REVENUE REGULATIONS NO.

1-2018 issued on January 15, 2018 provides the revised tax rates on Mineral
Products pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 10963 (TRAIN Law), amending for the purpose
Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 13-94.
There shall be levied, assessed and collected on mineral, mineral products and quarry resources, Excise Tax
as follows:

a. On domestic and imported coal and coke

Date of Effectivity Excise Tax per Metric Ton
January 1, 2018 Fifty pesos (P50.00)
January 1, 2019 One hundred pesos (P100.00)
January 1, 2020 and onwards One hundred and fifty pesos (P150.00)
Coal produced under Coal Operating Contracts entered into by the government pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 972 as well as those exempted from Excise Tax on mineral products under other laws shall now
be subject to the applicable rates above beginning January 1, 2018.

b. All non-metallic minerals and quarry resources

Locally-extracted or produced
Imported
Locally-extracted natural gas and Exempt
liquefied natural gas
Excise Tax
Four percent (4%) based on the actual
market value of the gross output thereof at
the time of removal
Four percent (4%) based on the value used
by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) in
determining tariff and customs duties, net of
Excise Tax and Value-Added Tax (VAT)

c. All metallic minerals

Locally-extracted or produced
copper, gold, chromite and other
metallic minerals
Imported copper, gold, chromite and
other metallic minerals
Excise Tax
Four percent (4%) based on the actual
market value of the gross output thereof at
the time of removal
Four percent (4%) based on the value
used by the BOC in determining tariff and
customs duties, net of Excise Tax and
VAT

d. Indigenous petroleum, a tax of six percent (6%) of the fair international market price thereof, on the first taxable
sale, barter, exchange or such similar transaction, such tax to be paid by the buyer or purchaser before
removal from the place of production. The phrase ‘first taxable sale, barter, exchange or similar transaction’
means the transfer of indigenous petroleum in its original state to a first taxable transferee. The fair
international market price shall be determined in consultation with an appropriate government agency.
The ‘indigenous petroleum’ shall include locally-extracted mineral oil, hydrocarbon gas, bitumen, crude
asphalt, mineral gas and all other similar or naturally associated substances with the exception of coal, peat,
bituminous shale and/or stratified mineral deposits.

CIR VS. BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and CTA

FACTS:
BOAC is a British Government-owned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United
Kingdom.It is engaged in the international airline business. It did not carry passengers or cargo to or from
the Philippines, although during the period covered by the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent
in the Philip. — Wamer Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways — which was responsible for
selling BOAC tickets covering passengers and cargoes.
It is admitted that BOAC had no landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines, and was not granted a
Certificate of public convenience, except for a nine-month period, partly in 1961 and partly in 1962, when it
was granted a temporary landing permit .
Petitioner assessed BOAC for deficiency income taxes covering the years 1959 to 1963. BOAC paid the
assessment under protest.
CTA DECISION:
The Tax Court held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage tickets in the Philippines do not constitute
BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed
by BOAC within the Philippines" and, therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax.
RESPONDENT’S MAIN ARGUMENT:
BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines, the income derived is from sources
without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws.
ISSUES:
Whether the revenue derived by BOAC from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air transportation, while
having no landing rights here, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable.
HELD:
YES. Sales of tickets in the Philippines is taxable.
The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. For the source of
income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from
activity within the Philippines. The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not
determinative of the source of income or the site of income taxation.
In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income:
1. The tickets exchanged hands and payments for fares were also made in Philippine currency.
2. The site of the source of payments is the Philippines.
3. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection
accorded by the Philippine government.
4. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the
government.
The definition of gross income under section 32 of tax code is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds
from sales of transport documents.
NOTE: Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 69, international carriers are now taxed of 2-½ per cent on their
cross Philippine billings.

National Development Company v CIR GR No L-53961, June 30, 1987

FACTS:
The National Development Company (NDC) entered into contracts in Tokyo with several Japanese
shipbuilding companies for the construction of 12 ocean-going vessels. Initial payments were made in cash
and through irrevocable letters of credit. When the vessels were completed and delivered to the NDC in Tokyo,
the latter remitted to the shipbuilders the amount of US$ 4,066,580.70 as interest on the balance of the
purchase price. No tax was withheld. The Commissioner then held the NDC liable on such tax in the total sum
of P5,115,234.74. Negotiations followed but failed. NDC went to CTA. BIR was sustained by CTA. BIR was
sustained by CTA. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Is NDC liable for the tax?
RULING:
Yes.
Although NDC is not the one taxed since it was the Japanese shipbuilders who were liable on the interest
remitted to them under Section 37 of the Tax Code, still, the imposition is valid.
The imposition of the deficiency taxes on NDC is a penalty for its failure to withhold the same from the
Japanese shipbuilders. Such liability is imposed by Section 53c of the Tax Code. NDC was remiss in the
discharge of its obligation as the withholding agent of the government and so should be liable for the omission.