suppliers on petroleum products sold to tax-exempt
international carriers. Evidently, construction of the tax exemption provision in question
should give primary consideration to its broad implications on the countrys commitment
under international agreements. In view of the foregoing the Court held that respondent, as
the statutory taxpayer who is directly liable to pay the excise tax on its petroleum products is
entitled to a refund or credit of the excise taxes it paid for petroleum products sold to
international carriers, the latter having been granted exemption from the payment of said
excise tax under Section 135 (a) of the NIRC. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 188497. February 19, 2014)
II. National Internal Revenue Code

Q. What is income?
A. Income consists of profit or gains as to the amount of money coming to a person or
corporation over a specified period of time.
Income: definition, nature, tests when it becomes taxable; inclusions of gross income,
classification as to source (compensation income, fringe benefits, professional income,
income from business, income from dealings in property; passive income investment (ex.
Final tax of 20% on interest income, royalty income except on royalty on books which is
subject to 10%, yield on monetary benefit from deposit substitutes, prizes or awards except
PCSO and Lotto winnings);10% final tax on royalties on literary works, books and musical
compositions (LBM); 10% on from winnings from horse races; 10% on cash and stock
dividends for Filipinos, annuities, proceeds from insurance policies, prizes and awards,
pensions, retirement benefit or separation pay; income from whatever source (ex. forgiveness
of indebtedness, tax refund); capital gains tax expect a question on this review Sec. 24(D) of
the NIRC for schedule of rate and for actual computation of final sale over a property
transaction); Tax rates for non-resident aliens are higher. Check relevant provisions.
Q. What are the elements of income?
A. Presence of gain or profit, such is realized actually or constructively; and is not exempt by
any law or treaty.
Q. What is taxable income?
A. Items earned or gained as gross income less deductions and/ or personal and additional
exemptions, if authorized under the NIRC or any special law; distinguish between ordinary
income and ordinary loss.
Q. Who are liable to pay income tax?
Resident citizens with minimum wage earners considered as special class; non -resident
citizens (Overseas contract workers, seafarers); aliens (determine threshold as to amount and
period), domestic corporations (review principles on transfer pricing); foreign corporations
(review profit sharing for branches) including resident and non-resident foreign corporations,
partnerships including general partnerships, co-ownerships and estates and trusts.
Q. What is included in income tax?
A. Income tax, estate and donors taxes, value-added tax, other percentage taxes, excise
taxes; documentary stamp taxes; and such other taxes as are or hereafter may be imposed and
collected by the BIR.
Q. What is the nature of capital gains tax?
A. Capital gains is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, not the buyer, who generally
would shoulder the tax. As a general rule, therefore, any of the parties to a transaction shall be
liable for the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they agree among
themselves on who shall be liable for the same. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHAILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS vs.
ARLENE R. SORIANO, G.R No. 211666, February 25, 2015)
Q. Is the sale of goodwill subject to ordinary income tax?
A. No. Goodwill is not an ordinary asset as it is not among the exceptions under the definition
of capital assets in Section 39(A)(1) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code. Thus, it is a
capital subject to capital gains tax, not ordinary income tax. (WM. H. Anderson v. Juan
Posadas, Jr., G.R. No. 44100, September 22, 1938)
Q. What are included when a natural person is taxed?
A. Inclusions in compensation income, exclusions and deductions (itemized and standard
deductions. Memorize the amounts on personal exemption for individual tax payer under
Section 35 (A) of the NIRC.); Income derived from business or practice of profession;
treatment of passive income (final tax and need not be reported since deduction is in the form
of final tax); tax on capital gains; senior citizens, minimum wage earners and those who
granted exemptions under international agreements (those employed with Asian Development
Bank and IRRI) are exempt from payment.
Q. What are included when domestic corporations are taxed?

