This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Tax amnesty refers to the articulation of the absolute waiver by a sovereign of its right to collect taxes and power to impose penalties on persons or entities guilty of violating a tax law.[14] Tax amnesty aims to grant a general reprieve to tax evaders who wish to come clean by giving them an opportunity to straighten out their records.[15] In 2007, Congress enacted R.A. 9480, which granted a tax amnesty covering "all national internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2005 and prior years, with or without assessments duly issued therefor, that have remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005."[16] These national internal revenue taxes include (a) income tax; (b) VAT; (c) estate tax; (d) excise tax; (e) donor's tax; (f) documentary stamp tax; (g) capital gains tax; and (h) other percentage taxes.[17] Pursuant to Section 6 of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law, those who availed themselves of the benefits of the law became "immune from the payment of taxes, as well as additions thereto, and the appurtenant civil, criminal or administrative penalties under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, arising from the failure to pay any and all internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior years." | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| While tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority,[30] it is also a well-settled doctrine[31] that the rule-making power of administrative agencies cannot be extended to amend or expand statutory requirements or to embrace matters not originally encompassed by the law. Administrative regulations should always be in accord with the provisions of the statute they seek to carry into effect, and any resulting inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of the basic law. We thus definitively declare that the exception "[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" under BIR RMC 19-2008 is invalid, as the exception goes beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law.[32] | |||||
|
2012-09-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding taxes. To distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it.[26] On the other hand, in case of withholding taxes, the incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity, the statutory taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who merely collects, by withholding, the tax due from income payments to entities arising from certain transactions[27]and remits the same to the government. Due to this difference, the deficiency VAT and excise tax cannot be "deemed" as withholding taxes merely because they constitute indirect taxes. Moreover, records support the conclusion that AIA was assessed not as a withholding agent but, as the one directly liable for the said deficiency taxes.[28] | |||||