survey of 2012 tax cases.pptx

7/27/2019 Survey of 2012 Tax Cases.pptx

1/25

SURVEYOF 2012 TAX CASES


2/25

DELA SALLEHEALTHSERVICESINSTITUTE, INC. V. CIR, CTA CASE

NO. 8194, MAY15, 2012

VAT on sale of Drugs to In-Patients

The sale of pharmacy medicines to in-patients is not subject toVAT. The sale of drugs to a hospitals in-patients is consideredpart of the term hospital services covered by the exemption

from VAT under Section109(G) of the Tax Code.

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) held that the maintenanceand operation of a pharmacy or drugstore by a hospital is anecessary and essential service or facility rendered by anyhospital for its patients. Thus, unlike the sale of retailing drugs

or medicines by drugstores which involves the buying ofgoods the procurement of medicines and pharmaceuticalitems from the hospital drugstore or pharmacy for in-patientsamounts to the availment of services of the hospital by the in-patients.


3/25

REPUBLICCEMENTCORPORATIONV. CIR, CTA

EB NO. 821RECTA CASENO. 7114, JULY

18, 2012

Period to collect deficiency and delinquency interest

In the event that a taxpayer is held liable for deficiencytaxes, the BIR is authorized to impose both deficiencyand delinquency interests simultaneously, pursuant to

Section 249 of the Tax Code.

The deficiency interest should be computed from thedate prescribed for the payment of deficiency tax until itsfull payment, while the delinquency interest should be

imposed on the deficiency tax and deficiency interest,and computed from the due date prescribed under theassessment notice until the full payment thereof.


4/25

DUMEXPHILIPPINES, INC. V. CIR, CTA CASENO. 7790, APRIL 3,

2012

VAT refund due to closure of business

Under Section 112(B) of the Tax Code, a VAT-registered taxpayerwhose registration has been cancelled due to retirement from orcessation of business, may apply for refund or issuance of TCCof its unused input tax within two years from the date ofcancellation of its VAT registration.

The cancellation of VAT registration due to retirement of businessrequires the filing of notice of closure of business through thesubmission of an Application for Registration Update (BIR Form1905). Under Section 236 of the Tax Code, the taxpayers

cancellation of VAT registration becomes effective on the first dayof the month following the month when the BIR Form 1905 wasfiled with the appropriate RDO where the taxpayer is registered.Thus, the two-year prescriptive period commences from the firstday of the month following the month the taxpayer filed its BIRForm 1905 or application for cancellation of its VAT registration.


5/25

CIRV. GJM PHILIPPINESMANUFACTURINGINC., CTA EB CASE

NO. 637, MARCH6, 2012

Proof of receipt of assessment

An assessment is deemed made within the

prescriptive period under Section 203 of the TaxCode if the notice of assessment is released,

mailed or sent by the CIR to the taxpayer within the

prescriptive period. It is not necessary that the

taxpayer received the notice of assessment within

the prescriptive period. However, it must be proventhat the taxpayer actually received the assessment,

i.e. notice was released, mailed and sent on a

timely basis.


6/25

If the taxpayer denies ever having received the

assessment, it is incumbent upon the BIR to prove

by competent evidence that the notice was indeed

received by the taxpayer. To prove receipt of the

assessment in due course of mail, the registryreceipt, registry return card or certification issued by

the Bureau of Posts should be presented.


7/25

JP MORGANCHASEBANKV. CIR, CTA EB, MARCH13, 2012

Refund of input VAT prior to VAT registration

Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales incurred bya taxpayer prior to its VAT registration may not be the

subject of refund. Under Section 112 of the Tax Code,one of the conditions for entitlement to refund or taxcredits of excess unutilized input tax from zero-ratedsales is that the taxpayer should be a VAT-registeredtaxpayer. Thus, to be entitled to refund of input VAT,

the taxpayer refund-claimant must prove that it was aVAT-registered taxpayer during the period it incurredits unutilized input VAT.


8/25

In the instant case, the input VAT that was the

subject of refund refers to the VAT on start-up or

pre-organization costs. During the period the VAT

on the pre-operating expenses were incurred by the

taxpayer, it was not yet a VAT-registered taxpayer.Hence, for failure to meet the criterion that the

taxpayer is VAT registered, its claim for refund of its

input VAT was denied by the CTA.