A. Covered transactions, payment schedule, allowable deductions (itemized and optional

standard deductions); treatment of passive incomes subject to tax and those not subject to tax;
tax on capital gains; check also on principle of transfer pricing if domestic corporation does
business in another foreign country; treatment of accumulated earnings.
Section 27(B) of the NIRC imposes a 10% preferential tax rate on the income of (1)
proprietary non-profit educational institutions and (2) proprietary non-profit hospitals. The
only qualifications for hospitals are that they must be proprietary and non-profit.
"Proprietary" means private, following the definition of a "proprietary educational
institution" as "any private school maintained and administered by private individuals or
groups" with a government permit. "Non-profit" means no net income or asset accrues to
or benefits any member or specific person, with all the net income or asset devoted to the
institution's purposes and all its activities conducted not for profit.
Q. What taxes are imposed on an educational institution?
A. Only portions actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes are exempt
from real property taxes; while portions leased to private entities are not exempt from such
taxes. (Angeles University Foundation v. City of Angles, 2012)
Q. What taxes are imposed on a hospital?
A. As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its
exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether outpatient, or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the
money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to
achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the
institution. (CIR v. St. Lukes Medical Center, 2012)
Q. What taxes are imposed on resident foreign corporations?
A. General rule foreign corporations are liable for income derived from Philippine sources;
may enjoy certain incentives if covered by a treaty or special provision of law (registration
under the Board of Investments and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority); minimum
corporate tax due and schedule of payment; treatment of other incomes; liability for capital
gains tax; treatment of accumulated earnings
Q. Enumerate the different kinds of resident foreign corporations and discuss their tax
liabilities, if any.
A. Philippine Branch is a foreign corporation in the Philippines that is allowed by the SEC
to do business in the Philippines in such activities it normally does in its home country. It is
normally taxable in like manner as a local corporation 12% VAT, 30% corporate income tax,
and such other applicable internal revenue taxes. Also, repatriation of its operational income
in the Philippines is subject to 15% branch profit remittance tax.
Representative Office is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines to
deal directly with the clients of its parent company abroad on information dissemination, as
communication center, product promotion, and quality control for exports. It is not allowed to
earn income in the Philippines, thus not subject to income tax.
Regional Operating Headquarters in the Philippines (ROHQ) is a special type of income
producing foreign corporation. The income to be generated is limited to specific services
rendered to its affiliates, branches, and subsidiaries within the Asia-Pacific Region. It is
subject to a special income tax rate of 10% and 12% VAT in the Philippines. Repatriation of
its operational income in the Philippines is subject to 15% branch profit remittance tax.
Regional Area Headquarters (RAHQ) is a non-income generating foreign corporation
tasked to act as a supervisory, communications, or coordinating center for its subsidiaries,
affiliates, and branches in the Asia-Pacific region. It is only a cost center and is not allowed to
earn income.
Air Canada v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169507, January 11, 2016: An
offline international air carrier is a resident foreign corporation for income tax
purposes. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine in CIR v. British Overseas Airways

Corporation that an international air carrier with no landing rights in the Philippines is a
resident foreign corporation if its local sales agent sells and issues tickets in its behalf. An
offline international carrier selling passage tickets in the Philippines, through a local general
sales agent, is considered a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. As
such, it is taxable on income derived from sources within the Philippines, and not on Gross
Philippine Billings, subject to any applicable tax treaty.
Accenture, Inc. v. CIR, 2012: Tax for services rendered by a resident corporation outside
Philippine territory: The Court held that that the recipient of the service should be doing
business outside the Philippines to qualify for zero-rating is the only logical interpretation of
Section 102(b) (2) of the 1977 Tax Code, as we explained in Burmeister: This can only be
the logical interpretation of Section 102 (b) (2). If the provider and recipient of the "other
services" are both doing business in the Philippines, the payment of foreign currency is
irrelevant. Otherwise, those subject to the regular VAT under Section 102 (a) can avoid paying
the VAT by simply stipulating payment in foreign currency inwardly remitted by the recipient
of services. To interpret Section 102 (b) (2) to apply to a payer-recipient of services doing
business in the Philippines is to make the payment of the regular VAT under Section 102 (a)
dependent on the generosity of the taxpayer. The provider of services can choose to pay the
regular VAT or avoid it by stipulating payment in foreign currency inwardly remitted by the
payer-recipient. Such interpretation removes Section 102 (a) as a tax measure in the Tax
Code, an interpretation this Court cannot sanction. A tax is a mandatory exaction, not a
voluntary contribution. x x x
Further, when the provider and recipient of services are both doing business in the
Philippines, their transaction falls squarely under Section 102 (a) governing domestic sale or
exchange of services. Indeed, this is a purely local sale or exchange of services subject to the
regular VAT, unless of course the transaction falls under the other provisions of Section 102
(b).
Q. What taxes are imposed on non-resident foreign corporations?
A. Non-resident foreign corporations are liable only for income derived from Philippine
sources, rate and schedule of payment, tax liability on certain incomes like interest on foreign
loans, intra corporate dividends; may enjoy certain exemptions under tax treaty or provision
of special laws; treatment of accumulated earnings.
Q. Goodyear Philippines (Goodyear) increased its Authorized Capital Stock from
P400M (divided to 4M shares with par value of P100) to P1.73B (divided to 4M common
shares and 13.3M preferred shares with par value of P100 each). Consequently, all the
preferred shares wer subscribed by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (GTRC), a
foreign company registered in the US. Thereafter, Goodyears Board of Directors
authorized the redemption of GTRCs 3.72M worth of preferred shares at the
redemption price of P372M representing the aggregate par value and P97M
representing accrued and unpaid dividends. Is the gain derived by GTRC subject to
15% Final Witholding Tax (FWT) on dividends?
A. No. The term dividends means any distribution made by a corporation to its shareholders
out of its earnings or profits and payable to its shareholders, whether in one or in other
property. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds therefore that the redemption price
representing the amount of P97,732,314.00 received by GTRC could not be treated as
accumulated dividends in arrears that could be subjected to 15% FWT. Verily, respondents
AFS covering the years 2003 to 2009 show that it did not have unrestricted retained earnings,
and in fact, operated in a position of deficit. Thus, absent the availability of unrestricted
retained earnings, the board of directors of respondent had no power to issue dividends.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Goodyear Philippines Inc., G.R. No. 216130, August
3, 2016)

