IGCSE–!Module1TEST!–!70Minutes54Marks! Name:! …piedpypermaths.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/2/13725392/igcse_1... · Write the number 1045.2781 correct to (a) 2 decimal places, Answer(a)

8/13/2019 Taxation Cases 2005 http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taxation-cases-2005 1/53 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (PHILIPPINES, respon!ent. "G.R. No. #$%&''. Fer)*r+ ##, --$. Business companies registered in and operating from the Special Economic Zone in Naga, Cebu — like herein respondent — are entities exempt from all internal revenue taxes and the implementing rules relevant thereto, including the value-added taxes or !"# !lthough export sales are not deemed exempt transactions, the$ are nonetheless %ero-rated# &ence, in the present case, the distinction bet'een exempt entities and exempt transactions has little significance, because the net result is that the taxpa$er is not liable for the !"# (espondent, a !"-registered enterprise, has complied 'ith all re)uisites for claiming a tax refund of or credit for the input !" it paid on capital goods it purchased# "hus, the Court of "ax !ppeals and the Court of !ppeals did not err in ruling that it is entitled to such refund or credit# *acts+ # (espondent. is a resident foreign corporation dul$ registered 'ith the Securities and Exchange Commission to do business in the /hilippines, 'ith principal office address at the ne' Cebu "o'nship 0ne, Special Economic Zone, Baranga$ Cantao-an, Naga, Cebu1 2# /etitioner. is sued in his official capacit$, having been dul$ appointed and empo'ered to perform the duties of his office, including, among others, the dut$ to act and approve claims for refund or tax credit1 3# (espondent. is registered 'ith the /hilippine Export Zone !uthorit$ 4/EZ!5 and has been issued /EZ! Certificate No# 67-899 pursuant to /residential :ecree No# ;;, as amended, to engage in the manufacture of recording components primaril$ used in computers for export# Such registration 'as made on ; <une 6671 9# (espondent. is !" 4alue !dded "ax5.-registered entit$ as evidenced b$ !" (egistration Certification No# 67-8=3-888;88- issued on 2 !pril 6671 ># !" returns for the period !pril 66= to 38 <une 666 have been filed b$ respondent.1 ;# !n administrative claim for refund of !" input taxes in the amount of /2=,3;6,22;#3= 'ith supporting documents 4inclusive of the /2,2;7,6=#89 !" input taxes sub?ect of this /etition for (evie'5, 'as filed on 9 0ctober 666 'ith (evenue :istrict 0ffice No# =3, "alisa$ Cebu1 7# No final action has been received b$ respondent. from petitioner. on respondent@s. claim for !" refund# A"he administrative claim for refund b$ the respondent. on 0ctober 9, 666 'as not acted upon b$ the petitioner. prompting the respondent. to elevate the case to the C"!. on <ul$ 2, 2888 b$ 'a$ of /etition for (evie' in order to toll the running of the t'o-$ear prescriptive period# A*or his part, petitioner. # # # raised the follo'ing Special and !ffirmative :efenses, to 'it+ # (espondent@s. alleged claim for tax refundcredit is sub?ect to administrative routinar$ investigationexamination b$ petitioner@s. Bureau1 2# Since @taxes are presumed to have been collected in accordance 'ith la's and regulations,@ the respondent. has the burden of proof that the taxes sought to be refunded 'ere erroneousl$ or illegall$ collected # # #1 3# n Citibank, N#!# vs# Court of !ppeals, 2=8 SC(! 9>6 46675, the Supreme Court ruled that+ A! claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax creditrefund#A 9# Claims for tax refundtax credit are construed in @strictissimi ?uris@ against the taxpa$er# "his is due to the fact that claims for refundcredit partake of. the nature of an exemption from tax# "hus, it is incumbent upon the respondent. to prove that it is indeed entitled to the refundcredit sought# *ailure on the part of the respondent. to prove the same is fatal to its claim for tax credit# &e 'ho claims exemption must be able to ?ustif$ his claim b$ the clearest grant of organic or statutor$ la'# !n exemption from the common burden cannot be permitted to exist upon vague implications1 ># Dranting, 'ithout admitting, that respondent. is a /hilippine Economic Zone !uthorit$ 4/EZ!5 registered Eco%one Enterprise, then its business is not sub?ect to !" pursuant to Section 29 of (epublic !ct No# 4(!.5 76; in relation to Section 83 of the "ax Code, as amended# !s respondent@s. business is not sub?ect to !", the capital goods and services it alleged to have purchased are considered not used in !" taxable business# !s such, respondent. is not entitled to refund of input taxes on such capital goods pursuant to Section 9#8;# of (evenue (egulations No# 4((.57-6>, and of input taxes on services pursuant to Section 9#83 of said regulations# ;# (espondent. must sho' compliance 'ith the provisions of Section 289 4C5 and 226 of the 667 "ax Code on filing of a 'ritten claim for refund 'ithin t'o 425 $ears from the date of pa$ment of tax#@

Documents

IGCSE–!Module1TEST!–!70Minutes54Marks! Name:! …piedpypermaths.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/2/13725392/igcse_1... · Write the number 1045.2781 correct to (a) 2 decimal places, Answer(a)