This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-10-25 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In Commissioner vs. Phi-am Life[35], the Court ruled that an availment of a tax credit due for reasons other than the erroneous or wrongful collection of taxes may have a different prescriptive period. Absent any specific provision in the Tax Code or special laws, that period would be ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Significantly, Commissioner vs. Phil-Am is partly a reiteration of a previous holding that even if the two (2)-year prescriptive period, if applicable, had already lapsed, the same is not jurisdictional[36] and may be suspended for reasons of equity and other special circumstances.[37] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In one case,[29] we even ordered the Government to refund the overpayment of franchise taxes to a taxpayer despite its non-compliance with the requisites before suit could be maintained for the recovery thereof, based on moral and equitable grounds. From a moral standpoint, it was ruled that the Government would be enriching itself at the expense of the taxpayer, viz:xxx Legally speaking, the decision of the Tax Court is therefore correct, being in accordance with law. However, one's conscience does not and cannot rest easy on this strict application of the law, considering the special circumstances that surround this case. xxx Hence, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, the compromise agreement between the parties should be maintained but respondent should be made to return the amount of P2,287,000.00 to petitioner. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25 is ordered to return the check in the amount of P1,045,196.59 which was consigned by the petitioner. | |||||