III. Estate Tax and Donors Taxes under the NIRC

Q. How do you determine the value of estate to be taxed?
A. Only the net value of the estate is liable to tax. A schedule of brackets of amount of net
value and the corresponding rate schedule per bracket are imposed.

Q. Who are liable to pay estate taxes?

A. Residents and citizens covering all properties, real or personal, tangible or intangible,
wherever situated; and non-resident aliens covering only properties in the Philippines
provided, that, with respect to intangible personal property, its inclusion in the gross estate is
subject to the rule on reciprocity.
Q. What is gross estate?
A. Decedents interest at the time of his death, transfer in contemplation of death, property
transfers subject to revocation, property passing under a general power of appointment,
proceeds of life insurance; and property transfers for insufficient consideration
Q. What may be deducted from the estate?
A. The following may be deducted from the estate:
1. Expenses, losses, indebtedness and taxes (funeral expenses, judicial expenses, claims
against the estate, claims against insolvent persons, unpaid mortgages, taxes and casualty
losses); and
2. Property previously taxed (transfers for public use, family home, standard deduction,
medical expenses and amounts received by heirs under R.A. 4917 on Retirement Benefits of
Private Employee). Please review the concept of vanishing deduction and the corresponding
holding period and the tax rate based on the value of the property under Section 86(A) (2) of
the NIRC.
Q. Who are considered strangers for purposes of donors tax?
A. Read on definition, transactions covered and schedule of payment based on brackets as to
the value of the donation (Section 16 of the NIRC); for the stranger, a flat rate of 30% is
imposed; the following are NOT strangers- brother, sister (whether by whole or half blood),
spouse, ancestor and lineal descendant; and relative by consanguinity in the collateral line
within the fourth civil degree of relationship.
Q. What items are not subject to donors tax?
A. Dowries or gifts made on account of marriage, gifts made or for use of the national
government or entity created by any of its agencies which is not conducted for profit, or to
any political subdivision of said government; and gifts in favor of an educational and/or
charitable, religious, cultural or social welfare corporation, institution, accredited nongovernmental organization, trust or philanthropic organization or research institution or
organization.
IV. Tax Remedies under the NIRC
Q. What are the steps in the assessment process?
A. Letter of authority issued for tax audit, notice of informal conference (terminated if
taxpayer presents satisfactory proof); release of preliminary assessment in case of
unsatisfactory explanation and if taxpayer disagrees, he has 15 days to request for
reconsideration; service of formal letter of demand/ notice of assessment if basis for
reconsideration is not meritorious; taxpayer may file a protest within the 30-day period of
the formal demand and must submit supporting documents within 60 days (if not, the
protest is deemed waived); if the Commissioner does not decide the matter within 180 days
or decides with finality that the taxpayer is liable for the assessment ; taxpayer has 30 days
from the lapse of the 180 day period for the Commissioner to decide or notice of final
decision of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue ( even beyond 180 days) to file an
appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals (Lascona Land v Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
2012); case is heard initially by a division of the CTA and an appeal can further be made
with the CTA en banc ( within 15 days under Section 4 (A) RULE, 8 in relation to Rule 43
of the Rules of Civil Procedure) and final arbiter is the Supreme Court. Through the
enactment of Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the CTA has been expanded to
include not only civil tax cases but also cases that are criminal in nature, as well as local tax
cases, property taxes and final collection of taxes.
Q. Can a protesting taxpayer appeal to the CIR from the failure to act by the CIRs
authorized representative?
A. No. In PAGCOR v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 27 Jan 2016, the Supreme Court

outlined the remedies available to a protesting taxpayer, to wit:

