1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
University of Physicians vs CIR
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
CIR vs Julita Benedicto as Administratix of the Estate of
Roberto Benedicto
(2014)
FACTS:
Julita was the duly appointed administratrix of the intestate
estate of her late husband, Roberto S. Benedicto (Benedicto).
Benedicto was identified as one of the business
associates/cronies of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos
(Marcos). Pursuant to Executive Order (E. 0.) Nos. I, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino in 1986 to
recover the ill-gotten wealth amassed by Marcos, members of
his immediate family, close relatives, subordinates, business
associates, dummies, agents or nominees, the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) ran after
Benedicto's assets, including his deposits in Swiss Credit Bank
in the amount of US$22,269,722.53 and in Swiss Bank
Corporation in the amount of US$9,635,000.00, totalling
US$31,904,722.53. The Swiss deposits became the subject of a
request by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the
PCGG, of international legal cooperation and freeze order in
1986.
On July 16, 1990, a compromise agreement was executed
between the PCGG, represented by PCGG Chairman Mateo
Caparas (Caparas)and Benedicto in Berne, Switzerland,
wherein they agreed that the Swiss cases involving the latter's
bank deposits would be terminated with the withdrawal of his
(Benedicto's) opposition to the appeals filed against the grant
of international legal cooperation. On the other hand, the
7.
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
Republic would request the Swiss authorities to unfreeze all
deposits with the Swiss Federal and Cantonal authorities in
order to comply with the agreement. It was also agreed upon
that the PCGG shall grant Benedicto immunity from civil,
criminal and tax liabilities over his 49% share in the Swiss
deposits amounting to US$ l 5 ,633, 722.53 in consideration of
his having ceded to the Republic 51 % of the total amount of
the said deposits.
Consequently, the CIR issued an Assessment Notice to
Benedicto for alleged deficiency income tax for the year 1990
in the amount of Pl 83,334,238.93. Benedicto protested the
assessment and requested for a reconsideration which the CIR
denied.
The CT A Division then rendered judgment in favor of Benedicto,
ruling that he was not liable for deficiency income tax for taxable
year 1990 for the reason that, among others, the portion given to
him was not income, but a mere return of his capital. If at all, the
amount of the Swiss deposits would only be subjected to interest
income.
The case was then elevated to the CTA En Banc, which affirmed the
decision of the CT A Division, agreeing that the Swiss deposits were
a mere return of capital. Futiher, the CIR failed to present evidence
to prove that Benedicto amassed great wealth which was greatly
disproportionate to the salary of a public servant. 9 The tax cou1i
explained that a declaration and forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth
pursuant to R.A. No. 1379 required an appropriate court petition
and judicial declaration of the ill-gotten nature of the wealth.
Eventually, the case was presented before the Supreme Court.
Page 1 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Briefly, the CIR argues that first, nowhere in Executive Order (E.0.)
No. I can it be inferred that the PCGG can· grant tax exemptions as
an incident of its authority. 11 Second. it was established that
Benedicto amassed wealth that was greatly disproportionate to the
salary of a public servant. The original report of investigation was
amended in that Benedicto's share in the deposits could be
considered as income only for taxable year 1990 on the hypothesis
that back in 1986, the rightful ownership of the deposits was
disputed, and it was only at the time of the execution of the
compromise agreement when his ownership of a portion of the
deposits was established. 12 The 49% share that was subject of the
assessment notice arose from his income for taxable year 199.0 by
virtue of the compromise agreement. 13 Third, due process was
observed in assessing and informing Benedicto of his deficiency tax
liabilities. Due process simply requires a reasonable opportunity to
be heard, and Benedicto was afforded said opportunity in no small
measure. His representatives were given free access to BIR records.
ISSUE: WON the object covered by the disputed notice of
assessment is considered an income or a mere return of capital
HELD: It is a mere return of capital.
Income means all the wealth which flows into the taxpayer other
than a mere return on capital. Capital is a fund or property existing
at one distinct point in time while income denotes a flow of wealth
during a definite period of time. Income is gain derived and severed
from capital. For income to be taxable, the following requisites must
exist: ( 1) there must be gain; (2) the gain must be realized or
received; and (3) the gain must not be excluded by law or treaty
from taxation.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
Here, the CIR himself specifically declared that the amount being
assessed for deficiency income tax against the intestate estate arose
from the "income" Benedicto got in taxable year 1990 by virtue of
the compromise agreement. In other words, without the said
agreement, Benedicto would not have received his 49% share in the
Swiss deposits. The argument fails to persuade.
It has been clearly established that, although the deposits were
subject of a freeze order by the Swiss authorities, they remained,
and were later confirmed, to be owned by Benedicto as early as
1986 when they were frozen. The compromise agreement only led
to the unfreezing of these deposits and termination of the Swiss
cases against Benedicto in exchange for the withdrawal of his
opposition and appeal against the grant of international legal
cooperation requested by the Republic. The 49% share in the
deposits was in no way an income because Benedicto did not gain
any wealth or did not become any richer than he was before. In fact,
his wealth was diminished by virtue of the agreement for having
ceded 51 % to the Republic. The 49% share was, therefore, a mere
return of capital which was not subject to income tax. The CTA En
Banc was correct in affirming the CTA Division's disposition that "if
there would be any amount of the Swiss deposits that may be
subjected to income tax, the same pertains only to the interest
income component of said deposits, for the interest income earned
by said Swiss deposits is a gain derived and severed from capital, or
a flow of wealth.
Further, the argument of the CIR that the amount was being taxed
as i II-gotten wealth under R.A. No. 13 79 cannot be given
consideration. Other than bare allegations, the CIR did not adduce
any proof that indeed Benedicto greatly amassed wealth that was
disproportionate to the salary of a public servant. Neither the
compromise agreement stated that the Swiss deposits were ill-
gotten wealth nor was there a judicial declaration as required by
R.A. No. 1379, the same law relied upon by the CIR.
Page 2 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
CIR vs General Foods Inc. (2003)
FACTS:
On June 14, 1985, respondent corporation, which is engaged in
the manufacture of beverages such as Tang, Calumet and Kool-
Aid, filed its income tax return for the fiscal year ending
February 28, 1985. In said tax return, respondent corporation
claimed as deduction, among other business expenses, the
amount of P9,461,246 for media advertising for Tang.
On May 31, 1988, the Commissioner disallowed 50%
or P4,730,623 of the deduction claimed by respondent
corporation. Consequently, respondent corporation was
assessed deficiency income taxes in the amount of P2,635,
141.42. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration but the
same was denied.
On September 29, 1989, respondent corporation appealed to
the Court of Tax Appeals but the appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved, respondent corporation filed a petition for review at
the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision reversing and
setting aside the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals since it
has not been sufficiently established that the item it claimed as
a deduction is excessive, the same should be allowed.
Thus, the instant petition by the Commissioner. The
Commissioner maintains that the subject advertising expense
was not ordinary on the ground that it failed the two conditions
set by U.S. jurisprudence: first, reasonableness of the amount
incurred and second, the amount incurred must not be a capital
outlay to create goodwill for the product and/or private
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
respondents business. Otherwise, the expense must be
considered a capital expenditure to be spread out over a
reasonable time.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject media advertising expense
for Tang incurred by respondent corporation was an ordinary
and necessary expense fully deductible under the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
HELD: The media advertising expense is a capital
expenditure, paid in order to create goodwill and reputation for
respondent corporation and/or its products, which should have
been amortized over a reasonable period.
Section 34 (A) (1), formerly Section 29 (a) (1) (A), of the
NIRC provides:
(A) Expenses.-
(1) Ordinary and necessary trade, business or
professional expenses.-
(a) In general.- There shall be allowed as deduction
from gross income all ordinary and necessary expenses
paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on,
or which are directly attributable to, the development,
management, operation and/or conduct of the trade,
business or exercise of a profession.
Simply put, to be deductible from gross income, the subject
advertising expense must comply with the following requisites:
(a) the expense must be ordinary and necessary; (b) it must
have been paid or incurred during the taxable year; (c) it must
Page 3 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
have been paid or incurred in carrying on the trade or business
of the taxpayer; and (d) it must be supported by receipts,
records or other pertinent papers.[7cräläwvirtualibräry
The parties are in agreement that the subject advertising
expense was paid or incurred within the corresponding taxable
year and was incurred in carrying on a trade or business.
Hence, it was necessary. However, their views conflict as to
whether or not it was ordinary. To be deductible, an advertising
expense should not only be necessary but also ordinary. These
two requirements must be met.
We find the subject expense for the advertisement of a single
product to be inordinately large. Therefore, even if it is
necessary, it cannot be considered an ordinary expense
deductible under then Section 29 (a) (1) (A) of the NIRC.
Advertising is generally of two kinds: (1) advertising to
stimulate the current sale of merchandise or use of services and
(2) advertising designed to stimulate the future sale of
merchandise or use of services. The second type involves
expenditures incurred, in whole or in part, to create or maintain
some form of goodwill for the taxpayers trade or business or
for the industry or profession of which the taxpayer is a
member. If the expenditures are for the advertising of the first
kind, then, except as to the question of the reasonableness of
amount, there is no doubt such expenditures are deductible as
business expenses. If, however, the expenditures are for
advertising of the second kind, then normally they should be
spread out over a reasonable period of time.
We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that the subject
advertising expense was of the second kind. Not only was the
amount staggering; the respondent corporation itself also
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
admitted, in its letter protest to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenues assessment, that the subject media expense was
incurred in order to protect respondent corporations brand
franchise, a critical point during the period under review.
The protection of brand franchise is analogous to the
maintenance of goodwill or title to ones property. This is a
capital expenditure which should be spread out over a
reasonable period of time.
