Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176549 2016-01-20	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO JARDELEZA, J.
Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law for administrative regulations cannot extend the law or amend a legislative enactment.[94] Administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement. They are intended to carry out, not to supplant or modify the law.[95] Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.[96] Administrative regulations issued by a Department Head in conformity with law have the force of law.[97] As he exercises the rule-making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is a requisite that he should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power; otherwise, he would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body.[98]
	GR No. 193964 2015-12-02	ENGINEER BEN Y. LIM v. SULPICIO G. GAMOSA PEREZ, J.
It ought to be stressed that the function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the law into effect. The administrative regulation must be within the scope and purview of the law.[46] The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement. They are intended to carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law.[47]
	GR No. 202789 2015-06-22	CIR v. PUREGOLD DUTY FREE VELASCO JR., J.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. ROH Auto Products Philippines[29] is instructive in this regard. In that case, the President issued EO 41 on August 21, 1986, declaring a one-time tax amnesty for the unpaid income taxes for the years 1981 to 1985. The BIR, arguing that the taxpayer was not covered, contended that the taxpayer received the tax assessments in question on August 13, 1986, or before the promulgation of the EO. Resolving the issue, this Court held that the EO granting the tax amnesty was quite clear in enumerating the exceptions. If assessments issued before August 21, 1986 are not listed as among the exclusions under the EO, then the BIR cannot insert it as such. We held, thus: The real and only issue is whether or not the position taken by the Commissioner coincides with the meaning and intent of executive Order No. 41.
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
The Secretary of Finance is granted, under Section 244 of RA 8424, the authority to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the law. Such authority is subject to the limitation that the rules and regulations must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement.[64] It is well-settled that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.[65]
	GR No. 147361 2004-03-23	COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Finance, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot be controverted. Such rules and regulations, as well as administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts.[17] Second, our scrutiny of Revenue Regulations Nos. V-39 and 17-67 clearly shows that said regulations did not modify or deviate from the text of Sections 137 and 141 but merely implemented and clarified said two provisions by providing certain conditions under which stemmed leaf tobacco may be exempted from prepayment of specific tax. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48797 are AFFIRMED.
	GR No. 150947 2003-07-15	CIR v. MICHEL J. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP DAVIDE JR., C.J.
RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 were issued in accordance with the power of the CIR to make rulings and opinions in connection with the implementation of internal revenue laws, which was bestowed by then Section 245 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273.[6] Such power of the CIR cannot be controverted. However, the CIR cannot, in the exercise of such power, issue administrative rulings or circulars not consistent with the law sought to be applied. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.[7]