(1) A whole or partial denial by the CIR's authorized representative may be appealed to the
CIR or the CTA
(2) A whole or partial denial by the CIR may be appealed to the CTA
(3) The CIR or CIR's authorized representative's failure to act may be appealed to the
CTA.
NOTE: There is no mention of an appeal to the CIR from the failure to act by the CIR's
authorized representative.
Q. What cases are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals?
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1125 and other laws prior to R.A. 9282,
the Court of Tax Appeals retains exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, the
following:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties
imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue;
2. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected;
fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters
arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the
Bureau of Customs [Rep. Act. No. 1125, (1954), Sec. 7];
3. In automatic review cases where such decisions of the Commission of Customs
favorable to the taxpayer is elevated to the Secretary of Finance (Sec. 2315, TCC);
and
4. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-agricultural
product, commodity or article, or the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of
agricultural product, commodity or article, in connection with the imposition of the
Anti-Dumping Duty, Countervailing and Safeguard Duty [Republic Act Nos. 8751
and 8752, (1999) Sec. 301 (a) and (p), and Republic Act 8800].
Under Republic Act Number 9282, the CTA's original appellate jurisdiction was expanded to
include the following:
1. Criminal cases involving violations of the National Internal Revenue Code and the
Tariff and Customs Code;
2. Decisions of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) in local tax cases;
3. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in cases involving
the assessment and taxation of real property; and
4. Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the assessment of which have
already become final.
Q. Discuss the function of the Court of Tax Appeals?
A. Being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) has developed an expertise on the subject. In the absence of grave abuse of
discretion or palpable error, the CTAs findings are accorded the highest respect and are
generally conclusive upon the Supreme Court. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. GJM
Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016)
Q. Petron imported liters of alkylate and paid VAT therein. However, the Collector of
Customs subjected these alkylate imports to excise tax following Customs Memorandum
Circular (CMC) No. 164-2012 stating that alkylate is a product of distillation similar to
naphta and is subject to excise tax under Section 148(e) of the NIRC. Thereafter, Petron
filed a petition for review with the CTA raising the issue of whether its importation of
alkylates is subject to excise tax. The CIR argued that the interpretation of Section
148(e) is an exercise of her quasi-legislative function, which is reviewable by the
Secretary of Finance, thus, the CTA has no jurisdiction to decide on the matter. Decide.
A. The Court ruled in favor of the CIR. It recognized the fact that the CTA is a court of
special jurisdiction, with power to review by appeal decision involving tax disputes rendered
wither by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs. Conversely,
it has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of a ruling issued by the CIR or the COC in the
exercise of their quasi-legislative powers to interpret tax laws. In this case, Petrons tax

liability was premised on the COCs issuance of CMC No. 164-2012, which gave effect to the
CIRs June 29, 2012 Letter interpreting Section 148(e) of the NIRC as to include alkylate
among the articles subject to customs duties, hence, Petrons petition before the CTA
ultimately challenging the legality and constitutionality of the CIRs interpretation of a tax
provision. The CTA had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition as its resolution
would necessarily involve a declaration of the validity or constitutionality of the CIR's
interpretation of Section 148 (e) of the NIRC, which is subject to the exclusive review by the
Secretary of Finance and ultimately by the regular courts. (Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 207843, July 15, 2015)
Q. Kepco Corporation filed with the BIR its claim for refund for input tax incurred for
the 1st and 2nd quarters of calendar year 2000 from its importation and domestic
purchases of capital goods and services preparatory to its production and sales of
electricity to NAPOCOR. For failure of BIR to act upon the claim for refund or issuance
of tax credit certificate, KEPCO filed a Petition for Review. Thereafter, KEPCO filed its
Memorandum, but BIR failed to file its Memorandum despite notice, thus, the case was
deemed submitted for decision. Subsequently, the CTA First Division rendered a
Decision, holding that KEPCO is entitled to a refund for its unutilized input VAT paid.
There being no Motion for Reconsideration filed by BIR, the decision became final and
executory. Aggrieved, BIR filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CTA en
banc but it was dismissed, and its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Does
the CTA en banc have jurisdiction to take cognizance of Petition for Annulment of
Judgment filed by BIR?
A. The Court denied BIRs Petition as it ruled that SC, CA, and CTA en banc cannot annul
judgment of their divisions. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47) involves exercise of original
jurisdiction and implies power by a superior court against the final judgment, decision or
ruling of an inferior court based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The
Divisions are not separate and distinct courts but are divisions of one and the same court.
There is no hierarchy of courts within the SC, CA, and CTA, for each remain as one court
notwithstanding that they also work in divisions.
Q. Will a case for tax evasion fail without a deficiency tax assessment?
A. No. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, as represented by the COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ANTONIO VILLAN
MANLY, and RUBY ONG MANLY, G.R No. 197590, November 24, 2014: The Court ruled
that tax evasion is deemed complete when the violator has knowingly and willfully field a
fraudulent return with intent to evade and defeat a part of all of the tax. Corollarily, an
assessment of the tax deficiency is not required in a criminal prosecution for tax evasion.
However, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that
although a deficiency assessment is not necessary, the fact that a tax is due must first be
proved before one can be prosecuted for tax evasion. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Kepco Ilijan Corporation, G.R. No. 199422, June 21, 2016)
SAMAR-I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R No. 193100, December 10, 2014: The Court held that the notice
requirement under section 228 of the NIRC is substantially complied with whenever the
taxpayer had been fully informed in writing of the factual and legal bases of the deficiency
taxes assessment, which enabled the latter to file an effective protest.
Q. Discuss the Expenditure Method in reconstructing a taxpayers income.
A. The Expenditure Method is a method used by the government to reconstruct the income of
a taxpayer by deducting the aggregate yearly expenditures from the declared yearly income.
he theory of this method is that when the amount of the money that a taxpayer spends during
a given year exceeds his reported or declared income and the source of such money is
unexplained, it may be inferred that such expenditures represent unreported or undeclared
income. (BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, as represented by the COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ANTONIO VILLAN
MANLY, and RUBY ONG MANLY, G.R No. 197590, November 24, 2014)
Q. When is a tax assessment deemed made?
A. . The assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three-year period for collection of the
assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent

by the BIR to the taxpayer. Thus, failure of the BIR to file a warrant of distraint or serve a
levy on taxpayers properties nor file collection case within the three-year period is fatal.
Also, the attempt of the BIR to collect the tax through its Answer with a demand for the
taxpayer to pay the assessed DST in the CTA is not deemed compliance with the Tax Code.
(CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
G.R. No. 172509, February 04, 2015)
Q. Will a request for reinvestigation suspend the statute of limitations?
A. No. A request for reinvestigation alone will not suspend the statute of limitations. Two
things must concur: there must be a request for reinvestigation and the CIR must have granted
it. (CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R. No. 172509, February 04, 2015)
Q. Ms. Sarmiento, Next Mobile Incs Director of Finance, executed several waivers of
the statute of limitations to extend the three-year prescriptive period of assessment for
taxes due. Naturally, BIR issued its assessment beyond the prescriptive period.
Thereafter, Ms. Sarmiento contests the issued assessment arguing that her waivers were
void because of the following: (a) waivers were executed without a notarized board
authority; (b) the dates of acceptance by BIR were not indicated therein; (c) several
irregularities were present in the subject waivers; and (d) estoppel does not apply in
questioning the validity of waiver of the statute of limitations. Are the Waivers valid? the
BIRs right to assess already prescribed?
A. No. The general rule is that a waiver of the statute of limitations that does not comply with
the requisites for its validity specified under RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05 is generally
invalid and ineffective to extend the prescriptive period to assess taxes. However, due to
peculiar circumstances and as an exception to the general rule, the supposedly invalid waivers
may be considered valid for the following reasons:
First, the parties are in pari delicto or in equal fault. The two parties to a controversy are
equally guilty and they shall have no action against each other.
Second, Parties must come to court with clean hands. Parties ho do not come to Court with
clean hands cannot be allowed to benefit from their own wrongdoing. Taxpayer should not be
allowed to benefit from the flaws in its own waivers and successfully insist on their invalidity
in order to evade its responsibility to pay taxes.
Third, taxpayer is estopped from questioning the validity of its Waivers. Verily, the
application of estoppel in this case would promote the administration of the law, prevent
injustice and avert the accomplishment of a wrong. Finally, the Court cannot tolerate a highly
suspicious situation. In this case, the taxpayer, on one hand, after voluntarily executing the
Waivers insisted on their invalidity by raising the very same defects it caused. On the other
hand, the BIR miserably failed to exact from the taxpayer strict compliance with the rules.
(COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENEU v. NEXT MOBILE, INC., G.R.
NO.212825, DECEMBER 7, 2015)
Q. How to prove that a tax assessment was made?
A. The Court held that in order to prove the fact of mailing, it is essential to present the
registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return card, which would have
been signed by the taxpayer or its authorized representative. And if said documents could not
be located, the CIR should have, at the very least, submitted to the Court a certification issued
by the Bureau of Posts and any other pertinent document executed with its intervention. The
Court does not put much credence to the self-serving documentations made by the BIR
personnel, especially if they are unsupported by substantial evidence establishing the fact of
mailing.
While it is true that an assessment is made when the notice is sent within the prescribed
period, the release, mailing, or sending of the same must still be clearly and satisfactorily
proved. Mere notations made without the taxpayer's intervention, notice or control, and
without adequate supporting evidence cannot suffice. Otherwise, the defenseless taxpayer
would be unreasonably placed at the mercy of the revenue offices. The BIR's failure to prove
GJM's receipt of the assessment leads to no other conclusion but that no assessment was
issued. Consequently, the government's right to issue an assessment for the said period has
already prescribed. (COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENEU v. GJM

PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, 29 Feb 2016)

Q. What constitutes proof of taxes withheld?
A. The Court held that the certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is the competent
proof of establish the fact that taxes are withheld. It is not necessary for the person who
executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld source to be presented and to
testify personally to prove the authenticity of the certificates. (COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R. No. 180290 September
29, 2014)
Q. Is a deficiency VAT assessment tantamount to an assessment for withholding tax
liabilities such that the taxpayer cannot avail of a tax amnesty program?
A. No. Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding taxes. To
distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one person but the burden
thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon
goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it. On the other hand, in case of
withholding taxes, the incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity, the statutory
taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who merely collects,
by withholding, the tax due from income payments to entities arising from certain
transactions and remits the same to the government.
Q. What are the rules on protest and refund for income tax?
A. A taxpayer may protest any assessment administratively; taxes may be paid under protest.
General Rule: Refund may be requested by the taxpayer within two years from payment.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation
(formerly Mirant Phils., Operation Corporation), G.R. No. 179260 (2014: There are three
essential conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of creditable withholding income tax,
to wit:
(1) The claim is filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the two-year
period from the date of payment of the tax;
(2) It is shown on the return of the recipient that the income payment received was
declared as part of the gross income; and
(3) The fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the
payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom.
Q. What may the government resort to in case of taxpayers delinquency?
A. Distraint of personal property, levy of real property; civil action and criminal action.
Q. What are the requirements for entitlement of a corporate taxpayer for a refund or
the issuance of tax credit certificate involving excess withholding taxes?
A The Court held that the following requisites must be complied with to sustain the claim for
refund:
1) That the claim for refund was filed within the two-year reglementary period pursuant
to Sec. 229 of the NIRC;
2) When it is shown on the ITR that the income payment received is being declared part
of the tax payers gross income; and
3) When the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement,
duly issued by the payor to the payee, showing the amount paid and income tax withheld
from that account. . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. TEAM (PHILS.) ENERGY
CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT PHILS ENERGY CORPORATION), G.R.
No. 188016, January 14, 2015)
Q. Is the CTA prohibited from determining whether taxes should have been paid
because it is an assessment?
A. No. The Supreme Court ruled that in an action for the refund of taxes allegedly
erroneously paid, the Court of Tax Appeals may determine whether there are taxes that should
have been paid is not assessment. It is incidental to determining whether there should be a
refund. (SMI-ED PHILIPPINES TECHNOLOGY, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. 175410, November 12, 2014)

THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs.

SECRETARY OF FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R
No. 210987, November 24, 2014: The Court ruled that, the CTA can now rule not only on the
propriety of an assessment or tax treatment of a certain transaction, but also on the validity of
the revenue regulation or revenue memorandum circular on which the said assessment is
based.
CITY OF LAPU-LAPU vs. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY; PROVINCE
OF BATAAN, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., AND
EMERLINDA S. TALENTO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF
BATAAN vs. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, G.R. No. 184203, G.R No.
187583, November 26, 2014: The Court held that in case of an illegal assessment where the
assessment was issued without authority, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
necessary and the taxpayer may directly resort to judicial action. The taxpayer shall file a
complaint for injunction before the Regional Trial Court to enjoin the local government unit
from collecting real property taxes. The party unsatisfied with the decision of the Regional
Trial Court shall file an appeal, not a petition for certiorari, before the Court of Tax Appeals,
the complaint being a local tax case decided by the Regional Trial Court. The appeal shall be
filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the trial courts decision.
NIPPON EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R. No. 185666, February 04, 2015: The Court held the BIR has 120 days
from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim
within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. In case of
failure on the part of the BIR to act on the application within the 120-day period prescribed by
law, the taxpayer has only has 30 days after the expiration of the 120-day period to appeal the
unacted claim with the CTA.
Q. What is the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies in tax cases before a
judicial action may be instituted?
A. : Taxpayer submits that the requirement to exhaust the 120-day period under Section 112
(c) of the National Internal Revenue Code prior to filing the judicial claim with the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) is a doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The nonobservance of the same merely results in lack of cause of action which may be waived for
failure to timely invoke the same. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team Sual
Corporation (Formerly Mirant Sual Corporation), G.R. No. 194105. February 5, 2014)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation
(formerly Mirant Phils., Operation Corporation), G.R. No. 179260, April 2, 2014. The
findings and conclusions of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) are accorded the highest respect
and will not be lightly set aside. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the
contrary, the Court must presume that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every
respect.
The City of Manila, etc. et al. v. Hon. Caridad H. Grecia-Cuerdo etc., et al, G.R. No.
175723. February 4, 2014: Petitioners availed of the wrong remedy when they filed the
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court in
assailing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed their petition filed
with the said court and their motion for reconsideration of such dismissal. Hence, in the
instant case, petitioner should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45,
which is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.
Clark Investors and Locators Association, Inc. vs. Secretary of Finance and
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 200670, July 6, 2015: A petition for
certiorari (Rule 65) cannot be invoked against the Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of
Internal Revenue as they do not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions in issuing Revenue Regulations. On the contrary, what
they exercise in issuing these Revenue Regulations is their quasi-legislative or rule-making
power, thus, outside the scope of a petition for certiorari.
V. Local Taxation