Respondent corporations venture to protect its brand franchise
was tantamount to efforts to establish a reputation. This was
akin to the acquisition of capital assets and therefore expenses
related thereto were not to be considered as business expenses
but as capital expenditures.
True, it is the taxpayers prerogative to determine the amount of
advertising expenses it will incur and where to apply them.
Said prerogative, however, is subject to certain considerations.
The first relates to the extent to which the expenditures are
actually capital outlays; this necessitates an inquiry into the
nature or purpose of such expenditures. The second, which
must be applied in harmony with the first, relates to whether
the expenditures are ordinary and necessary. Concomitantly,
for an expense to be considered ordinary, it must be reasonable
in amount. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that respondent
corporation failed to meet the two foregoing limitations.
We find said ruling to be well founded. Respondent
corporation incurred the subject advertising expense in order to
protect its brand franchise. We consider this as a capital outlay
since it created goodwill for its business and/or product.
The P9,461,246 media advertising expense for the promotion
of a single product, almost one-half of petitioner corporations
Page 4 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
entire claim for marketing expenses for that year under review,
inclusive of other advertising and promotion expenses
of P2,678,328 and P1,548,614 for consumer promotion, is
doubtlessly unreasonable.
It has been a long standing policy and practice of the Court to
respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the
Court of Tax Appeals, a highly specialized body specifically
created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases. The CTA, by
the nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively to the study
and consideration of tax problems. It has necessarily developed
an expertise on the subject. We extend due consideration to its
opinion unless there is an abuse or improvident exercise of
authority. Since there is none in the case at bar, the Court
adheres to the findings of the CTA.
Accordingly, we find that the Court of Appeals committed
reversible error when it declared the subject media advertising
expense to be deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense
on the ground that it has not been established that the item
being claimed as deduction is excessive. It is not incumbent
upon the taxing authority to prove that the amount of items
being claimed is unreasonable. The burden of proof to establish
the validity of claimed deductions is on the taxpayer. In the
present case, that burden was not discharged satisfactorily.
Cyanamid Philippines vs CA (2000)
FACTS:
Petitioner, Cyanamid Philippines, Inc., a corporation organized
under Philippine laws, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
American Cyanamid Co. based in Maine, USA. It is engaged in
the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and chemicals, a
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
wholesaler of imported finished goods, and an
importer/indentor.
On February 7, 1985, the CIR sent an assessment letter to
petitioner and demanded the payment of deficiency income tax
of one hundred nineteen thousand eight hundred seventeen
(P119,817.00) pesos for taxable year 1981.
On March 4, 1985, petitioner protested the assessments
particularly, (1) the 25% Surtax Assessment of P3,774,867.50;
(2) 1981 Deficiency Income Assessment of P119,817.00; and
1981 Deficiency Percentage Assessment of P8,846.72. 4
Petitioner, through its external accountant, Sycip, Gorres,
Velayo & Co., claimed, among others, that the surtax for the
undue accumulation of earnings was not proper because the
said profits were retained to increase petitioner’s working
capital and it would be used for reasonable business needs of
the company. The CIR rejected the protest.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.
In denying the petition, the Court of Tax Appeals made the
following pronouncements:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Petitioner contends that it did not declare dividends for the
year 1981 in order to use the accumulated earnings as working
capital reserve to meet its "reasonable business needs." The law
permits a stock corporation to set aside a portion of its retained
earnings for specified purposes (citing Section 43, paragraph 2
of the Corporation Code of the Philippines). In the case at bar,
Page 5 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
however, petitioner’s purpose for accumulating its earnings
does not fall within the ambit of any of these specified
purposes.
More compelling is the finding that there was no need for
petitioner to set aside a portion of its retained earnings as
working capital reserve as it claims since it had considerable
liquid funds. A thorough review of petitioner’s financial
statement (particularly the Balance Sheet, p. 127, BIR Records)
reveals that the corporation had considerable liquid funds
consisting of cash accounts receivable, inventory and even its
sales for the period is adequate to meet the normal needs of the
business.
On appeal to the CA, the CA just affirmed the decision of the
CTA.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent court erred in holding that the
petitioner is liable for the accumulated earnings tax for the year
1981
HELD: Petitioner is liable for the said accumulated earnings.
Section 25 9 of the old National Internal Revenue Code of
1977 states:
"SECTION 25. Additional tax on corporation improperly
accumulating profits or surplus. —
"(a) Imposition of tax. — If any corporation is formed or
availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
tax upon its shareholders or members or the shareholders or
members of another corporation, through the medium of
permitting its gains and profits to accumulate instead of being
divided or distributed, there is levied and assessed against such
corporation, for each taxable year, a tax equal to twenty-five
per-centum of the undistributed portion of its accumulated
profits or surplus which shall be in addition to the tax imposed
by section twenty-four, and shall be computed, collected and
paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions of
law, including penalties, as that tax.
"(b) Prima facie evidence. — The fact that any corporation is
mere holding company shall be prima facie evidence of a
purpose to avoid the tax upon its shareholders or members.
Similar presumption will lie in the case of an investment
company where at any time during the taxable year more than
fifty per centum in value of its outstanding stock is owned,
directly or indirectly, by one person.
"(c) Evidence determinative of purpose. — The fact that the
earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate
beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be
determinative of the purpose to avoid the tax upon its
shareholders or members unless the corporation, by clear
preponderance of evidence, shall prove the contrary.
"(d) Exception — The provisions of this sections shall not
apply to banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, corporation
organized primarily, and authorized by the Central Bank of the
Page 6 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Philippines to hold shares of stock of banks, insurance
companies, whether domestic or foreign.
The provision discouraged tax avoidance through corporate
surplus accumulation. When corporations do not declare
dividends, income taxes are not paid on the undeclared
dividends received by the shareholders. The tax on improper
accumulation of surplus is essentially a penalty tax designed to
compel corporations to distribute earnings so that the said
earnings by shareholders could, in turn, be taxed.
In order to determine whether profits are accumulated for the
reasonable needs of the business to avoid the surtax upon
shareholders, it must be shown that the controlling intention of
the taxpayer is manifested at the time of accumulation, not
intentions declared subsequently, which are mere afterthoughts.
28 Furthermore, the accumulated profits must be used within a
reasonable time after the close of the taxable year. In the
instant case, petitioner did not establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that such accumulation of profit was for
the immediate needs of the business.
In Manila Wine Merchants, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 29 we ruled:
"To determine the ‘reasonable needs’ of the business in order
to justify an accumulation of earnings, the Courts of the United
States have invented the so-called ‘Immediacy Test’ which
construed the words ‘reasonable needs of the business’ to mean
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
the immediate needs of the business, and it was generally held
that if the corporation did not prove an immediate need for the
accumulation of the earnings and profits, the accumulation was
not for the reasonable needs of the business, and the penalty tax
would apply. (Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol.
7, Chapter 39, p. 103). 30
In the present case, the Tax Court opted to determine the
working capital sufficiency by using the ratio between current
assets to current liabilities. The working capital needs of a
business depend upon the nature of the business, its credit
policies, the amount of inventories, the rate of turnover, the
amount of accounts receivable, the collection rate, the
availability of credit to the business, and similar factors.
Petitioner, by adhering to the "Bardahl" formula, failed to
impress the tax court with the required definiteness envisioned
by the statute. We agree with the tax court that the burden of
proof to establish that the profits accumulated were not beyond
the reasonable needs of the company, remained on the
taxpayer. This Court will not set aside lightly the conclusion
reached by the Court of Tax Appeals which, by the very nature
of its function, is dedicated exclusively to the consideration of
tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the
subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise
of authority. 31 Unless rebutted, all presumptions generally are
indulged in favor of the correctness of the CIR’s assessment
against the taxpayer. With petitioner’s failure to prove the CIR
incorrect, clearly and conclusively, this Court is constrained to
Page 7 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo 7. University of Physicians vs CIR
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA 8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC 9. CIR vs PNB

uphold the correctness of tax court’s ruling as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
Chamber of Real Estate and Builder Association vs
Romulo (2010)
FACTS:
Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations,
Inc. is questioning the constitutionality of Section 27 (E) of
Republic Act (RA) 8424[2] and the revenue regulations (RRs)
issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to implement
said provision and those involving creditable withholding taxes
Petitioner is an association of real estate developers and
builders in the Philippines
Petitioner assails the validity of the imposition of minimum
corporate income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable
withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as
ordinary assets.
Contentions re: MCIT
Section 27(E) of RA 8424 provides for MCIT on domestic
corporations
Petitioner argues that the MCIT violates the due process clause
because it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain.
Petitioner also seeks to nullify Sections 2.57.2(J) (as amended
by RR 6-2001) and 2.58.2 of RR 2-98, and Section 4(a)(ii) and
(c)(ii) of RR 7-2003, all of which prescribe the rules and
procedures for the collection of CWT on the sale of real
properties categorized as ordinary... assets... contends that
these revenue regulations are contrary to law for two reasons:
first, they ignore the different treatment by RA 8424 of
ordinary assets and capital assets and second, respondent
Secretary of Finance has no authority to collect CWT,... much
less, to base the CWT on the gross selling price or fair market
value of the real properties classified as ordinary assets.
Petitioner also asserts that the enumerated provisions of the
subject revenue regulations violate the due process clause
because, like the MCIT, the government collects income tax
even when the net income has not yet been determined.
Under the MCIT scheme, a corporation, beginning on its fourth
year of operation, is assessed an MCIT of 2% of its gross
income when such MCIT is greater than the normal corporate
income tax imposed under Section 27(A)
If the regular income tax is higher... than the MCIT, the
corporation does not pay the MCIT. Any excess of the MCIT
over the normal tax shall be carried forward and credited
against the normal income tax for the three immediately
succeeding taxable years.

Contentions re: CWT (4)

Page 8 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Gross Income Defined. - For purposes of applying the [MCIT]
provided under Subsection (E) hereof, the term `gross income'
shall mean gross sales less sales returns, discounts and
allowances and cost of goods sold. "Cost of goods sold" shall
include all... business expenses directly incurred to produce the
merchandise to bring them to their present location and use.
Secretary of Finance (Secretary), on the recommendation of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), promulgated RR 9-
98 implementing Section 27(E)
The MCIT shall be imposed whenever such corporation has
zero or negative taxable income or whenever the amount of
minimum corporate income tax is... greater than the normal
income tax due from such corporation.
Any excess of the [MCIT] over the normal income tax as
computed under Sec. 27(A) of the Code shall be carried
forward on an annual basis and credited against the normal
income tax for the three (3) immediately succeeding taxable
years.
RR 2-98 implementing certain provisions of RA 8424
involving the withholding of taxes
Under Section 2.57.2(J) of RR No. 2-98, income payments
from the... sale, exchange or transfer of real property, other
than capital assets, by persons residing in the Philippines and
habitually engaged in the real estate business were subjected to
CWT
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
Income payment subject to [CWT]
Gross selling price or total amount of consideration or its
equivalent paid to the seller/owner for the sale, exchange or
transfer of. - Real property, other than capital assets, sold by an
individual, corporation, estate, trust, trust fund or pension fund
and the... seller/transferor is habitually engaged in the real
estate business
Gross selling price shall mean the consideration stated in the
sales document or the fair market value determined in
accordance with Section 6 (E) of the Code, as amended,
whichever is higher. In an exchange, the fair market value of
the property received in exchange, as... determined in the
Income Tax Regulations shall be used.
amended by RR 6-2001
Gross selling price or total amount of consideration or its
equivalent paid to the seller/owner for the sale, exchange or
transfer of real property classified as ordinary asset. - A [CWT]
based on the gross selling price/total amount of consideration
or the fair market value... determined in accordance with
Section 6(E) of the Code, whichever is higher, paid to the
seller/owner for the sale, transfer or exchange of real property,
other than capital asset, shall be imposed upon the withholding
agent,/buyer
Gross selling price shall remain the consideration stated in the
sales document or the fair market value determined in
accordance with Section 6 (E) of the Code, as amended,
Page 9 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
whichever is higher. In an exchange, the fair market value of
the property received in exchange... shall be considered as the
consideration.
However, if the buyer is engaged in trade or business, whether
a corporation or otherwise, these rules shall apply:
(i) If the sale is a sale of property on the installment plan (that
is, payments in the year of sale do not exceed 25% of the
selling price), the tax shall be deducted and withheld by the
buyer on every installment.
(ii) If, on the other hand, the sale is on a "cash basis" or is a
"deferred-payment sale not on the installment plan" (that is,
payments in the year of sale exceed 25% of the selling price),
the buyer shall withhold the tax based on the gross selling price
or fair market... value of the property, whichever is higher, on
the first installment.
any sale, barter or exchange subject to the CWT will not be
recorded by the Registry of Deeds until the CIR has certified
that such transfers and conveyances have been reported and the
taxes thereof... have been duly paid
RR No. 7-2003[8] was promulgated, providing for the
guidelines in determining whether a particular real property is a
capital or an ordinary asset for purposes of imposing the MCIT
In the case of individual citizen (including estates and trusts),
resident aliens, and non-resident aliens engaged in trade or
business in the Philippines
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
The sale of real property located in the Philippines, classified
as ordinary assets, shall be subject to the [CWT]... based on the
gross selling price or current fair market value... whichever is
higher, and consequently, to the ordinary income tax... based
on net taxable income.
In the case of domestic corporations
The sale of land and/or building classified as ordinary asset and
other real property (other than land and/or building treated as
capital asset), regardless of the classification thereof, all of
which are located in the Philippines, shall be subject to the
[CWT]... and consequently, to the ordinary income tax
In lieu of the ordinary income tax, however, domestic
corporations may become subject to the [MCIT] under Sec.
27(E) of the Code, whichever is... applicable.
Issues:
whether or not the imposition of the MCIT on domestic
corporations is unconstitutional
(3)... whether or not the imposition of CWT on income from
sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets under RRs
2-98, 6-2001 and 7-2003, is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
The MCIT on domestic corporations is a new concept
introduced by RA 8424 to the Philippine taxation system. It
came about as a result of the perceived inadequacy of the self-
Page 10 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
assessment system in capturing the true income of
corporations.[21] It was devised... as a relatively simple and
effective revenue-raising instrument compared to the normal
income tax which is more difficult to control and enforce. It is
a means to ensure that everyone will make some minimum
contribution to the support of the public sector.
Domestic corporations owe their corporate existence and their
privilege to do business to the government. They also benefit
from the efforts of the government to improve the financial
market and to ensure a favorable business climate. It is
therefore fair for the government to... require them to make a
reasonable contribution to the public expenses.
Congress intended to put a stop to the practice of corporations
which, while having large turn-overs, report minimal or
negative net income resulting in minimal or zero income taxes
year in and year out, through under-declaration of income or
over-deduction of expenses otherwise... called tax shelters
The primary purpose of any legitimate business is to earn a
profit. Continued and repeated losses after operations of a
corporation or consistent reports of minimal net income render
its financial statements and its tax payments suspect.
As a tax on gross income, it prevents tax evasion and
minimizes tax avoidance schemes achieved through
sophisticated and artful manipulations of deductions and
other... stratagems. Since the tax base was broader, the tax rate
was lowered.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
the birth pangs of businesses and the reality of the need to
recoup initial major capital expenditures
MCIT commences only on the fourth taxable year... grace
period allows a new business to stabilize first and make its
ventures viable
MCIT Is Not Violative of Due Process
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government.
Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty.[34] It is a
power that is purely legislative.[35] Essentially, this means that
in the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the
nature (kind), object (purpose), extent
(rate), coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation... the
power to tax is plenary and unlimited in its range,
acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that the principal
check against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility
of the legislature (which imposes the tax) to its constituency
who are... to pay it.
we will not strike down a revenue measure as unconstitutional
(for being... violative of the due process clause) on the mere
allegation of arbitrariness by the taxpayer.
There must be a factual foundation to such an unconstitutional
taint.[42] This merely adheres to the authoritative doctrine that,
where... the due process clause is invoked, considering that it is
not a fixed rule but rather a broad standard, there is a need for
proof of such persuasive character.
Page 11 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Certainly, an income tax is arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes
capital because capital is not income. In other words, it is
income, not capital, which is subject to income tax. However,
the MCIT is not a tax on capital.
The MCIT is imposed on gross income which is arrived at by
deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its
goods, i.e., the cost of goods[48] and other direct expenses
from gross sales. Clearly, the capital is not being taxed.
Furthermore, the MCIT is not an additional tax imposition. It is
imposed in lieu of the normal net income tax, and only if the
normal income tax is suspiciously low.
there is no legal objection to a broader tax base or taxable
income by eliminating all deductible items and at the same
time reducing the applicable tax rate.
Absent any other valid objection, the assignment of gross
income, instead of net income, as the tax base of the MCIT,
taken with the reduction of the tax rate from 32% to 2%, is not
constitutionally objectionable.
Moreover, petitioner does not cite any actual, specific and
concrete negative experiences of its members nor does it
present empirical data to show that the implementation of the
MCIT resulted in the confiscation of their property.
In sum, petitioner failed to support, by any factual or legal
basis, its allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory.
The Court cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
because of its yokes.[58] Taxation is necessarily burdensome...
because, by its nature, it adversely affects property rights.[59]
The party alleging the law's unconstitutionality has the burden
to demonstrate the supposed violations in understandable terms
Petitioner alleges that RR 9-98 is a deprivation of property
without due process of law because the MCIT is being imposed
and collected even when there is actually a loss, or a zero or
negative taxable income
RR 9-98, in declaring that MCIT should be imposed whenever
such corporation has zero or negative taxable income, merely
defines the coverage of Section 27(E). This means that even if
a corporation incurs a net loss in its business operations or
reports zero income after... deducting its expenses, it is still
subject to an MCIT of 2% of its gross income. This is
consistent with the law which imposes the MCIT on gross
income notwithstanding the amount of the net income. But the
law also states that the MCIT is to be paid only if it is greater
than... the normal net income. Obviously, it may well be the
case that the MCIT would be less than the net income of the
corporation which posts a zero or negative taxable income.
The Secretary of Finance is granted, under Section 244 of RA
8424, the authority to promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of
the law. Such authority is subject to the limitation that the rules
and regulations must not... override, but must remain consistent
and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and
Page 12 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
implement.[64] It is well-settled that an administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.
Respondent Secretary has the authority to require the
withholding of a tax on items of income payable to any person,
national or juridical, residing in the Philippines. Such authority
is derived from Section 57(B) of RA 8424
The questioned provisions of RR 2-98, as amended, are well
within the authority given by Section 57(B) to the Secretary
Under RR 2-98, the tax base of the income tax from the sale of
real property classified as ordinary assets remains to be the
entity's net income imposed under Section 24 (resident
individuals) or Section 27 (domestic corporations) in relation to
Section 31 of RA 8424,... i.e. gross income less allowable
deductions. The CWT is to be deducted from the net income
tax payable by the taxpayer at the end of the taxable year.
the tax base for the sale... of real property classified as ordinary
assets remains to be the net taxable income
Accordingly, at the end of the year, the taxpayer/seller shall file
its income tax return and credit the taxes withheld (by the
withholding agent/buyer) against its tax due. If the tax due is
greater than the tax withheld, then the taxpayer shall pay the
difference. If, on the... other hand, the tax due is less than the
tax withheld, the taxpayer will be entitled to a refund or tax
credit. Undoubtedly, the taxpayer is taxed on its net income.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
The use of the GSP/FMV as basis to determine the withholding
taxes is evidently for purposes of practicality and convenience.
said withholding agent's knowledge and privity are limited
only to the particular transaction in which he is a party. In such
a case, his basis can only be the GSP or FMV as these are the
only factors reasonably known or... knowable by him in
connection with the performance of his duties as a withholding
agent.
