Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
During trial, [Taganito] presented testimonial and documentary evidence primarily aimed at proving its supposed entitlement to the refund in the amount of P8,365,664.38, representing input taxes for the period covering January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. [The CIR], on the other hand, opted not to present evidence. Thus, in the Resolution promulgated on January 22, 2009, this case was submitted for decision as of such date, considering [Taganito's] "Memorandum" filed on January 19, 2009 and [the CIR's] "Memorandum" filed on December 19, 2008.[24]
	GR No. 163835 2010-07-07	CIR v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Section 103 x x x of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, relied upon by petitioner CIR, relates to VAT-exempt transactions. These are transactions exempted from VAT by special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory. Since such transactions are not subject to VAT, the sellers cannot pass on any output VAT to the purchasers of goods, properties, or services, and they may not claim tax credit/refund of the input VAT they had paid thereon.[34]
	GR No. 157594 2010-03-09	TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is no basis for believing that to bind the CIR to his judicial admissions in the Joint Stipulation - that Toshiba was a VAT-registered entity and its export sales were zero-rated VAT transactions - would result in "falsehood, unfairness and injustice." The judicial admissions of the CIR are not intrinsically false, wrong, or illegal. On the contrary, they are consistent with the ruling of this Court in a previous case involving the same parties, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.) Inc.[55] (Toshiba case), explaining the VAT treatment of PEZA-registered enterprises.
	GR NO. 168129 2007-04-24	COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
x x x The import of the above provision is plain. It requires no interpretation. It contemplates the exemption from VAT of taxpayers engaged in the performance of medical, dental, hospital, and veterinary services. In Commissioner of International Revenue v. Seagate Technology (Philippines),[7] we defined an exempt transaction as one involving goods or services which, by their nature, are specifically listed in and expressly exempted from the VAT, under the Tax Code, without regard to the tax status of the party in the transaction. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.) Inc.,[8] we reiterated this definition.