Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CIR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
In cases involving excise tax exemptions on petroleum products under Section 135 of the NIRC, the Court has consistently held that it is the statutory taxpayer, not the party who only bears the economic burden, who is entitled to claim the tax refund or tax credit.[24] But the Court has also made clear that this rule does not apply where the law grants the party to whom the economic burden of the tax is shifted by virtue of an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes. In which case, such party must be allowed to claim the tax refund or tax credit even if it is not considered as the statutory taxpayer under the law.[25]
	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
In due course, Chevron appealed to the CTA En Banc (CTA EB No. 964), which, in the decision dated September 30, 2013,[11] affirmed the ruling of the CTA First Division, stating that there was nothing in Section 135(c) of the NIRC that explicitly exempted Chevron as the seller of the imported petroleum products from the payment of the excise taxes; and holding that because it did not fall under any of the categories exempted from paying excise tax, Chevron was not entitled to the tax refund or tax credit.
	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
In addition, petitioner argues that following the ruling of the Court in Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. - Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[37] petitioner is not liable to pay excise taxes on the petroleum products it sold to CDC. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are imposed when two conditions concur: first, that the articles subject to tax belong to any of the categories of goods enumerated in Title VI of the NIRC; and second, that said articles are for domestic sale or consumption, excluding those that are actually exported.[38] In this case, the second condition was not met because the petroleum products were not for domestic sale or consumption as these were sold to CDC, which is deemed a separate customs territory and is regarded in law as foreign soil.[39] Thus, petitioner asserts that it is not liable to pay excise taxes on the petroleum products sold to CDC.
	GR No. 186223 2014-10-01	CIR v. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATED SMELTING REYES, J.
The rule that it is the statutory taxpayer which has the legal personality to file a claim for refund[23] finds no applicability in this case. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[24] the Court distinguished between the kinds of exemption enjoyed by a claimant in order to determine the propriety of a tax refund claim. "If the law confers an exemption from both direct or indirect taxes, a claimant is entitled to a tax refund even if it only bears the economic burden of the applicable tax. On the other hand, if the exemption conferred only applies to direct taxes, then the statutory taxpayer is regarded as the proper party to file the refund claim."[25] In PASAR's case, Section 17 of P.D. No. 66, as affirmed in Commissioner of Customs, specifically declared that supplies, including petroleum products, whether used directly or indirectly, shall not be subject to internal revenue laws and regulations. Such exemption includes the payment of excise taxes, which was passed on to PASAR by Petron. PASAR, therefore, is the proper party to file a claim for refund.
	GR Nos. 212536-37 2014-08-27	CIR v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VELASCO JR., J.
Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[8] in which the Court has recognized the applicability of the exemption granted to PAL under its charter and necessarily its right to a refund, when appropriate.
	GR Nos. 212536-37 2014-08-27	CIR v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES VELASCO JR., J.
Any lingering doubt, however, as to the continued entitlement of PAL under Sec. 13 of its franchise to excise tax exemption on otherwise taxable items contemplated therein, e.g., aviation gas, wine, liquor or cigarettes, should once and for all be put to rest by the fairly recent pronouncement in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[12] In that case, the Court, on the premise that the "propriety of a tax refund is hinged on the kind of exemption which forms its basis,"[13] declared in no uncertain terms that PAL has "sufficiently prove[d]" its entitlement to a tax refund of the excise taxes and that PAL's payment of either the franchise tax or basic corporate income tax in the amount fixed thereat shall be in lieu of all other taxes or duties, and inclusive of all taxes on all importations of commissary and catering supplies, subject to the condition of their availability and eventual use. The Court wrote in that particular case involving PAL's claim for refund of the excise taxes imposed on its purchase from Caltex (Phils.), Inc. of imported aviation fuel for domestic operations, thus: In this case, PAL's franchise grants it an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes on its purchase of petroleum products. Section 13 thereof reads: