Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 195175 2015-08-10	CIR v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY SERENO, C.J.
The other issues raised by TPC as regards the applicability of Aichi, Mirant[17] and Atlas,[18] were already settled by this Court in San Roque.
	GR Nos. 198729-30 2014-01-15	CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Applying Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant),[9] the court a quo ruled that petitioner had until the following dates within which to file both administrative and judicial claims: Taxable Quarter Last Day to
	GR No. 181276 2013-11-11	CIR v. VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY MENDOZA, J.
The Court, in earlier cases, had the opportunity to decide which provision of the NIRC was applicable to claims for refund or tax credit for creditable input VAT. In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (formerly Southern Energy Quezon, Inc.),[21] it was held that Section 229 of the NIRC, which provides for a two-year period, reckoned from the date of payment of the tax or penalty, for the filing of a claim of refund or tax credit, is only pertinent to the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally assessed or collected; and that the relevant provision of the NIRC for claiming a refund or a tax credit for the unutilized creditable input VAT is Section 112(A): To be sure, MPC cannot avail itself of the provisions of either Sec. 204(C) or 229 of the NIRC which, for the purpose of refund, prescribes a different starting point for the two-year prescriptive limit for the filing of a claim therefor. Secs. 204(C) and 229 respectively provide:
	GR No. 193301 2013-03-11	MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP v. CIR CARPIO, J.
The CIR also filed a motion for partial reconsideration. It argued that the judicial claims for the first and second quarters of 2003 were filed beyond the period allowed by law, as stated in Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code. The CIR further stated that Section 229 is a general provision, and governs cases not covered by Section 112(A). The CIR countered the CTA First Division's 22 September 2008 decision by citing this Court's ruling in Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant),[19] which stated that unutilized input VAT payments must be claimed within two years reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made regardless of whether said tax was paid.
	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
The CTA EB declared that Section 112(A) and (B) of the 1997 Tax Code both set forth the reckoning of the two-year prescriptive period for filing a claim for tax refund or credit over input VAT to be the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. The CTA EB also relied on this Court's rulings in the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (Aichi)[30] and Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant).[31] Both Aichi and Mirant ruled that the two-year prescriptive period to file a refund for input VAT arising from zero-rated sales should be reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. Aichi further emphasized that the failure to await the decision of the Commissioner or the lapse of 120-day period prescribed in Section 112(D) amounts to a premature filing.
	GR No. 188497 2012-04-25	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent's locally manufactured petroleum products are clearly subject to excise tax under Sec. 148. Hence, its claim for tax refund may not be predicated on Sec. 229 of the NIRC allowing a refund of erroneous or excess payment of tax. Respondent's claim is premised on what it determined as a tax exemption "attaching to the goods themselves," which must be based on a statute granting tax exemption, or "the result of legislative grace." Such a claim is to be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer, meaning that the claim cannot be made to rest on vague inference. Where the rule of strict interpretation against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, the claimant must show that he clearly falls under the exempting statute.[21]
	GR No. 179632 2011-10-19	SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION v. CIR ABAD, J.
The principle of solutio indebiti should govern this case since the BIR received something that it was not entitled to. Thus, it has to return the same. The government should not use technicalities to hold on to money that does not belong to it.[6] Only a preponderance of evidence is needed to grant a claim for tax refund based on excess payment.[7]
	GR No. 182364 2010-08-03	AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES v. CIR CARPIO MORALES, J.
Sales invoices are recognized commercial documents to facilitate trade or credit transactions. They are proofs that a business transaction has been concluded, hence, should not be considered bereft of probative value.[9] Only the preponderance of evidence threshold as applied in ordinary civil cases is needed to substantiate a claim for tax refund proper.[10]