| CASES | Digest Link |
| GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION | |
| 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 expense) | |
| 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) | |
| SCOPE OF TAXATION | |
| 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] | |
| LIMITATION OF TAXATION | |
| 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 2005 | |
| ASPECTS OF TAXATION | |
| 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; | |
| CLASSIFICATIONS OF TAXES | |
| 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 taxes) | |
| 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 Code) | |
| DISTINCTION FROM OTHER EXACTIONS | |
| 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 Coe) | |
| 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 | |
| INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TAX STATUTES | |
| 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 | |
| CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXEMPTIONS | |
| 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 | |
| DOUBLE TAXATION – PROSPECTIVITY OF TAX LAWS | |
| 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 Non-prescriptive | |
| 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 | |
| DOUBLE TAXATION | |
| 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] | |
| MEASURES TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION | |
| 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) | |
| SET-OFF OF TAXES | |
| 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] |
adrianantazo.com 
One thought on “Taxation Law Review”