Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 169507 2016-01-11	AIR CANADA v. CIR LEONEN, J.
In the earlier case of South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[70] this court held that Section 28(A)(3)(a) does not categorically exempt all international air carriers from the coverage of Section 28(A)(1). Thus, if Section 28(A)(3)(a) is applicable to a taxpayer, then the general rule under Section 28(A)(1) does not apply. If, however, Section 28(A)(3)(a) does not apply, an international air carrier would be liable for the tax under Section 28(A)(1).[71]
	GR No. 169507 2016-01-11	AIR CANADA v. CIR LEONEN, J.
Here, petitioner's similar tax refund claim assumes that the tax return that it filed was correct. Given, however, the finding of the CTA that petitioner, although not liable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC, is liable under Sec. 28(A)(1), the correctness of the return filed by petitioner is now put in doubt. As such, we cannot grant the prayer for a refund.[146] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
	GR No. 175410 2014-11-12	SMI-ED PHILIPPINES TECHNOLOGY v. CIR LEONEN, J.
The issue of petitioner's claim for tax refund is intertwined with the issue of the proper taxes that are due from petitioner. A claim for tax refund carries the assumption that the tax returns filed were correct.[55] If the tax return filed was not proper, the correctness of the amount paid and, therefore, the claim for refund become questionable. In that case, the court must determine if a taxpayer claiming refund of erroneously paid taxes is more properly liable for taxes other than that paid.
	GR No. 175410 2014-11-12	SMI-ED PHILIPPINES TECHNOLOGY v. CIR LEONEN, J.
In South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[56] South African Airways claimed for refund of its erroneously paid 2½% taxes on its gross Philippine billings. This court did not immediately grant South African's claim for refund. This is because although this court found that South African Airways was not subject to the 2½% tax on its gross Philippine billings, this court also found that it was subject to 32% tax on its taxable income.[57]
	GR No. 177042 2012-12-10	SPS. CRISANTO ALCAZAR AND SUSANA VILLAMAYOR v. EVELYN ARANTE PERALTA, J.
In construing words and phrases used in a statute, the general rule is that, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary and common usage meaning.[28] The words should be read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly-accepted and most obvious signification, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction.[29] Words are presumed to have been employed by the lawmaker in their ordinary and common use and acceptation.[30] Thus, petitioners should not give a special or technical interpretation to a word which is otherwise construed in its ordinary sense by the law. In the instant case, respondent was able to prove that the subject owner's duplicate copy of the TCT is not lost and is in fact existing and in her possession. Moreover, petitioners admit that they entrusted the subject TCT to respondent. There is, thus, no dispute that the TCT in the possession of respondent is the genuine owner's duplicate copy of the TCT covering the subject property. The fact remains, then, that the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of respondent, with the knowledge of petitioners.
	GR No. 178788 2010-09-29	UNITED AIRLINES v. CIR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, inasmuch as it ceased operating passenger flights to or from the Philippines in 1998, it is not taxable under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of the NIRC for gross passenger revenues. This much was also found by the CTA. In South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[20] we ruled that the correct interpretation of the said provisions is that, if an international air carrier maintains flights to and from the Philippines, it shall be taxed at the rate of 2½% of its GPB, while international air carriers that do not have flights to and from the Philippines but nonetheless earn income from other activities in the country will be taxed at the rate of 32% of such income.