Taxation Law Review

CASES Digest Link
Cebu Portland Cement v. CTA, L-29059, 15 Dec 1987, 156 SCRA 535
(Lifeblood of the Government) 
Mun. of Makati v. CA, et al, L-89898, 01 Oct 1990, 190 SCRA 206  (Exempt from execution) 
CIR v. Algue, Inc. et al, L-28896, 17 Feb 1988, 158 SCRA 9 (LifebloodTheory; Rationale is Symbiotic Relationship; timeliness of assessment /
collection; effect of warrant of distraint & levy; deductibility of promotional
BPI Family Savings Bank v. CA et al, 330 SCRA 507, 12 Apr 2000 (Mutual
Observance of fairness & honesty; claim for refund due to losses, how to
prove entitlement)
 CIR v Tokyo Shipping Co, 244 SCRA 332, 26 May 1995 [Claim for Refund
of tax on GPB from charter of vessel; claim for refund construed
strictississimi juris finding of fact by CTA that vessel left without sugar laden;
15 years lapsed without refund though at one point lawyer of BIR said it was
approved; kill the goose that lay the golden eggs]
 CIR v Mitsubishi Metal Corp, 181 SCRA 214, 22 Jan 1990 [Exemption of
Japanese govt owned bank does not extend to Jap corp, who in turn lent the
loan to a local company; exemption construed strictississimi]
Phil Bank of Communications v. CIR, et al, 302 SCRA 241, 28 Jan 1999 [Summary collection does not infringe due process 
Sison v. Ancheta, GR 59431, 25 Jul 1984 [Uniformity, Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses not violated when BP 135 adopted gross income
taxation) [when the tax “operates with the same force and effect in every
place where the subject may be found”. It was held to comply with uniformity requirement; “Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all
taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the
same rate.]
Reyes v. Almanzor, 196 SCRA 322 (Arbitrary valuation violated Due Process) 
Nitafan et al v. CIR, GR 78780, 23 Jul 1987 (Salaries of justices & Judges
are not exempt from income tax)
PAL v. Sec of Finance, GR 115852, 25 Aug 1994 (Withdrawal of PAL’s
exemption from VAT without being mentioned in title not violative of bill
embracing one subject)
Tolentino v Sec of Finance & CIR, GR 11545, 64 SCAD 352, 235 SCRA 630
(Does VAT law violate the “progressivity rule of taxation” given that VAT is
regressive?; equality & uniformity rule?)
ABAKADA Guro v. Exec Secretary, 469 SCRA 1, etc 1 Sep 2005 & 18 Oct
CIR v. Botelho Shipping Corp, 20 SCRA 487 G.R. Nos. L-21633-34
June 29, 1967 (tax exemptions granted to particular persons)
Tan v. Del Rosario, Jr.3 237 SCRA 324(1994) G.R. No. 109289 October 3,
1994 (Legislative discretion to determine nature (kind), subject (purpose),
extent (rate), coverage (subject), land situs (place), SNITS is valid;
Maceda v. Macaraeg 223 SCRA 217 G.R. No. 88291 May 31, 1991
ABAKADA Guro v. Exec Secretary, GR 168056 1 Sep 2005 & 18 Oct 2005 
Tan v Mun of Pagbilao GR 14264, 30 Apr 1963 7 SCRA 887 
PAL v. Romeo Edu, GR 41383, 15 Aug 1998 164 SCRA 320 (exempt from
ESSO Std Eastern v CIR GR 28508-9, 7 Jul 1989 175 SCRA 149 (Margin
Fee a license – police power, not taxing)
Lozano v. Energy Regulatory Board, GR 95119-21, 18 Dec 1990 192
SCRA 363 (OPSF not a tax)
Meralco Securities v. Central Board of Assessments Appeals, GR L47245, 31 May 1982 114 SCRA 260 (Real Property under Real Property
Tax Code, a national tax; This is no longer true under the Local Government
Procter & Gamble v. Mun of Jagna, 94 SCRA 894, G.R. No. L-24265
December 28, 1979 (nature and amount of license)
Golden Ribbon Lumber v City of Butuan, 12 SCRA 611 G.R. No. L18534 December 24, 1964 (non payment is illegal) 