Q. What taxes may local government unit collect?

A. Under Section 5 of Article X of the Constitution, local government units are allowed to
collect tolls, fees and charges. (TFC).
Q. Are submarine or underwater cables considered real property, thus subject to real
property tax under the LGC?
A. Yes. Submarine or underwater cables are akin to electric transmission lines which the
Court declared in Manila Electric Company v. City Assessor and City Treasurer of Lucena
City (G.R. No. 166202, August 5, 2015), as no longer exempted from real property tax and
may qualify as machinery subject to real property tax. Both electric lines and
communication cables, in the strictest sense, are not directly adhered to the soil but pass
through posts, relay or landing stations, but both may be classified under the term
machinery as real property under Article 415(5) of the New Civil Code for the simple
reason that such pieces of equipment serve the owner's business or tend to meet the needs of
his industry or works that are on real estate. (Capitol Wireless, Inc., v. The Provincial
Treasurer of Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 180110, May 30, 2016)
Q. Is a golf course considered a place of amusement subject to amusement tax?
A: No. Following the principle of ejusdem generis, a golf course cannot be considered a
place of an amusement subject to amusement of tax. In so ruling, the Court cited its
pronouncements in Pelizloy Realty Corporation v. The Province of Benguet wherein it held
that amusement taxes cannot be imposed on admission fees to resorts, swimming pools, bath
houses, hot springs, and tourist spots as they do not belong to the same category or class as
theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, and boxing stadia. (ALTA VISTA GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB v. THE CITY OF CEBU, et al., G.R. No. 180235, January 20, 2016)
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. City of Lapu-Lapu and Elena T.
Pacaldo, G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled
corporation (GOCC). Thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public
purposes, consisting of airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on
which they are situated are not subject to real property tax under Section 133(o) and 234(a) of
the LGC. Moreover, when a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming
the exemption. However, when Congress grants an exemption to a national government
instrumentality from local taxation, such exemption is construed liberally in favor of the
national government instrumentality.
Additional Cases:
Camp John Hay Development Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R.
No. 169234. October 2, 2013. Section 252 and Section 222 of the Local Government Code
sets out the administrative remedies available to a taxpayer or real property owner who does
not agree with the assessment of the real property tax sought to be collected. Two conditions
must be met: the taxpayer/real property owner questioning the assessment should first pay the
tax due before his protest can be entertained. Secondly, within the period prescribed by law,
any owner or person having legal interest in the property not satisfied with the action of the
provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may file an appeal
with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of the province or city concerned.
Thereafter, within thirty days from receipt, he may elevate, by filing a notice of appeal, the
adverse decision of the LBAA with the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
Camp John Hay Development Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R.
No. 169234. October 2, 2013. A claim for exemption from payment of real property taxes
does not actually question the assessors authority to assess and collect such taxes, but
pertains to the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment by the local assessor
Smart Communications, Inc. v. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, G.R. No. 20442.
February 18, 2014. Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that [e]ach local
government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes,
fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide,
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. The LGC defines the term charges as
referring to pecuniary liability, as rents or fees against persons or property, while the term
fee means a charge fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of a business

