This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not Special Savings Deposits are subject to documentary stamp tax is not novel as the same has been the subject of this Court's ruling in International Exchange Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[32] (International) and Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[33](PBC). | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Metrobank thereafter filed a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, docketed as C.T.A. E.B. No. 247. In a Decision promulgated on 21 May 2007, the CTA en banc affirmed the Decision dated 1 September 2006 and Resolution dated 3 January 2007 of the CTA Second Division in C.T.A. Case No. 6955, and dismissed the Petition of Metrobank. According to the CTA en banc, the decisive issue of whether special savings accounts evidenced by passbooks, such as the UNISA of Metrobank, were subject to DST under Section 180 of the NIRC, had already been resolved in the affirmative by this Court in its Resolution dated 15 January 2007 in Banco de Oro Universal Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (BDO case)[9] and its Decision dated 4 April 2007 in International Exchange Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (IEB case).[10] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that a deposit account evidenced by a passbook cannot be construed as a certificate of deposit subject to DST under Section 180 of the 1977 NIRC. In International Exchange Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[47] this Court categorically ruled that a passbook representing an interest earning deposit account issued by a bank qualifies as a certificate of deposit drawing interest and should be subject to DST. The Court added that "a document to be deemed a certificate of deposit requires no specific form as long as there is some written memorandum that the bank accepted a deposit of a sum of money from a depositor."[48] | |||||