CD: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mc.George Food Industries, Inc.

CIR v. MC.GEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC.
G.R. No. 174157 October 20, 2010
Carpio, J.

Doctrine:
Pursuant to the general rule on the prospective application of laws, the 1997 NIRC operates to govern the conduct of corporate taxpayers the moment it took effect on 1 January 1998.


Facts:
On 15 April 1998, respondent filed with the BIR its final adjustment income tax return for the calendar year ending 31 December 1997. The return indicated a net overpayment of P4,736,188. Exercising its option to either seek a refund of this amount or carry it over to the succeeding year as tax credit, respondent chose the latter, indicating in its 1997 final return that it wished the amount "to be applied as credit to next year."

On 15 April 1999, respondent filed its final adjustment return for the calendar year ending 31 December 1998, indicating a tax liability of P5,799,056. Instead of applying to this amount its unused tax credit carried over from 1997 (P4,736,188), respondent merely deducted from its tax liability the taxes withheld at source for 1998 and paid the balance of P5,581,877.

On 14 April 2000, respondent simultaneously filed with the BIR and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) a claim for refund of its overpayment in 1997 of P4,736,188. The CTA held that refund was proper because respondent complied with the requirements of timely filing of the claim and its substantiation.

Petitioner sought reconsideration, contending that respondent is precluded from seeking a refund for its overpayment in 1997 after respondent opted to carry-over and apply it to its future tax liability, following Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC. Petitioner claimed that Section 76 applies to respondent because by the time respondent filed its final adjustment return for 1997 on 15 April 1998, the 1997 NIRC was already in force, having taken effect on 1 January 1998.

The CTA denied reconsideration, holding that the 1997 NIRC only covers transactions done after 1 January 1998.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA, ruling that the right to claim for refund or tax credit must be governed by the law in effect at the time the excess credits were earned. Thus, the pertinent law applicable to the case at bar is Section 69 of the old Tax Code.


Issue:
Whether or not the 1997 NIRC is the governing law


Held:
Yes. Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC controls.

Section 76 should be applied following the general rule on the prospective application of laws such that they operate to govern the conduct of corporate taxpayers the moment the 1997 NIRC took effect on 1 January 1998.

The lower courts grounded their contrary conclusion on the fact that respondent’s overpayment in 1997 was based on transactions occurring before 1 January 1998. This analysis suffers from the twin defects of missing the gist of the present controversy and misconceiving the nature and purpose of Section 76. None of respondent’s corporate transactions in 1997 is disputed here. Nor can it be argued that Section 76 determines the taxability of corporate transactions. To sustain the rulings below is to subscribe to the untenable proposition that, had Congress in the 1997 NIRC moved the deadline for the filing of final adjustment returns from 15 April to 15 March of each year, taxpayers filing returns after 15 March 1998 can excuse their tardiness by invoking the 1977 NIRC because the transactions subject of the returns took place before 1 January 1998. A keener appreciation of the nature and purpose of the varied provisions of the 1997 NIRC cautions against sanctioning this reasoning.

CD: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines
G.R. No. 163835 July 7, 2010
Brion, J.

Doctrine:
Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedure may be overlooked when they have not prejudiced the adverse party and especially when they are more consistent with upholding settled principles in taxation.

The burden of strict compliance with statutory and administrative requirements by the person claiming for a tax refund cannot be offset by the non-observance of procedural technicalities by the government’s tax agents when the non-observance of the remedial measure addressing it does not in any manner prejudice the taxpayer’s due process rights.


Facts:
Eastern filed with the CIR a written application for refund or credit of unapplied input taxes it paid on the imported equipment purchased during 1995 and 1996 amounting to P22,013,134.00. To toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period under the same provision, Eastern filed an appeal with the CTA. The CTA found that Eastern has a valid claim for the refund/credit of the unapplied input taxes, declaring it entitled to a tax refund of P16,229,100.00.

The CIR filed a motion for reconsideration of the CTA’s decision. Subsequently, it filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. The CTA denied the CIR’s motion for reconsideration. The CIR then elevated the case to the CA, who affirmed the CTA ruling and likewise denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition.

The CIR posits that, applying Section 104(A) of the Tax Code on apportionment of tax credits, Eastern is entitled to a tax refund of only a portion of the amount claimed. Since the VAT returns clearly reflected income from exempt sales, the CIR asserts that this constitutes as an admission on Eastern’s part that it engaged in transactions not subject to VAT. Hence, the proportionate allocation of the tax credit to VAT and non-VAT transactions provided in Section 104(A) of the Tax Code should apply.

Eastern objects to the arguments raised in the petition, alleging that these have not been raised in the Answer filed by the CIR before the CTA and was only raised. In fact, the CIR only raised the applicability of Section 104(A) of the Tax Code in his supplemental motion for reconsideration of the CTA’s ruling. Eastern claims that for the CIR to raise such an issue now would constitute a violation of its right to due process; following settled rules of procedure and fair play, the CIR should not be allowed at the appeal level to change his theory of the case.

Eastern further argues that there is no evidence on record that would evidently show that respondent is also engaged in other transactions that are not subject to VAT.


Issue:
Whether or not the rule in Section 104(A) of the Tax Code on the apportionment of tax credits can be applied in appreciating Eastern’s claim for tax refund, considering that the matter was raised by the CIR only when he sought reconsideration of the CTA ruling


Held:
Yes. The question of the applicability of Section 104(A) of the Tax Code was already raised but the tax court did not rule on it. This failure should not be taken against the CIR. The mere declaration of exempt sales in the VAT returns, whether based on Section 103 of the Tax Code or some other special law, should have prompted for the application of Section 104 (A) of the Tax Code to Eastern’s claim.

The general rule is that appeals can only raise questions of law or fact that (a) were raised in the court below, and (b) are within the issues framed by the parties therein (People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472). An issue which was neither averred in the pleadings nor raised during trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

The rule against raising new issues on appeal is not without exceptions; it is a procedural rule that the Court may relax when compelling reasons so warrant or when justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts (CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R. No. 159593). Another exception is when the question involves matters of public importance.

“Taxes are the lifeblood of the government.” For this reason, the right of taxation cannot easily be surrendered; statutes granting tax exemptions are considered as a derogation of the sovereign authority and are strictly construed against the person or entity claiming the exemption. Claims for tax refunds, when based on statutes granting tax exemption or tax refund, partake of the nature of an exemption; thus, the rule of strict interpretation against the taxpayer-claimant similarly applies (CIR v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G.R. Nos. 167274-75).

The taxpayer is charged with the heavy burden of proving that he has complied with and satisfied all the statutory and administrative requirements to be entitled to the tax refund. This burden cannot be offset by the non-observance of procedural technicalities by the government’s tax agents when the non-observance of the remedial measure addressing it does not in any manner prejudice the taxpayer’s due process rights.

Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedure may be overlooked when they have not prejudiced the adverse party and especially when they are more consistent with upholding settled principles in taxation.