City of Ozamis v Lumapas, 65 SCRA 33 G.R. No. L-30727 July 15, 1975
Special Assessments (Now, Special Levy under the Local Government
Apostolic Prefect v Treasurer of Baguio, 71 PHIL 547 GR No. L-47252
April 18, 1941
Debt or an ordinary obligation
Victoria Millling v Phil Ports Authority, GR 73705 27 Aug 1987, 153
SCRA 317 (share of govt from earnings of arrastre and stevedoring from
contractual compensation not tax)
CIR v Prieto 109 PHIL 592 G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 
CIR v CA, Central Vegetable Mfg Co & CTA, GR 107135, 23 Feb 1999
Luzon Stevedoring v CTA, GR 30232, 29 Jul 1988, 163 SCRA 647 
CIR v. Gotamco & Sons, GR 31092, 27 Feb 1987, 148 SCRA 36 
CIR v. CA, CTA and Ateneo de Manila, GR 115349, 18 Apr 1997, 271
SCRA 605
Prov of Mizamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric, GR 45355, 12 Jan 1990,
181 SCRA 38
CIR v. CA, ROH Auto Products Phils & CTA, GR 108358, 20 Jan 1995, 240
SCRA 368
Maceda v. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 77 
CIR v. DLSU – GR Nos 196596, November 9, 2016, G.R. No. 198841 and
G.R. No. 198941
Hydro Resources v CA, GR L-80276 21 Dec 1990, 192 SCRA 604 [ad
valorem tax imposed by law passed after transfer of ownership not
applicable; contract of sale subject to suspensive condition; LC issued prior
to law is not subject to ad valorem; no retro effect unless stated by law]
Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. CTA, 20 SCRA 344 [interest on
deficiency tax was imposed by a law passed after the deficiency was incurred
is not a retroactive application]
May tax laws be given retroactive effect? Yes, Lorenzo v. Posadas 64
Phil 353; Smietanka v First Trust Savings Bank, 257 US 602; Law on
Federal Taxation, Vo; 1 p.154
CIR v. Benguet Corp, 463 SCRA 28 (2005) 
CIR v. Burmeisters & Wain Scandinavian, GR 153205 Jan 2007
CIR v. Ayala Securities Corp, GR L-29485, 21 Nov 1989 – tax on undue
accumulation of income does not prescribe because the law imposing does
not provide for the fixed period within which to file a tax return; the SC
reconsidered its earlier decision dated April 8, 1976; see Sec 29, NIRC
May taxes prescribe? No, but the law can provide for its prescription,
such as NIRC, Customs and LGC
Pepsi Cola v. Tanauan, 69 SCRA 460 [mun ordinance impose .01 per gallon
per RA is not undue delegation; no double taxation; not specific tax]
CIR v. SC Johnson & Sons, 309 SCRA 87 (1999), [Most favored nation
clause; double taxation; claim for refund in the nature of exemption;
construction of RP-US tax Treaty – tax rate on royalty US v Germany,
international juridical double taxation defined] 
CIR v. Rufino, GR L-33665-68, 27 Feb 1987, 148 SCRA 42, [tax exempt
merger of two corporations]
Delpher Trades Corp v IAC, 157 SCRA 349 [tax exempt transfer of
property to a corporation resulting to control]
CIR v. Benigno Toda, 438 SCRA 290 (2004) – meaning of fraud; tax
avoidance / evasion
Collector v. UST, 104 PHIL 1062 – (rejected this common law doctrine) 
Philex Mining v. CIR,L-125704, 28 Aug 1998 (General rule: no offsetting)
[Refundable VAT v. Excise tax);
CIR v ESSO Standard, 172 SCRA 369 18 Apr 1989, 172 SCRA 623 [ Offset
of Percentage Tax and amusement taxes v. matured back pay certificates];
Domingo v. Garlitos, 8 SCRA 443 [1963] (exception: allowed)[Estate and
Inheritance Taxes v specificallu appropriated fund for the payment of
obligation to the estate]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: