Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SILKAIR PTE v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the February 2008 Silkair ruling,[31] the Court declared:The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore.
	GR No. 198759 2013-07-01	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Relying on Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. CIR[11] (Silkair), the CTA Second Division denied PAL's petition on the ground that only a statutory taxpayer (referring to Caltex in this case) may seek a refund of the excise taxes it paid.[12] It added that even if the tax burden was shifted to PAL, the latter cannot be deemed a statutory taxpayer.
	GR No. 180909 2011-01-19	EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
As early as the 1960's, this Court has ruled that the proper party to question, or to seek a refund of, an indirect tax, is the statutory taxpayer, or the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same, even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. [75]
	GR No. 180909 2011-01-19	EXXONMOBIL PETROLEUM v. CIR MENDOZA, J.
In the Silkair cases, [85] petitioner Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. (Silkair), filed with the BIR a written application for the refund of excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchase of jet fuel from Petron. As the BIR did not act on the application, Silkair filed a Petition for Review before the CTA.
	GR Nos. 179045-46 2010-08-25	CIR v. SMART COMMUNICATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner contends that the cases relied upon by the CTA in upholding respondent's right to claim the refund are inapplicable since the withholding agents therein are wholly owned subsidiaries of the principal taxpayers, unlike in the instant case where the withholding agent and the taxpayer are unrelated entities. Petitioner further claims that since respondent did not file the claim on behalf of Prism, it has no legal standing to claim the refund. To rule otherwise would result to the unjust enrichment of respondent, who never shelled-out any amount to pay the royalty taxes. Petitioner, thus, posits that the real party-in-interest to file a claim for refund of the erroneously withheld taxes is Prism. He cites as basis the case of Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[38] where it was ruled that the proper party to file a refund is the statutory taxpayer.[39] Finally, assuming that respondent is the proper party, petitioner counters that it is still not entitled to any refund because the payments made to Prism are taxable as royalties, having been made in consideration for the use of the programs owned by Prism.
	GR No. 184398 2010-02-25	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, it is important to note that on two separate occasions, this Court has already put to rest the issue of whether or not petitioner is the proper party to claim for the refund or tax credit of excise taxes it allegedly paid on its aviation fuel purchases.[17] In the earlier case of Silkair (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[18] involving the same parties and the same cause of action but pertaining to different periods of taxation, we have categorically held that Petron, not petitioner, is the proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax, to wit: The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another. Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore.