This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, it has been held that since capital gains is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, not the buyer, who generally would shoulder the tax.[24] Accordingly, the BIR, in its BIR Ruling No. 476-2013, dated December 18, 2013, constituted the DPWH as a withholding agent to withhold the six percent (6%) final withholding tax in the expropriation of real property for infrastructure projects. As far as the government is concerned, therefore, the capital gains tax remains a liability of the seller since it is a tax on the seller's gain from the sale of the real estate.[25] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, in G.R. No. 173425, the Court resolved issues that are identical to the ones raised here by petitioner,[109] thus: 3.05.a. Whether Revenue Regulations No. 6-97 effectively repealed or repudiated Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 insofar as the latter limited the transitional/presumptive input tax credit which may be claimed under Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code to the "improvements" on real properties. 3.05.b. Whether Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 is a valid implementation of Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3.05.c. Whether the issuance of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and declaration of validity of said Regulations by the Court of Tax Appeals and Court of Appeals, [were] in violation of the fundamental principle of separation of powers. 3.05.d. Whether there is basis and necessity to interpret and construe the provisions of Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3.05.e. Whether there must have been previous payment of business tax [sales tax or value-added tax][110] by petitioner on its land before it may claim the input tax credit granted by Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3.05.f. Whether the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals merely speculated on the purpose of the transitional/presumptive input tax provided for in Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 3.05.g. Whether the economic and social objectives in the acquisition of the subject property by petitioner from the Government should be taken into consideration.[111] | |||||