Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 212096 2015-10-14	NIGHTOWL WATCHMAN v. NESTOR LUMAHAN BRION, J.
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court[1] filed by Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. (Nightowl) from the September 18, 2013 decision[2] and the April 4, 2014 resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117982.
	GR NO. 168129 2007-04-24	COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This Court has consistently reaffirmed its ruling in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. in the later cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Borroughs, Ltd.,[12] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mega Gen. Mdsg. Corp.[13] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Telefunken Semiconductor (Phils.) Inc.,[14] and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals.[15] The rule is that the BIR rulings have no retroactive effect where a grossly unfair deal would result to the prejudice of the taxpayer, as in this case.
	GR NOS. 134587 & 134588 2005-08-08	CIR v. BENGUET CORPORATION TINGA, J.
In a long line of cases,[29] this Court has affirmed that the rulings, circular, rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue would have no retroactive application if to so apply them would be prejudicial to the taxpayers. In fact, both petitioner[30] and respondent[31] agree that the retroactive application of VAT Ruling No. 008-92 is valid only if such application would not be prejudicial to the respondent pursuant to the explicit mandate under Sec. 246 of the NIRC, thus:Sec. 246. Non-retroactivity of rulings.- Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding Section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return on any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different form the facts on which the ruling is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR Nos. 134587 & 134588 2005-07-08	CIR v. BENGUET CORPORATION TINGA, J.
In a long line of cases,[29] this Court has affirmed that the rulings, circular, rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue would have no retroactive application if to so apply them would be prejudicial to the taxpayers. In fact, both petitioner[30] and respondent[31] agree that the retroactive application of VAT Ruling No. 008-92 is valid only if such application would not be prejudicial to the respondent-pursuant to the explicit mandate under Sec. 246 of the NIRC, thus:Sec. 246. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding Section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return on any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different form the facts on which the ruling is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (Emphasis supplied)