The differences between the two forms of withholding tax, i.e.,
creditable and final, show that ordinary assets are not treated in
the same manner as capital assets. Final withholding tax (FWT)
and CWT are distinguished as follows:
FWT
CWT... a) The amount of income tax withheld by the
withholding agent is constituted as a full and final payment of
the income tax due from the payee on the said income.
a) Taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to
equal or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said
income.
b)The liability for payment of the tax rests primarily on the
payor as a withholding agent.
b) Payee of income is required to report the income and/or pay
the difference between the tax withheld and the tax due on the
income. The payee also has the right to ask for a refund if the
tax withheld is more than the tax due.
Page 13 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
c) The payee is not required to file an income tax return for the
particular income.[73]... c) The income recipient is still
required to file an income tax return, as prescribed in Sec. 51
and Sec. 52 of the NIRC, as amended.
FWT
CWT... a) The amount of income tax withheld by the
withholding agent is constituted as a full and final payment of
the income tax due from the payee on the said income.
a) Taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to
equal or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said
income.
b)The liability for payment of the tax rests primarily on the
payor as a withholding agent.
b) Payee of income is required to report the income and/or pay
the difference between the tax withheld and the tax due on the
income. The payee also has the right to ask for a refund if the
tax withheld is more than the tax due.
c) The payee is not required to file an income tax return for the
particular income.[73]... c) The income recipient is still
required to file an income tax return, as prescribed in Sec. 51
and Sec. 52 of the NIRC, as amended
As previously stated, FWT is imposed on the sale of capital
assets.
CWT is imposed on the sale of ordinary assets.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
The fact that the tax is withheld at source does not
automatically mean that it is treated exactly the same way as
capital gains. As aforementioned, the mechanics of the FWT
are distinct from those of the CWT. The withholding
agent/buyer's act of collecting the tax at the time... of the
transaction by withholding the tax due from the income
payable is the essence of the withholding tax method of tax
collection.
Section 57(A) expressly states that final tax can be imposed on
certain kinds of income and enumerates these as passive
income.
It is income generated by the taxpayer's assets. These assets
can be in the form of real properties that return rental income,
shares of stock in a corporation that earn dividends or interest
income received from savings.
On the other hand, Section 57(B) provides that the Secretary
can require a CWT on "income payable to natural or juridical
persons, residing in the Philippines." There is no requirement
that this income be passive income. If that were the intent of
Congress, it could have easily... said so.
Section 57(A) and (B) are distinct. Section 57(A) refers to
FWT while Section 57(B) pertains to CWT. The former covers
the kinds of passive income enumerated therein and the latter
encompasses any income other than those listed in 57(A).
Since the law itself makes... distinctions, it is wrong to regard
57(A) and 57(B) in the same way.
Page 14 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Principles:
The MCIT on domestic corporations is a new concept
introduced by RA 8424 to the Philippine taxation system. It
came about as a result of the perceived inadequacy of the self-
assessment system in capturing the true income of
corporations.[21] It was devised... as a relatively simple and
effective revenue-raising instrument compared to the normal
income tax which is more difficult to control and enforce. It is
a means to ensure that everyone will make some minimum
contribution to the support of the public sector.
THEORY OF FAVORABLE BUSINESS CLIMATE
Domestic corporations owe their corporate existence and their
privilege to do business to the government. They also benefit
from the efforts of the government to improve the financial
market and to ensure a favorable business climate. It is
therefore fair for the government to... require them to make a
reasonable contribution to the public expenses.
Congress intended to put a stop to the practice of corporations
which, while having large turn-overs, report minimal or
negative net income resulting in minimal or zero income taxes
year in and year out, through under-declaration of income or
over-deduction of expenses otherwise... called tax shelters.
As a tax on gross income, it prevents tax evasion and
minimizes tax avoidance schemes achieved through
sophisticated and artful manipulations of deductions and
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
other... stratagems. Since the tax base was broader, the tax rate
was lowered.
corrective nature of the MCIT, the following safeguards were
incorporated into the law:
First, recognizing the birth pangs of businesses and the reality
of the need to recoup initial major capital expenditures, the
imposition of the MCIT commences only on the fourth taxable
year immediately following the year in which the corporation
commenced its... operations.[25] This grace period allows a
new business to stabilize first and make its ventures viable
before it is subjected to the MCIT.[26]
Second, the law allows the carrying forward of any excess of
the MCIT paid over the normal income tax which shall be
credited against the normal income tax for the three
immediately succeeding years.[27]
Third, since certain businesses may be incurring genuine
repeated losses, the law authorizes the Secretary of Finance to
suspend the imposition of MCIT if a corporation suffers losses
due to prolonged labor dispute, force majeure and legitimate
business... reverses.
Income means all the wealth which flows into the taxpayer
other than a mere return on capital. Capital is a fund or
property existing at one distinct point in time while income...
denotes a flow of wealth during a definite period of time.[45]
Income is gain derived and severed from capital.
Page 15 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
For income to be taxable, the following requisites must exist:
(1) there must be gain;
(2) the gain must be realized or received and
(3) the gain must not be excluded by law or treaty from
taxation
Certainly, an income tax is arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes
capital because capital is not income. In other words, it is
income, not capital, which is subject to income tax. However,
the MCIT is not a tax on capital.
The withholding tax system is a procedure through which taxes
(including income taxes) are collected.[61] Under Section 57
of RA 8424, the types of income subject to withholding tax are
divided into three categories: (a) withholding of final tax on
certain... incomes; (b) withholding of creditable tax at source
and (c) tax-free covenant bonds.
The Secretary of Finance is granted, under Section 244 of RA
8424, the authority to promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of
the law. Such authority is subject to the limitation that the rules
and regulations must not... override, but must remain consistent
and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and
implement.[64] It is well-settled that an administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.
The withholding tax system was devised for three primary
reasons: first, to provide the taxpayer a... convenient manner to
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
meet his probable income tax liability; second, to ensure the
collection of income tax which can otherwise be lost or
substantially reduced through failure to file the corresponding
returns and third, to improve the government's cash flow.
This results in administrative savings, prompt and efficient
collection of taxes, prevention of delinquencies and reduction
of governmental effort to collect taxes through more
complicated means and remedies.
BIR vs CA (2014)
FACTS:
Respondent Antonio Villan Manly (Antonio) is a stockholder
and the Executive Vice-President of Standard Realty
Corporation, a family-owned corporation.5 He is also engaged
in rental business.6 His spouse, respondent Ruby Ong Manly,
is a housewife.7
Petitioner Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Letter of
Authority No. 2001 000123878 authorizing its revenue officers
to investigate respondent spouses’ internal revenue tax
liabilities for taxable year 2003 and prior years.
The revenue officers concluded that respondent Antonio’s
Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for taxable years 2000, 2001,and
2003 were underdeclared.18 And since the under declaration
exceeded 30% of the reported or declared income, it was
considered a prima facie evidence of fraud with intent to evade
the payment of proper taxes due to the government.19 The
revenue officers, thus, recommended the filing of criminal
cases against respondent spouses for failing to supply correct
Page 16 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
and accurate information intheir ITRs for the years 2000, 2001,
and 2003, punishable under Sections 25420 and 25521 in
relation to Section 248(B)22 of Republic Act No. 8424 or the
"Tax Reform Act of 1997," hereinafter referred to as the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
Upon preliminary investigation, the State Prosecutor
recommended the filing of complaint against the spouses
however the Secretary of Justice reversed such resolution,
stating that she found no willfulfailure to pay or attempt to
evade or defeat the tax on the part of respondent spouses as
petitioner allegedly failed to specify the amount of tax due and
the likely source of income from which the same was
based.35 She also pointed out petitioner’s failure to issue a
deficiency tax assessment against respondentspouses which is a
prerequisite to the filing of a criminal case for tax evasion.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari41 with the CA
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of Acting Justice
Secretary Devanadera in finding no probable cause to indict
respondent spouses for willfulattempt to evade or defeat tax
and willful failure to supply correct and accurate information
for taxable years 2000, 2001 and 2003. The CA, however,
dismissed the Petition.
Hence this Petition before the SC. Petitioner imputes grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in affirming the
dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent spouses.
Petitioner contends that in filing a criminal case for tax
evasion, a prior computation or assessment of tax is not
required because the crime is complete when the violator
knowingly and willfully filed a fraudulent return with intentto
evade a part or all of the tax.49 In this case, an analysis of
respondent spouses’ income and expenditure shows that their
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
cash expenditure is grossly disproportionate to their reported or
declared income, leading petitioner to believe that they under
declared their income.50 In computing the unreported or
undeclared income, which was likely sourced from respondent
Antonio’s rental business,51 petitioner used the expenditure
method of reconstructing income, a method used to determine a
taxpayer’s income tax liability when his records are inadequate
or inaccurate.52 And since respondent spouses failed to explain
the alleged unreported or undeclared income, petitioner asserts
that criminal charges for tax evasion should be filed against
them.
