
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.- Tax Refund
Category: Tax Remedies
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.- Tax Refund
FACTS:
On September 30, 2004, Aichi Forging filed a claim for refund/credit of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 with the CIR through the DOF One-Stop Shop. On the same day, Aichi Forging filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the same action. The BIR disputed the claim and alleged that the same was filed beyond the two-year period given that 2004 was a leap year and thus the claim should have been filed on September 29, 2004. The CIR also raised issues related to the reckoning of the 2-year period and the simultaneous filing of the administrative and judicial claims.
ISSUES:
(1) Was the Petitioner’s administrative claim filed out of time?
(2) Was the filing of the judicial claim premature?
HELD:
(1) NO. The right to claim the refund must be reckoned from the “close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made” – in this case September 30, 2004. The Court added that the rules under Sections 204 (C) and 229 as cross-referred to Section 114 do not apply as they only cover erroneous payments or illegal collections of taxes which is not the case for refund of unutilized input VAT. Thus, the claim was filed on time even if 2004 was a leap year since the sanctioned method of counting is the number of months.
(2) YES. Section 112 mandates that the taxpayer filing the refund must either wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse of the 120-day period provided therein before filing its judicial claim. Failure to observe this rule is fatal to a claim. Thus, Section 112 (A) was interpreted to refer only to claims filed with the CIR and not appeals to the CTA given that the word used is “application”. Finally, the Court said that applying the 2-year period even to judicial claims would render nugatory Section 112 (D) which already provides for a specific period to appeal to the CTA --- i.e., (a) within 30 days after a decision within the 120-day period and (b) upon expiry of the 120-day without a decision.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation -
- FISHWEALTH CANNING CORPORATION vs. CIR- Court of Tax Appeals -
- REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10021 -EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BY THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON INTERNATIONALLY -
- CIR vs. METRO STAR SUPERAMA, INC.- Pre-Assessment Notice -
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. AQUAFRESH SEAFOODS, INC. - Fair Market Value -
Additional Law Reading:
- CIR vs. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION- Waiver of the Statute of Limitations -
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. ENRON SUBIC POWER CORPORATION - Disputed Assessment -
- LUCAS ADAMSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS- Deficiency Tax Assessment -
- CIR vs. FIRST EXPRESS PAWNSHOP COMPANY, INC. - Tax Assessment Protest -
- CIR vs. HAMBRECHT & QUIST PHILIPPINES, INC.- Tax Assessment and Protest -
Popular in BATASnatin:
- ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. CIR- Formal Letter of Demand, Tax Assessment - - 294 Hits
- CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation - - 276 Hits
- PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS- Customs Bonds - - 267 Hits
- LUCAS ADAMSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS- Deficiency Tax Assessment - - 242 Hits
- CIR vs. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION- Waiver of the Statute of Limitations - - 224 Hits
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.- Tax Refund
Category: Tax Remedies
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC.- Tax Refund
FACTS:
On September 30, 2004, Aichi Forging filed a claim for refund/credit of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 with the CIR through the DOF One-Stop Shop. On the same day, Aichi Forging filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the same action. The BIR disputed the claim and alleged that the same was filed beyond the two-year period given that 2004 was a leap year and thus the claim should have been filed on September 29, 2004. The CIR also raised issues related to the reckoning of the 2-year period and the simultaneous filing of the administrative and judicial claims.
ISSUES:
(1) Was the Petitioner’s administrative claim filed out of time?
(2) Was the filing of the judicial claim premature?
HELD:
(1) NO. The right to claim the refund must be reckoned from the “close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made” – in this case September 30, 2004. The Court added that the rules under Sections 204 (C) and 229 as cross-referred to Section 114 do not apply as they only cover erroneous payments or illegal collections of taxes which is not the case for refund of unutilized input VAT. Thus, the claim was filed on time even if 2004 was a leap year since the sanctioned method of counting is the number of months.
(2) YES. Section 112 mandates that the taxpayer filing the refund must either wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse of the 120-day period provided therein before filing its judicial claim. Failure to observe this rule is fatal to a claim. Thus, Section 112 (A) was interpreted to refer only to claims filed with the CIR and not appeals to the CTA given that the word used is “application”. Finally, the Court said that applying the 2-year period even to judicial claims would render nugatory Section 112 (D) which already provides for a specific period to appeal to the CTA --- i.e., (a) within 30 days after a decision within the 120-day period and (b) upon expiry of the 120-day without a decision.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation -
- FISHWEALTH CANNING CORPORATION vs. CIR- Court of Tax Appeals -
- REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10021 -EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BY THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON INTERNATIONALLY -
- CIR vs. METRO STAR SUPERAMA, INC.- Pre-Assessment Notice -
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. AQUAFRESH SEAFOODS, INC. - Fair Market Value -
Additional Law Reading:
- CIR vs. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION- Waiver of the Statute of Limitations -
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. ENRON SUBIC POWER CORPORATION - Disputed Assessment -
- LUCAS ADAMSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS- Deficiency Tax Assessment -
- CIR vs. FIRST EXPRESS PAWNSHOP COMPANY, INC. - Tax Assessment Protest -
- CIR vs. HAMBRECHT & QUIST PHILIPPINES, INC.- Tax Assessment and Protest -
Popular in BATASnatin:
- ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. CIR- Formal Letter of Demand, Tax Assessment - - 294 Hits
- CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation - - 276 Hits
- PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS- Customs Bonds - - 267 Hits
- LUCAS ADAMSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS- Deficiency Tax Assessment - - 242 Hits
- CIR vs. KUDOS METAL CORPORATION- Waiver of the Statute of Limitations - - 224 Hits
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 1 week ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Complaint Defined
Complaint DefinedSec. 3. Complaint defined. – A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforc...
Read moreCO-OWNERSHIP- Actio…
CO-OWNERSHIP- Action ReinvindicatoriaIn Iglesia ni Cristo v. Hon. Thelma Ponferada, et al., G.R. No. 168943, October 27, 2007 (Callejo, J), only one of co-owners filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Accion Publiciana before the RTC, Quezon ...
Read moreGAMBLING AND LOTTER…
Title Six, Crimes Against Public MoralsGAMBLING AND LOTTERY A. IntroductionThe law on gambling exemplifies the adage that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Although gambling is under the title Crimes Against Morals, the law on gambling does not...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

