This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| After all, taxes are the lifeblood of the nation.[25] | |||||
|
2015-01-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court recognizes, as it always has, that the burden of proof to establish entitlement to refund is on the claimant taxpayer.[16] Being in the nature of a claim for exemption,[17] refund is construed in strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the refund and in favor of the taxing power.[18] This is the reason why a claimant must positively show compliance with the statutory requirements provided for under the NIRC in order to successfully pursue one's claim. As implemented by the applicable rules and regulations and as interpreted in a vast array of decisions, a taxpayer who seeks a refund of excess and unutilized CWT must: 1) File the claim with the CIR within the two year period from the date of payment of the tax; | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We adopt the above-mentioned findings of fact of the CTA Special First Division, as affirmed by the CTA EB. Whether TSC complied with the substantiation requirements of Section 112 of the NIRC and RR 3-88 is a question of fact,[19] which could only be answered after reviewing, examining, evaluating, or weighing all over again the probative value of the evidence before the CTA, which this Court does not have reason to do in the present petition for review on certiorari. The findings of fact of the CTA are not to be disturbed unless clearly shown to be unsupported by substantial evidence.[20] Since by the very nature of its functions, the CTA has developed an expertise on this subject, the Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions reached by them, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[21] | |||||