Respondent spouses, on the other hand, argue that the instant
Petition should be dismissed as petitioner availed of the wrong
remedy in filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.53 And even if the Petition is given due course,
the same should still be dismissed because no grave abuse of
discretion can be attributed to the CA.54 They maintain that
petitioner miserably failed to prove that a tax is actually
due.55 Neither was it able to show the source of the alleged
unreported or undeclared income as required by Revenue
Memorandum Order No. 15-95, Guidelines and Investigative
Procedures in the Development of Tax Fraud Cases for Internal
Revenue Officers.56 As to the method used by petitioner, they
claim that it completely ignored their lifetime savings because
it was limited to the years 1998-2003.
ISSUE: WON the BIR failed to show sufficient proof of a
likely source of [respondent spouses’] income despite the fact
that the BIR was sufficiently able to show proof of such
income.
HELD: No. CA erred. Petition was meritorious.
Page 17 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Sections 254 and 255 of the NIRC pertinently provide:
SEC. 254. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax. – Any person who
willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax
imposed under this Code or the payment thereof shall, in
addition to other penalties provided by law, upon conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than Thirty thousand
pesos (₱30,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand
pesos (₱100,000.00) and suffer imprisonment of not less than
two (2) years but not more than four (4) years: Provided, That
the conviction or acquittal obtained under this Section shall not
be a bar to the filing of a civil suit for the collection of taxes.
SEC. 255. Failure to File Return, Supply Correct and Accurate
Information, Pay Tax, Withhold and Remit Tax and Refund
Excess Taxes Withheld on Compensation. – Any person
required under this Code or by rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder to pay any tax, make a return, keep
any record, or supply correct and accurate information, who
willfully fails to pay such tax, make such return, keep such
record, or supply such correct and accurate information, or
withhold or remit taxes withheld, or refund excess taxes
withheld on compensation at the time or times required by law
or rules and regulations shall, in addition to other penalties
provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a
fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) and
suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more
than ten (10) years.
In Ungab v. Judge Cusi, Jr.,66 we ruled that tax evasion is
deemed complete when the violator has knowingly and
willfully filed a fraudulent return with intent to evade and
defeat a part or all of the tax.67 Corollarily, an assessment of
the tax deficiency is notrequired in a criminal prosecution for
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
tax evasion.68 However, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v. Court of Appeals,69 we clarified that although a deficiency
assessment is not necessary, the fact that a tax is due must first
be proved before one can be prosecuted for tax evasion.70
In the case of income, for it to be taxable, there must be a gain
realized or received by the taxpayer, which is not excluded by
law or treaty from taxation.71 The government is allowed to
resort to all evidence or resources available to determine a
taxpayer’s income and to use methods to reconstruct his
income.72 A method commonly used by the government isthe
expenditure method, which is a method of reconstructing a
taxpayer’s income by deducting the aggregate yearly
expenditures from the declared yearly income.73 The theory of
this method is that when the amount of the money that a
taxpayer spends during a given year exceeds his reported or
declared income and the source of such money is unexplained,
it may be inferred that such expenditures represent unreported
or undeclared income.74
In the case at bar, petitioner used this method to determine
respondent spouses’ tax liability.1âwphi1 Petitioner deducted
respondent spouses’ major cash acquisitions from their
available funds.
And since the underdeclaration is more than 30%of respondent
spouses’ reported or declared income, which under Section
248(B) of the NIRC constitutes as prima facie evidence of false
or fraudulent return, petitioner recommended the filing of
criminal cases against respondent spouses under Sections 254
and 255, in relation to Section 248(B) of the NIRC.
The CA, however, found no probable cause to indict
respondent spouses for tax evasion. It agreed with Acting
Page 18 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Justice Secretary Devanadera that petitioner failed to make "a
categorical finding of the exact amount of tax due from
[respondent spouses]" and "to show sufficient proof of a likely
source of [respondent spouses’] income that enabled them to
purchase the real and personal properties adverted to x x
x."78 We find otherwise.
The amount of tax due from respondent spouses was
specifically alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit.79 The
computation, as wellas the method used in determining the tax
liability, was also clearly explained. The revenue officers
likewise showed that the under declaration exceeded 30% of
the reported or declared income.
The revenue officers alsoidentified the likely source of the
unreported or undeclared income intheir Reply-Affidavit. The
pertinent portion reads:
7. x x x x
[Respondent spouses] are into rental business and the net profit
for six (6) years before tax summed only to ₱1,238,938.32 (an
average of more or less Php200,000.00 annually). We asked
respondent [Antonio] if we can proceed to his rented property
to [appraise] the earning capacity of the building [for] lease/
rent, but he declined our proposition. Due to such refusal made
by the respondent, [petitioner], thru its examiners,took pictures
of the subject property and came up with the findings that
indeed the unexplained funds sought to have been used in
acquiring the valuable property in Tagaytay x x x came from
the underdeclaration of rental income.80
Apparently, the revenue officers considered respondent
Antonio’s rental business to be the likely source of their
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
unreported or undeclared income due to his unjustified refusal
to allow the revenue officers to inspect the building.
Respondent spouses’ defense that they had sufficient savings to
purchase the properties remains self-serving at thispoint since
they have not yet presented any evidence to support this. And
since there is no evidence yet to suggest that the money they
used to buy the properties was from an existing fund, it is safe
to assume that that money is income or a flowof wealth other
than a mere return on capital. It is a basic concept in taxation
that income denotes a flow of wealth during a definite period
of time, while capital is a fund or property existing at one
distinct point in time.81
Moreover, by just looking at the tables presented by petitioner,
there is a manifest showing that respondent spouses had under
declared their income. The huge disparity between respondent
Antonio’s reported or declared annual income for the past
several years and respondent spouses’ cash acquisitions for the
years 2000, 2001, and 2003 cannot be ignored. Infact, it makes
uswonder how they were able to purchase the properties in
cash given respondent Antonio’s meager income.
In view of the foregoing,we are convinced that there is
probable cause to indict respondent spouses for tax evasion
aspetitioner was able to show that a tax is due from them.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, is
defined as such facts that are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed, that the
accusedis probably guilty thereof, and that he should be held
for trial.82 It bears stressing that the determination of probable
cause does not require actual or absolute certainty, nor clear
and convincing evidence of guilt; it only requires reasonable
Page 19 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
belief or probability that more likely than not a crime has been
committed by the accused.83
In completely disregarding the evidence presented and in
affirming the ruling of the Acting Justice Secretary Devanadera
that no probable cause exists, we find that the CA committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. As we have said, ifthere is grave abuse of
discretion, the court may step in and proceed to make its own
independent determination of probable cause as judicial review
is allowed to ensure that the Executive Department acts within
the permissible bounds of its authority or does not gravely
abuse the same.84
We must make it clear, however, that we are only here to
determine probable cause.1âwphi1 As to whether respondent
spouses are guilty of tax evasion is an issue that must be
resolved during the trial of the criminal case, where the
quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
CIR vs Isabela Cultural Corporation (2007)
FACTS:
ICC, a domestic corporation, received from the BIR
Assessment Notice No. FAS-1-86-90-000680 for deficiency
income tax in the amount of P333,196.86, and Assessment
Notice No. FAS-1-86-90-000681 for deficiency expanded
withholding tax in the amount of P4,897.79, inclusive of
surcharges and interest, both for the taxable year 1986.
The deficiency income tax of P333,196.86, arose from:
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
(1) The BIR’s disallowance of ICC’s claimed expense
deductions for professional and security services billed to and
paid by ICC in 1986, to wit:
(a) Expenses for the auditing services of SGV & Co.,3 for the
year ending December 31, 1985;4
(b) Expenses for the legal services [inclusive of retainer fees]
of the law firm Bengzon Zarraga Narciso Cudala Pecson
Azcuna & Bengson for the years 1984 and 1985.5
(c) Expense for security services of El Tigre Security &
Investigation Agency for the months of April and May 1986.6
(2) The alleged understatement of ICC’s interest income on the
three promissory notes due from Realty Investment, Inc.
After ICC sought reconsideration of the said assessment got
denied, it brought the case before the CTA. The CTA rendered
a decision canceling and setting aside the assessment notices
issued against ICC. It held that the claimed deductions for
professional and security services were properly claimed by
ICC in 1986 because it was only in the said year when the bills
demanding payment were sent to ICC. Hence, even if some of
these professional services were rendered to ICC in 1984 or
1985, it could not declare the same as deduction for the said
years as the amount thereof could not be determined at that
time.
The CTA also held that ICC did not understate its interest
income on the subject promissory notes. It found that it was the
BIR which made an overstatement of said income when it
compounded the interest income receivable by ICC from the
promissory notes of Realty Investment, Inc., despite the
Page 20 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
absence of a stipulation in the contract providing for a
compounded interest; nor of a circumstance, like delay in
payment or breach of contract, that would justify the
application of compounded interest.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed the CTA decision,10 holding that although the
professional services (legal and auditing services) were
rendered to ICC in 1984 and 1985, the cost of the services was
not yet determinable at that time, hence, it could be considered
as deductible expenses only in 1986 when ICC received the
billing statements for said services. It further ruled that ICC did
not understate its interest income from the promissory notes of
Realty Investment, Inc., and that ICC properly withheld and
remitted taxes on the payments for security services for the
taxable year 1986.
Hence, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
filed the instant petition contending that since ICC is using the
accrual method of accounting, the expenses for the professional
services that accrued in 1984 and 1985, should have been
declared as deductions from income during the said years and
the failure of ICC to do so bars it from claiming said expenses
as deduction for the taxable year 1986. As to the alleged
deficiency interest income and failure to withhold expanded
withholding tax assessment, petitioner invoked the
presumption that the assessment notices issued by the BIR are
valid.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the
deduction of the expenses for professional and security services
from ICC’s gross income.