9/25

CITYOFMAKATIV. NIPPONEXPRESSPHILIPPINESCORP., CTA AC

NO. 76, FEBRUARY17, 2012

LBT assessment based on imputed sales

A local government unit (LGU) has no right tocollect LBT on the receipts that properly belong to

other LGUs where the taxpayer earned andrecorded its sales.

In the instant case, the City Treasurer of an LGU

assessed a freight forwarding company fordeficiency LBT and interest on its alleged untaxedgross receipts earned in its two branches, whichare located in two different LGUs.


10/25

The CTA held that the situs rule under Section 150 ofthe Local Government Code (LGC) is clear andunequivocal that in case an establishment maintains oroperates branches or sales outlets elsewhere, it shallrecord the sale in the branch or sales outlet making the

sale or transaction. Naturally, the tax thereon shallaccrue and shall be paid to the LGU where such branchor sales outlet is located.

The CTA also ruled that even if there wasunderdeclaration or mis-declaration of the total taxable

earnings of the taxpayer in its branches which deprivedthe other LGUs of their lawful dues, the City Treasurermay not collect what under the Revenue Code and LGCproperly belongs to the two other LGUs.


11/25

EASTASIA POWERRESOURCES, INC. V. CIR, CTA CASENO.7956,

DECEMBER26, 2011

Validity of waiver of defense of prescription

Under Section 222(b) of the Tax Code, the three-year prescriptive periodmay be extended through an agreement in writing executed by thetaxpayer and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). In theexecution of waivers of statute of limitations, Revenue Memorandum

Order No. (RMO) 20-90, which implements Section 222(b) of the TaxCode, requires, among others, that:

(a) the waiver shall be signed by the taxpayer himself or hisduly appointed representative;

(b) the date of acceptance by the BIR should be indicated in thewaiver; and

(c) the waiver shall be signed by the CIR for tax cases involvingmore than P1 million.

Failure to comply with the provisions of RMO 20-90 renders the waiverdefective and does not extend the three-year prescriptive period ofassessment.


12/25

Applying RMO 20-90, the CTA held that the waiverexecuted by the taxpayer with the BIR wasdefective due to the following reasons: First, theBIR failed to prove that the taxpayer was furnished

a copy of the BIR-accepted waiver. Second, thewaiver was signed by a Revenue District Officerwhen it should have been signed only by the CIRas mandated by the Tax Code and RMO 20-90,considering that the case involves anamount

exceeding P1 million. Lastly, the waiver did notcontain the date of acceptance by the CIR, arequisite necessary to determine whether thewaiver was validly accepted before the expiration ofthe original three-year period.


13/25

UPSI MANAGEMENTV. CIR, CTA CASENO. 7945,

DECEMBER16, 2011

Irrevocability rule on option to carry overexcess income tax

A corporation whose quarterly income tax payments

in a taxable year exceeds its total income tax due isgiven the option to either carry forward and creditits excess creditable withholding tax against itsestimated quarterly income tax liabilities for thetaxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years or

file a claim for tax refund either in the form of cashor tax credit certificate. Once the option to carry-over is made, it becomes irrevocable for thattaxableperiod.


14/25

Having exercised the option to carry over its excess

tax credit, the CTA held that the company is already

bound by the irrevocability rule. Hence, it can no

longer seek refund of its excess unutilized

creditable withholding tax. Its only recoursetherefore is to apply the excess to the succeeding

quarters/years until it isfully utilized.


15/25

SILKAIR(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONEROFINTERNAL

REVENUE, G.R. NO. 166482, JANUARY25, 2012

Proper Party to Seek a Tax Refund

Silkair is a foreign corporation licensed to dobusiness in the Philippines as an on-line

international carrier. It purchased aviation fuelfrom Petron and paid the excise taxes.

It filed an administrative claim for refund forexcise taxes on the purchase of jet fuel from

Petron, which it alleged to have beenerroneously paid.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/january2012/166482.html


16/25

Held:

For indirect taxes, the proper party to seek a tax refund

is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is

imposed by law and who paid the same even when he

shifts the burden thereof to another. Thus, Petron, not

Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claima refund.

Excise tax is due from the manufacturers of the

petroleum products and is paid upon removal of theproducts from their refineries. In this case, Petron, which

paid the excise tax upon removal of the products from

its Bataan refinery, is the person liable for tax.


17/25

EVONOV. CIR, CTA EB NO. 705 JUNE4,

2012

Donors Tax

The CTA held that there is a clear animus donandi orintent to give when the names of minor children who arenot earning any income are included in the CAR and

certificate of titles of the property. While it is true thatminor children can save money from their allowancesand buy properties from their savings, considering thechildrens age and the price of property, the children willnot be able to save a substantial amount, even if theyreceive enormous allowances from the parents.

Moreover, it is highly unlikely for an individual to ownreal property at such an early age and without a sourceof income; thus the CTA deemed the transaction to be adonation.


18/25

LASCONA LAND, INC. VS. COMMISSIONEROFINTERNAL

REVENUE, G.R. NO. 171251, MARCH5, 2012

Appeal from Decision/Inaction of CIR

The CIR argues thatthe assessment has became final and

executory for the reason that Petitioner failed to appeal the

inaction of the Commissioner within 30 days after the lapse ofthe 180-day reglementary period.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/171251.htm


19/25

Held: In case of protested assessments, the taxpayer has two

options, either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA

within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period;

or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner onthe disputed assessment and appeal such final decision

to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of

such decision, these options are mutually exclusive and

resort to one bars the application of the other. Thus, if

taxpayer opts to await for the final decision of theCommissioner, it has the right to appeal such final

decision to the CTA even after the expiration of the 180-

day period.


20/25

ACCENTURE, INC. VS. COMMISSIONEROFINTERNAL REVENUE, G.R.

NO. 190102, JULY11, 2012.

Zero Rated Sales of Services

Accenture is a corporation engaged in the business

of providing management consulting, businessstrategies development, and selling and/or licensing

of software.

It filed an administrative claim for refund on itsunutilized input VAT claiming that its sale of

services is zero rated under Section 102(b)(2) of

the 1997 Tax Code.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/190102.pdf


21/25

HELD:

Section 102(b)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code considers as zerorated, the sale of services, the consideration for which is paidfor in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for inaccordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP.

If the provider and recipient of services are both doingbusiness in the Philippines, the payment of foreign currency isirrelevant. Otherwise, those subject to the regular VAT canavoid paying the VAT by simply stipulating payment in foreign

currency inwardly remitted by the recipient of services.

It is not enough that the recipient of the services be proven tobe a foreign corporation; it must be specifically proven to be anon-resident foreign corporation.


22/25

TEAMPACIFICCORPORATIONVS. DAZAASMUNICIPAL TREASURER

OFTAGUIG, G.R. NO. 167732, JULY11, 2012.

Appeal on Local Business Tax Assessments

A taxpayer dissatisfied with a local treasurers denial of orinaction on his protest over an assessment has 30 days withinwhich to appeal to the court of competent jurisdictionreckoned from the taxpayers receipt of the denial of hisprotest or the lapse of the 60-day period within which the local

treasurer is required to decide the protest.

The treasurer cannot be said to be performing a judicial orquasi-judicial in assessing the business tax and/or effectivelydenying the taxpayers protest. For this reason, the treasurersactions are not the proper subjects of a Rule 65 petition for

certiorari which is the appropriate remedy in cases where thetribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions acted without or in grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is noappeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/167732.pdf


23/25

PHILIPPINERECLAMATIONAUTHORITYVS. CITYOFPARANAQUE,

G.R. NO. 191109, JULY18, 2012.

Exemption from real property tax

Section 133 of the LGC prohibits local governmentsfrom imposing taxes of any kind on the National

Government, its agencies or instrumentalities. However,Section 193 of the LGC has withdrawn tax exemptionsenjoyed by, among others government-owned orcontrolled corporations (GOCCs). On the other hand,Section 234 of the LGC exempts from real property tax,real property owned by the Republic of the Philippinesor any of its political subdivisions except when thebeneficial use thereof has been granted, forconsideration, or otherwise, to a taxable person.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/191109.pdf


24/25

The PRA is not a GOCC because it is neither a

stock nor non-stock corporation as required by the

Administrative Code, which is the governing law

defining the legal relationship and status of

government entities. PRA is a governmentinstrumentality vested with corporate powers and

performing an essential public service. Being an

incorporated government instrumentality, it is

exempt from payment of real property tax.Moreover, real property owned by the Republic of

the Philippines is exempt from real property tax

unless the beneficial use thereof has been granted

to a taxable person.


25/25

The End

Thank you

survey of 2012 tax cases.pptx

Documents