This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In lieu of its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation and Motion supporting petitioner's theory that the amount of tax credit should be computed based on sales discounts properly substantiated by petitioner. The OSG adverted to the case of Bicolandia Drug Corporation (Formerly Elmas Drug Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[11] wherein we held that the term "cost" refers to the amount of the 20% discount extended by a private establishment to senior citizens in their purchase of medicines, which amount should be applied as a tax credit. The OSG opines that the allowance of claim for additional tax credits should be based on sales discounts properly substantiated before the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| M.E.'s contention is correct. In Bicolandia Drug Corporation (formerly Elmas Drug Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we interpreted the term "cost" found in Sec. 4(a) of RA 7432 as referring to the amount of the 20% discount extended by a private establishment to senior citizens in their purchase of medicines.[13] There we categorically said that it is the Government that should fully shoulder the cost of the sales discount granted to senior citizens. Thus, we reversed and set aside the CA's Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 49946, which construed the same word "cost" to mean the theoretical acquisition cost of the medicines purchased by qualified senior citizens. Accordingly, M.E. is entitled to a tax credit equivalent to the actual 20% sales discount it granted to qualified senior citizens. | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This issue is not new, as the Court has resolved several cases involving the very same issue. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation (Central Luzon),[16] we held that private drug companies are entitled to a tax credit for the 20% sales discounts they granted to qualified senior citizens under RA 7432 and nullified Secs. 2.i and 4 of RR 2-94. In Bicolandia Drug Corporation (formerly Elmas Drug Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[17] we ruled that petitioner therein is entitled to a tax credit of the "cost" or the full 20% sales discounts it granted pursuant to RA 7432. In the related case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bicolandia Drug Corporation,[18] we likewise ruled that respondent drug company was entitled to a tax credit, and we struck down RR 2-94 to be null and void for failing to conform with the law it sought to implement. | |||||