HELD: No. ICC cannot claim such deductions.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
The requisites for the deductibility of ordinary and necessary
trade, business, or professional expenses, like expenses paid for
legal and auditing services, are: (a) the expense must be
ordinary and necessary; (b) it must have been paid or incurred
during the taxable year; (c) it must have been paid or incurred
in carrying on the trade or business of the taxpayer; and (d) it
must be supported by receipts, records or other pertinent
papers.11
The requisite that it must have been paid or incurred during the
taxable year is further qualified by Section 45 of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) which states that: "[t]he
deduction provided for in this Title shall be taken for the
taxable year in which ‘paid or accrued’ or ‘paid or incurred’,
dependent upon the method of accounting upon the basis of
which the net income is computed x x x".
Accounting methods for tax purposes comprise a set of rules
for determining when and how to report income and
deductions.12 In the instant case, the accounting method used
by ICC is the accrual method.
Revenue Audit Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, provides that
under the accrual method of accounting, expenses not being
claimed as deductions by a taxpayer in the current year when
they are incurred cannot be claimed as deduction from income
for the succeeding year. Thus, a taxpayer who is authorized to
deduct certain expenses and other allowable deductions for the
current year but failed to do so cannot deduct the same for the
next year.13
The accrual method relies upon the taxpayer’s right to receive
amounts or its obligation to pay them, in opposition to actual
receipt or payment, which characterizes the cash method of
Page 21 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
accounting. Amounts of income accrue where the right to
receive them become fixed, where there is created an
enforceable liability. Similarly, liabilities are accrued when
fixed and determinable in amount, without regard to
indeterminacy merely of time of payment.14
For a taxpayer using the accrual method, the determinative
question is, when do the facts present themselves in such a
manner that the taxpayer must recognize income or expense?
The accrual of income and expense is permitted when the all-
events test has been met. This test requires: (1) fixing of a right
to income or liability to pay; and (2) the availability of the
reasonable accurate determination of such income or liability.
The all-events test requires the right to income or liability be
fixed, and the amount of such income or liability be determined
with reasonable accuracy. However, the test does not demand
that the amount of income or liability be known absolutely,
only that a taxpayer has at his disposal the information
necessary to compute the amount with reasonable accuracy.
The all-events test is satisfied where computation remains
uncertain, if its basis is unchangeable; the test is satisfied
where a computation may be unknown, but is not as much as
unknowable, within the taxable year. The amount of liability
does not have to be determined exactly; it must be determined
with "reasonable accuracy." Accordingly, the term "reasonable
accuracy" implies something less than an exact or completely
accurate amount.[15]
The propriety of an accrual must be judged by the facts that a
taxpayer knew, or could reasonably be expected to have
known, at the closing of its books for the taxable
year.[16] Accrual method of accounting presents largely a
question of fact; such that the taxpayer bears the burden of
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
proof of establishing the accrual of an item of income or
deduction.17
Corollarily, it is a governing principle in taxation that tax
exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority; and one
who claims an exemption must be able to justify the same by
the clearest grant of organic or statute law. An exemption from
the common burden cannot be permitted to exist upon vague
implications. And since a deduction for income tax purposes
partakes of the nature of a tax exemption, then it must also be
strictly construed.18
In the instant case, the expenses for professional fees consist of
expenses for legal and auditing services. The expenses for legal
services pertain to the 1984 and 1985 legal and retainer fees of
the law firm Bengzon Zarraga Narciso Cudala Pecson Azcuna
& Bengson, and for reimbursement of the expenses of said firm
in connection with ICC’s tax problems for the year 1984. As
testified by the Treasurer of ICC, the firm has been its counsel
since the 1960’s.19 From the nature of the claimed deductions
and the span of time during which the firm was retained, ICC
can be expected to have reasonably known the retainer fees
charged by the firm as well as the compensation for its legal
services. The failure to determine the exact amount of the
expense during the taxable year when they could have been
claimed as deductions cannot thus be attributed solely to the
delayed billing of these liabilities by the firm. For one, ICC, in
the exercise of due diligence could have inquired into the
amount of their obligation to the firm, especially so that it is
using the accrual method of accounting. For another, it could
have reasonably determined the amount of legal and retainer
fees owing to its familiarity with the rates charged by their long
time legal consultant.
Page 22 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
As previously stated, the accrual method presents largely a
question of fact and that the taxpayer bears the burden of
establishing the accrual of an expense or income. However,
ICC failed to discharge this burden. As to when the firm’s
performance of its services in connection with the 1984 tax
problems were completed, or whether ICC exercised
reasonable diligence to inquire about the amount of its liability,
or whether it does or does not possess the information
necessary to compute the amount of said liability
with reasonable accuracy, are questions of fact which ICC
never established. It simply relied on the defense of delayed
billing by the firm and the company, which under the
circumstances, is not sufficient to exempt it from being charged
with knowledge of the reasonable amount of the expenses for
legal and auditing services.
In the same vein, the professional fees of SGV & Co. for
auditing the financial statements of ICC for the year 1985
cannot be validly claimed as expense deductions in 1986. This
is so because ICC failed to present evidence showing that even
with only "reasonable accuracy," as the standard to ascertain its
liability to SGV & Co. in the year 1985, it cannot determine the
professional fees which said company would charge for its
services.
ICC thus failed to discharge the burden of proving that the
claimed expense deductions for the professional services were
allowable deductions for the taxable year 1986. Hence, per
Revenue Audit Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, they cannot
be validly deducted from its gross income for the said year and
were therefore properly disallowed by the BIR.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
As to the expenses for security services, the records show that
these expenses were incurred by ICC in 198620 and could
therefore be properly claimed as deductions for the said year.
University of Physicians vs CIR (2018)
Facts:
UPSI-MI is a corporation incorporated and existing under and
by virtue of laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with
business address at 1122 General Luna Street, Paco. Manila.
Respondent on the other hand, is the duly appointed
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with power, among others,
10 act upon claims for refund or tax credit of overpaid internal
revenue taxes.
On April 16, 2007. petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax
Return (ITR) for the year ended December 31, 2006 with the
Revenue District No. 34 of the Revenue Region No. 6 of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), reflecting an income tax
overpayment of 5,159,341.00.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2007, petitioner filed an
Annual ITR for the short period fiscal year ended March 31,
'.W07, reflecting the income tax overpayment of 5. 159.341
from the previous period as "Prior Year’s Excess Credit.”
On the same date, petitioner filed an amended Annual ITR for
the short period fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, reflecting
the removal of the amount of the instant claim in the ''Prior
Year's Excess Credit". Thus, the amount thereof was changed
from ₱5, 159,341 to ₱2,231,507.
Page 23 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
On October 10, 2008, petitioner filed with the respondent's
office, a claim for refund and/or issuance of a Tax Credit
Certificate (TCC) in the amount of ₱2,927.834.00, representing
the alleged excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes
for 2006.
In view of the fact that respondent has not acted upon the
foregoing claim for refund/tax credit, petitioner filed with a
Petition for Review on April l4, 2009 before the Court in
Division.
The Ruling of the CTA Division
After trial, the CT A Division denied the petition for review for
lack of merit. It reasoned that UPSI-MI effectively exercised
the carry-over option under Section 76 of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997. On motion for reconsideration,
UPSI-MI argued that the irrevocability rule under Section 76 of
the NIRC is not applicable for the reason that it did not carry
over to the succeeding taxable period the 2006 excess income
tax credit. UPSI-MI added that the subject excess tax credits
were inadvertently included in its original 2007 ITR, and such
mistake was rectified in the amended 2007 ITR. Thus, UPSI-
MI insisted that what should control is its election of the
option "To be issued a Tax Credit Certificate" in its 2006 ITR.
The CTA Division ruled that UPSI-MI's alleged inadvertent
inclusion of the 2006 excess tax credit in the 2007 original ITR
belies its own allegation that it did not carry over the said
amount to the succeeding taxable period. The amendment of
the 2007 ITR cannot undo UPSI-MI's actual exercise of the
carry-over option in the original 2007 ITR, for to do so would
be against the irrevocability rule.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
The Ruling of the CTA En Banc
The CTA En Banc ruled that UPSI-MI is barred by Section 76
of the NIRC from claiming a refund of its excess tax credits for
the taxable year 2006. The barring effect applies after UPSI-MI
carried over its excess tax credits to the succeeding quarters of
2007, even if such carry-over was allegedly done inadvertently.
The court emphasized that the prevailing law and jurisprudence
admit of no exception or qualification to the irrevocability
rule.
Unsatisfied with the decision of the CTA En Banc, UPSI-MI
appealed before this Court.
In its Petition before the SC, UPSI-MI faults the CTA En Banc
for banking too much on the irrevocability of the option to
carry over. It contends that even the option to be refunded
through the issuance of a TCC is likewise irrevocable. Taking
cue from the dissent of Justice Pabon-Victorino, UPSI-MI
cites Philam in restating this Court's pronouncement that "the
options of a corporate taxpayer, whose total quarterly income
tax payments exceed its tax liability, are alternative in nature
and the choice of one precludes the other." It also
cites Commissioner v. PL Management International
Philippines, Inc. (PL Management)9 that reiterated the rule that
the choice of one precludes the other. Thus, when it indicated
in its 2006 Annual ITR the option "To be issued a Tax Credit
Certificate," such choice precluded the other option to carry
over.10
In other words, UPSI-MI proposes that the options of refund on
one hand and carry-over on the other hand are both irrevocable
by nature. Relying again on the dissent of Justice Pabon-
Victorino, UPSI-MI also points to BIR Form 1702 (Annual
Page 24 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
Income Tax Return) itself which expressly states under line 31
thereof.
ISSUE: WON Petitioner is not entitled to the refund or
issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate in the amount of
₱2,927,834.00 representing its 2006 excess tax credits because
of the application of the "irrevocability rule" under Section 76
of the NIRC of 1997.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner is not entitled to the refund or issuance
of a Tax Credit Certificate.
We cannot subscribe to the suggestion that the irrevocability
rule enshrined in Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) applies to either of the options of refund or carry-
over. Our reading of the law assumes the interpretation that the
irrevocability is limited only to the option of carry-over such
that a taxpayer is still free to change its choice after electing a
refund of its excess tax credit. But once it opts to carry over
such excess creditable tax, after electing refund or issuance of
tax credit certificate, the carry-over option becomes
irrevocable. Accordingly, the previous choice of a claim for
refund, even if subsequently pursued, may no longer be
granted.
The aforementioned Section 76 of the NIRC provides:
SECTION 76. Final Adjustment Return. - Every corporation
liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment
return covering the total taxable income for the preceding
calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments
made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax
due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation
shall either:
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
(A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or
(B) Carry over the excess credit; or
(C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the
case may be.
In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of
the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess
amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried
over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax
liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable
years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess
quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable
quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such
option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period
and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate shall be allowed therefor. (emphasis supplied)
Under the cited law, there are two options available to the
corporation whenever it overpays its income tax for the taxable
year: (1) to carry over and apply the overpayment as tax credit
against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities of the
succeeding taxable years (also known as automatic tax credit)
until fully utilized (meaning, there is no prescriptive period);
and (2) to apply for a cash refund or issuance of a tax
credit certificate within the prescribed period.11 Such
overpayment of income tax is usually occasioned by the over-
withholding of taxes on the income payments to the corporate
taxpayer.
The irrevocability rule is provided in the last sentence of
Section 76. A perfunctory reading of the law unmistakably
discloses that the irrevocable option referred to is the carry-
Page 25 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
over option only. There appears nothing therein from which to
infer that the other choice, i.e., cash refund or tax credit
certificate, is also irrevocable. If the intention of the lawmakers
was to make such option of cash refund or tax credit certificate
also irrevocable, then they would have clearly provided so.
In other words, the law does not prevent a taxpayer who
originally opted for a refund or tax credit certificate from
shifting to the carry-over of the excess creditable taxes to the
taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. However, in
case the taxpayer decides to shift its option to carryover, it may
no longer revert to its original choice due to the irrevocability
rule. As Section 76 unequivocally provides, once the option to
carry over has been made, it shall be irrevocable. Furthermore,
the provision seems to suggest that there are no qualifications
or conditions attached to the rule on irrevocability.
Law and jurisprudence unequivocally support the view that
only the option of carry-over is irrevocable.
Aside from the uncompromising last sentence of Section 76,
Section 228 of the NIRC recognizes such freedom of a
taxpayer to change its option from refund to carry-over. This
law affords the government a remedy in case a taxpayer, who
had previously claimed a refund or tax credit certificate (TCC)
of excess creditable withholding tax, subsequently applies such
amount as automatic tax credit. The pertinent text of Section
228 reads:
SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the Commissioner
or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes
should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his
findings: Provided, however, That a pre-assessment notice
shall not be required in the following cases:
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of
mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing
on the face of the return; or
(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax
withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding
agent; or
(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax
credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period
was determined to have carried over and automatically
applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax
liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding
taxable year; or
(d) When the excise tax due on exciseable articles has not been
paid; or
(e) When the article locally purchased or imported by an
exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital
equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded
or transferred to non-exempt persons.
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the
facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the
assessment shall be void. x x x (emphasis supplied)
The provision contemplates three scenarios:
(1) Deficiency in the payment or remittance of tax to the
government (paragraphs [a], [b] and [d]);
(2) Overclaim of refund or tax credit (paragraph [ c ]); and
(3) Unwarranted claim of tax exemption (paragraph [e]).
Page 26 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
In each case, the government is deprived of the rightful amount
of tax due it. The law assures recovery of the amount through
the issuance of an assessment against the erring taxpayer.
However, the usual two-stage process in making an assessment
is not strictly followed. Accordingly, the government may
immediately proceed to the issuance of a final assessment
notice (FAN), thus dispensing with the preliminary assessment
(PAN), for the reason that the discrepancy or deficiency is so
glaring or reasonably within the taxpayer's knowledge such
that a preliminary notice to the taxpayer, through the issuance
of a PAN, would be a superfluity.
Pertinently, paragraph (c) contemplates a double recovery by
the taxpayer of an overpaid income tax that arose from an over-
withholding of creditable taxes. The refundable amount is the
excess and unutilized creditable withholding tax.
This paragraph envisages that the taxpayer had previously
asked for and successfully recovered from the BIR its excess
creditable withholding tax through refund or tax credit
certificate; it could not be viewed any other way. If the
government had already granted the refund, but the taxpayer is
determined to have automatically applied the excess creditable
withholding tax against its estimated quarterly tax liabilities in
the succeeding taxable year(s), the taxpayer would
undeservedly recover twice the same amount of excess
creditable withholding tax. There appears, therefore, no other
viable remedial recourse on the part of the government except
to assess the taxpayer for the double recovery. In this instance,
and in accordance with the above rule, the government can
right away issue a FAN.
If, on the other hand, an administrative claim for refund or
issuance of TCC is still pending but the taxpayer had in the
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
meantime automatically carried over the excess creditable tax,
it would appear not only wholly unjustified but also tantamount
to adopting an unsound policy if the government should resort
to the remedy of assessment.
First, on the premise that the carry-over is to be sustained, there
should be no more reason for the government to make an
assessment for the sum (equivalent to the excess creditable
withholding tax) that has been justifiably returned already to
the taxpayer (through automatic tax credit) and for which the
government has no right to retain in the first place. In this
instance, all that the government needs to do is to deny the
refund claim.
Second, on the premise that the carry-over is to be
disallowed due to the pending application for refund, it would
be more complicated and circuitous if the government were to
grant first the refund claim and then later assess the taxpayer
for the claim of automatic tax credit that was previously
disallowed. Such procedure is highly inefficient and expensive
on the part of the government due to the costs entailed by an
assessment. It unduly hampers, instead of eases, tax
administration and unnecessarily exhausts the government's
time and resources. It defeats, rather than promotes,
administrative feasibility.12 Such could not have been intended
by our lawmakers. Congress is deemed to have enacted a valid,
sensible, and just law.13
Thus, in order to place a sensible meaning to paragraph (c) of
Section 228, it should be interpreted as contemplating only that
situation when an application for refund or tax credit certificate
had already been previously granted. Issuing an assessment
against the taxpayer who benefited twice because of the
Page 27 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
application of automatic tax credit is a wholly acceptable
remedy for the government.
Going back to the case wherein the application for refund or
tax credit is still pending before the BIR, but the taxpayer had
in the meantime automatically carried over its excess creditable
tax in the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year(s), the
only judicious course of action that the BIR may take is to deny
the pending claim for refund. To insist on giving due course to
the refund claim only because it was the first option taken, and
consequently disallowing the automatic tax credit, is to
encourage inefficiency or to suppress administrative feasibility,
as previously explained. Otherwise put, imbuing upon the
choice of refund or tax credit certificate the character of
irrevocability would bring about an irrational situation that
Congress did not intend to remedy by means of an assessment
through the issuance of a FAN without a prior PAN, as
provided in paragraph (c) of Section 228. It should be
remembered that Congress' declared national policy in passing
the NIRC of 1997 is to rationalize the internal revenue tax
system of the Philippines, including tax administration.14
The foregoing simply shows that the lawmakers never intended
to make the choice of refund or tax credit certificate
irrevocable. Sections 76 and 228, paragraph (c), unmistakably
evince such intention.
Rhombus Energy vs CIR (2018)
Facts:
On April 17, 2006, respondent filed its Annual Income Tax
Return ("ITR") for taxable year 2005.
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
In said Annual ITR for taxable year 2005, respondent indicated
that its excess creditable withholding tax ("CWT") for the year
2005 was "To be refunded".
On May 29, 2006, respondent filed its Quarterly Income Tax
Return for the first qumicr of taxable year 2006 showing prior
year's excess credits of P1,500.653.00.
On August 25, 2006, respondent filed its Quarterly Income Tax
Return for the second quarter of taxable year 2006 showing
prior year's excess credits of P1,500,653.00.
On November 27, 2006, respondent filed its Quarterly Income
Tax Return for the third quarter of taxable year 2006 showing
prior year's excess credits of P1,500,653.00.
On December 29, 2006, respondent filed with the Revenue
Region No. 8 an administrative claim for refund of its alleged
excess/unutilized CWT for the year 2005 in the amount of
P1,500,653.00.
On April 2, 2007, respondent filed its Annual Income Tax
Return for taxable year 2006 showing prior year's excess
credits of P0.00.
On December 7, 2007, pending petitioner's action on
respondent's claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate of its excess/unutilized CWT for the year 2005 and
before the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, respondent
filed the instant Petition for Review. The CTA Division
granted the Petition of Petitioner. The CTA First Division duly
noted the exercise of the option by Rhombus in the following
Page 28 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
manner:
The evidence on record shows that petitioner clearly
signified its intention to be refunded of its excess
creditable tax withheld for calendar year 2005 in its
Annual ITR for the said year. Petitioner under Line 31
of the said ITR marked "x" on the box "To be
refunded". Moreover, petitioner's 2006 and 2007
Annual ITRs do not have any entries in Line 28A "Prior
Year's Excess Credits" which only prove that petitioner
did not carry-over its 2005 excess/unutilized creditable
withholding tax to the succeeding taxable years or
quarters.9 (Bold underscoring is supplied for emphasis)
In her Answer, by way of special and affirmative defenses, the
CIR alleged: assuming without admitting that respondent filed
a claim for refund, the same is subject to investigation by the
BIR; respondent failed to demonstrate that the tax was
erroneously or illegally collected; taxes paid and collected are
presumed to have been made in accordance with laws and
regulations, hence, not refundable; it is incumbent upon
respondent to show that it has complied with the provisions
of Section 204(C), in relation to Section 229 of the Tax Code,
as amended, upon which its claim for refund was premised; in
an action for tax refund the burden is upon the taxpayer to
prove that he is entitled thereto, and failure to discharge said
burden is fatal to the claim; and claims for refund are construed
strictly against the claimant, as the same partake of the nature
of exemption from taxation.
Mot satisfied, petitioner CIR filed the instant Petition for
Review before the CTA En banc. The CTA en banc ruled in
favor of the CTA in Division. Although the CTA En
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
Banc recognized that Rhombus had actually exercised the
option to be refunded, it nonetheless maintained that Rhombus
was not entitled to the refund for having reported the prior
year's excess credits in its quarterly ITRs for the year
2006, viz.:
Based on the records, it is clear that respondent marked
the box "To be refunded" in its Annual Income Tax
Return. It is also clear that the 2005 excess CWT were
included in the prior year's excess credits reported in
the 2006 Quarter ITRs. The 2006 Annual ITR did not
reflect the 2005 excess CWT in the prior year's excess
credits.10 (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, Rhombus appeals the decision of the CTA En Banc to
the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rhombus has proved its entitlement to
the refund.
HELD: Yes. The Appeal is meritorious.
The irrevocability rule is enunciated m Section 76 of the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), viz.:
Section 76. Final Adjusted Return. - Every corporation liable to
tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return
covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar of
fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made
during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on
the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall
either:
Page 29 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
(A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or
(B) Carry over the excess credit; or
(C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the
case may be.
In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of
the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess
amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried
over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax
liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable
years. Once the option to carry over and apply the excess
quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable
years of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such
option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period
and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate shall be allowed therefor. (Bold underscoring
supplied to highlight the relevant portion)
Hence, the controlling factor for the operation of
the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option; and
once it had already done so, it could no longer make another
one. Consequently, after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its
excess tax credit to the following taxable period, the question
of whether or not it actually gets to apply said tax credit is
irrelevant. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is explicit in stating
that once the option to carry over has been made, "no
application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate
shall be allowed therefor."
The last sentence of Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 reads:
"Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of
the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall
be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no
application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate
shall be allowed therefor." The phrase "for that taxable period"
merely identifies the excess income tax, subject of the option,
by referring to the taxable period when it was acquired by the
taxpayer.
The CTA En Banc thereby misappreciated the fact that
Rhombus had already exercised the option for its unutilized
creditable withholding tax for the year 2005 to be
refunded when it filed its annual ITR for the taxable year
ending December 31, 2005. Based on the disquisition
in Republic v. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation, supra, the
irrevocability rule took effect when the option was exercised.
In the case of Rhombus, therefore, its marking of the box "To
be refunded" in its 2005 annual ITR constituted its exercise of
the option, and from then onwards Rhombus became precluded
from carrying-over the excess creditable withholding tax. The
fact that the prior year's excess credits were reported in its 2006
quarterly ITRs did not reverse the option to be refunded
exercised in its 2005 annual ITR. As such, the CTA En
Banc erred in applying the irrevocability rule against Rhombus.
It is relevant to mention the requisites for entitlement to the
refund as listed in Republic v. Team (Phils.) Energy
Corporation, supra,11 to wit:
1. That the claim for refund was filed within the two-year
reglementary period pursuant to Section 229 of the
NIRC;
Page 30 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
2. When it is shown on the ITR that the income payment
received is being declared part of the taxpayer's gross
income; and
3. When the fact of withholding is established by a copy
of the withholding tax statement, duly issued by the
payor to the payee, showing the amount paid and
income tax withheld from that amount.
The members of the CTA First Division were in the best
position as trial judges to examine the documents submitted in
relation thereto,13 and to make the proper findings thereon.
Given their expertise on the matter, we accord weight and
respect to their finding that Rhombus had satisfied the
requirements for its claim for refund of its excess creditable
withholding taxes for the year 2005.
CIR vs PNB (2019)
FACTS:
PNB electronically filed its annual ITR for taxable year 2005.
The following years, PNB files its claim for refund or issuance
of tax credit certificate of its excess CWT. Due to CIR’s
inaction to the said claim, PNB filed a Petition for Review
before the CTA Division which denied PNB’s Petition because
PNB’s evidence is insufficient to support its claim for refund or
the issuance of a tax credit certificate. Specifically, the CTA
Division pointed out that the presentation of PNB’s Annual
ITR for 2006 is not enough to prove that it did not carry over
the claimed excess or unutilized CWT to the subsequent
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
quarters of 2006, ruling that the presentation of the succeeding
Quarterly ITRs is vital to its claim for refund.
PNB appealed to the CTA en banc, raising the issue of whether
or not the presentation of the 2006 Quarterly ITRs is
indispensable to PNB’s claim for refund of its excess or
unutilized CWT for 2005. The CTA en banc ruled in favor of
PNB, saying that there is nothing in our tax laws that requires
the presentation of the Quarterly ITRs for succeeding years to
establish entitlement to the refund of excess or unutilized
CWT. Furthermore, the CTA en banc ruled that the
presentation of ITRs for the succeeding taxable years is not an
essential requisite in proving a lcaim for refund of excess or
unutilized CWT since the presentation or non-presentation of
the said documents is not fatal to the refund claim as it is the
duty of the CIR to verify whether or not the taxpayer carried
over its excess CWT to the succeeding year. The CTA en banc
also found that PNB complied with all the requisites for the
filing of such claim.
Hence, this Petition before the SC.
In the Petition, the CIR maintains that the presentation of the
Quarterly ITRs for 2006 is indispensable to PNB’s refund
claim to prove its entitlement thereto. The CIR argues in this
wise: under Section 76 of the NIRC, the taxpayer has the
option to either carry over the excess CWT to the succeeding
taxable quarters or to claim for a refund of, or tax credit for
such excess amount paid; once the taxpayer opted for the carry
over, the same shall be irrevocable and it will not be entitled to
a refund anymore; the Quarterly ITRs would establish whether
or not such carry over happened; hence, such Quarterly ITRs
are indispensable for the refund claim.
Page 31 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC
The CIR further argues that, assuming the presentation of the
Quarterly ITRs is not necessary, PNB's claim for refund must
still be denied because the Certificates of Creditable Taxes
Withheld presented were not properly identified. Specifically,
the CIR avers that the authenticity of such document should
have been proved by identification of a person who
saw the same executed or by evidence of the genuineness of
the signature or handwriting of the
maker. In fine, the CIR asserts that he PNB failed to discharge
its burden to prove entitlement to the claims refund.
ISSUE: WON the presentation of the Quarterly ITRs of
the succeeding quarters of a taxable year is indispensable for
such refund
HELD: No. The presentation of the claimant’s quarterly
returns is not a requirement to prove entitlement to the refund.
There is nothing under the NIRC that requires the submission
of the Quarterly ITRs of the succeeding taxable year in a claim
for refund. Even the BIR’s own regulation do not provide for
such requirement. Section 76 of the NIRC provides:
Section 76. Final Adjusted Return. - Every corporation liable to
tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return
covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar of
fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made
during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on
the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall
either:
(A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or
7. University of Physicians vs CIR
8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
9. CIR vs PNB
(B) Carry over the excess credit; or
(C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the
case may be.
In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of
the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess
amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried
over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax
liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable
years. Once the option to carry over and apply the excess
quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable
years of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such
option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period
and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate shall be allowed therefor. (Bold underscoring
supplied to highlight the relevant portion)
It is relevant to mention the requisites for entitlement to the
refund as listed in Republic v. Team (Phils.) Energy
Corporation, supra,11 to wit:
1. That the claim for refund was filed within the two-year
reglementary period pursuant to Section 229 of the
NIRC;
2. When it is shown on the ITR that the income payment
received is being declared part of the taxpayer's gross
income; and
3. When the fact of withholding is established by a copy
of the withholding tax statement, duly issued by the
Page 32 of 33
 1. CIR vs Benedicto 4. CREBA vs Romulo 7. University of Physicians vs CIR
2. CIR vs. General Foods 5. BIR vs CA 8. Rhombus Energy vs CIR
3. Cynanamid vs CA 6. CIR vs ICC 9. CIR vs PNB

payor to the payee, showing the amount paid and

income tax withheld from that amount.

Verily, as consistently held by this Court, once the minimum

statutory requirements have been complied with, the claimant
should be considered to have successfully discharged its
burden to prove its entitlement to the refund. After the claimant
has successfully established a prima facie right to the refund by
complying with the requirements laid down by the law, the
burden is shifted to the opposing party, i.e. the BIR to disprove
such claim. To rule otherwise would be to unduly burden the
claimant with additional requirements which has no statutory
nor jurisprudential basis.

It bears stressing that the power to decide matters concerning

refunds of internal revenue taxes, among others, is vested in the
CIR. It has the duty to ascertain the veracity of such claims and
should not just wait and hope for the burden to fall on the
claimant when the issue reaches the court.

Page 33 of 33