or activity. The effect is merely incidental. Thus, the fees imposed in Ordinance No. 18 are
not taxes. Considering that the fees in Ordinance No. 18 are not in the nature of local taxes,
and petitioner is questioning the constitutionality of the same, the CTA correctly dismissed
the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim, as Mayor of the City of Manila, et al. v. Hon. Angel
Valera Colet, as Presiding judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila (Br.43), et al. G.R No.
120051, December 10, 2014: The power to tax of local government units is a delegated power
and must be exercised within the guidelines and limitations that Congress may provide. taxing
power of local government units.
VI. Tariff and Customs Code of 1978, as amended
A. IMPORT DUTIES
Q. When does importation begin and deemed terminated?
A. Importation begins when the carrying vessel or aircraft enters the jurisdiction of the
Philippines with the intention to unlade therein. Importation is deemed terminated upon
payment of the duties, taxes and other charges due upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at
a port of entry and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted, or in case said
articles are free of duties, taxes and other charges, until they have legally left the jurisdiction
of Customs.
Q. What are ordinary import duties?
A. Tariff duties are levied on imported goods either as a revenue generating measure or a
protective scheme to artificially or temporarily inflate prices to protect a countrys domestic
output and its industries from their foreign counterparts. With the exception of certain articles
which can be imported duty-free, upon compliance with certain prescribed conditions or
formalities, goods are levied ordinary import duties under the Most Favored Nation (MFN)
treatment, ranging from Free/Zero to 30% except in cases of sensitive agricultural products
which are accorded a certain degree of protection via higher tariff rates reaching to as high as
65%. On the other hand, under the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme,
goods are levied ordinary import duties ranging from 0% to 5%, except also in cases of
sensitive agricultural products which are subject to as high as 40% tariff duties.
Q. What are special duties under the Tariff Code?
A. These are levied in addition to the ordinary import duties, taxes and charges imposed by
law on the imported product under the following circumstances:
Q. Define the following terms:
a. Anti-Dumping Duty: The anti-dumping duty is a special duty imposed in the event that a
specific kind or class of foreign article, is being imported into, sold or is likely to be sold in
the Philippines, at an export price less than its normal value in the ordinary course of
trade for a like product, commodity or article destined for consumption in the exporting
country which is causing or threatening to cause material injury to a domestic industry, or
materially retarding the establishment of a domestic industry producing similar product.
b. Countervailing Duty: The countervailing duty is a special duty charged whenever any
product, commodity or article of commerce is granted directly or indirectly by the
government in the country of origin or exportation, any kind or form of specific subsidy
upon the production, manufacture or exportation of such product, commodity or article, and
the importation of such subsidized product, commodity or article has caused or threatens to
cause material injury to a domestic industry or has materially retarded the growth or prevents
the establishment of a domestic industry.
c. Marking Duty: The marking of articles (or its containers) is a prerequisite for every article
or container imported into the Philippines in accordance with Section 303 of the TCCP. In
case of failure to mark an article or its container at the time of importation, there shall be
levied upon such article a marking duty of 5% ad valorem.
d. Discriminatory Duty: The discriminatory duty is imposed by the President by
proclamation upon articles of a foreign country which discriminate against Philippine
commerce or against goods coming from the Philippines as stipulated under Section 304 of
the TCCP. The amount of additional duty to be levied shall not exceed 100% ad valorem
based on the dutiable value of imported articles.

e. General Safeguard Measure: The general safeguard measure is applied by the Secretary
of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-agricultural products, or the Secretary of Agriculture,
in the case of agricultural products, upon positive final determination of the Tariff
Commission that a product is being imported into the country in increased quantities, whether
absolute or relative to domestic production, as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury
to the domestic industry. In the case of non-agricultural products, however, the Secretary of
Trade and Industry shall first establish that the application of such safeguard measures will be
in the course of public interest.
The general safeguard measure shall be limited to the extent of redressing or preventing the
injury and to facilitate adjustments by the domestic industry from the adverse effects directly
attributed to the increased imports.
f. Special Safeguard Duty: An additional special safeguard duty is imposed on an
agricultural product whenever the cumulative import volume in a given year exceeds its
trigger volume and when the actual c.i.f. (Cost, Insurance and Freight) import price falls
below its trigger price. The safeguard duty is imposed by the Commissioner of Customs
through the Secretary of Finance upon request by the Secretary of Agriculture.
B. EXPORT DUTIES
Q. What domestic items remain subject to export duties?
A. Logs are the only remaining products subject to the duty under Section 514 of the TCCP,
as amended. The export duty imposed on logs is 20% of the gross Free on Board (FOB) value
at the time of shipment based on the prevailing rate of exchange. However, only planted
trees are subject to the export duty, since all naturally grown trees are banned from being
exported under Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Memorandum Order No. 8
(issued June 20, 1986).
C. Remedies
1. The Commissioner of Customs has jurisdiction in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected; fines,
forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the
Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs [Rep. Act.
No. 1125, (1954), Sec. 7].
2. Decisions of the Commission of Customs favorable to the taxpayer are elevated to the
Secretary of Finance (Sec. 2315, TCC); and
3. The Secretary of Trade and Industry has jurisdiction in the case of non-agricultural product,
commodity or article, while the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, in connection with the imposition of the Anti-Dumping Duty,
Countervailing and Safeguard Duty [Republic Act Nos. 8751 and 8752, (1999) Sec. 301 (a)
and (p), and Republic Act 8800].
4. Decisions/ Resolutions of the DTI and DA Secretaries may be elevated to the Tariff
Commission.
5. Decisions of the Tariff Commission are appealable to the CTA.
6. CTA decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court.