Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Tolentino
Taxation 1
EXCISE TAX:
Facts:
Respondent argues that a plain reading of Section 135 of the NIRC reveals
that it is the petroleum products sold to international carriers which are exempt from
excise tax for which reason no excise taxes are deemed to have been due in the first
place. It points out that excise tax being an indirect tax, Section 135 in relation to
Section 148 should be interpreted as referring to a tax exemption from the point of
production and removal from the place of production considering that it is only at that
point that an excise tax is imposed. The situation is unlike the value-added tax (VAT)
which is imposed at every point of turnover – from production to wholesale, to retail
and to end-consumer. Respondent thus concludes that exemption could only refer to
the imposition of the tax on the statutory seller, in this case the respondent. This is
because when a tax paid by the statutory seller is passed on to the buyer it is no
longer in the nature of a tax but an added cost to the purchase price of the product
sold.
Issue: Whether or not Shell is entitled to refund for the payment of the excise tax.
Held: Yes, the exemption from excise tax of aviation fuel purchased by international
carriers for consumption outside the Philippines fulfills a treaty obligation pursuant to
which our Government supports the promotion and expansion of international travel
through avoidance of multiple taxation and ensuring the viability and safety of
international air travel.
Facts:
Issue: Whether PAL's alcohol and tobacco importations for its commissary supplies
are subject to excise tax.
Held: No. It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a later law, general in
terms and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law, will not ordinarily
affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of petitioner’s
claim for tax refund.
Held: No, the denial of petitioner’s claim for tax refund in this case is based on the
ground that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim and the
amount thereof.
Facts:
Chevron sold and delivered petroleum products to CDC in the period from
August 2007 to December 2007.5Chevron did not pass on to CDC the excise taxes
paid on the importation of the petroleum products sold to CDC in taxable year
2007;6 hence, on June 26, 2009, it filed an administrative claim for tax refund or
issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P6,542,400.00.7Considering that
respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) did not act on the administrative claim for tax refund or tax
credit, Chevron elevated its claim to the CTA by petition for review on June 29,
2009.8 The case, docketed as CTA Case No. 7939, was raffled to the CTA’s First
Division.
Issue: Whether or not Chevron was entitled to the tax refund for the payment of
excise tax.
Held: Yes, accordingly, the excise taxes that Chevron paid on its importation of
petroleum products subsequently sold to CDC were illegal and erroneous, and
should be credited or refunded to Chevron in accordance with Section 204 of the
NIRC.
Facts:
For the period July 24 to 28, 2004, Caltex sold 804,370 liters of imported Jet
A-1 fuel to PAL for the latter’s domestic operations.4 Consequently, on July 26, 27,
28 and 29, 2004, Caltex electronically filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) its Excise Tax Returns for Petroleum Products, declaring the amounts of
₱1,232,798.80, ₱686,767.10, ₱623,422.90 and ₱433,904.10, respectively, or a total
amount of ₱2,975,892.90, as excise taxes due thereon. On August 3, 2004, PAL
received from Caltex an Aviation Billing Invoice for the purchased aviation fuel in the
amount of US$313,949.54, reflecting the amount of US$52,669.33 as the related
excise taxes on the transaction. This was confirmed by Caltex in a Certification dated
August 20, 2004 where it indicated that: (a) the excise taxes it paid on the imported
petroleum products amounted to ₱2,952,037.90, i.e., the peso equivalent of the
abovementioned dollar amount; (b) the foregoing excise tax payment was passed on
by it to PAL; and (c) it did not file any claim for the refund of the said excise tax with
the BIR.
Issue: Whether PAL has the legal personality to file a claim for refund of the passed
on excise taxes.
Held: Yes, the Court finds that the evidence on record shows that PAL was able to
sufficiently prove its entitlement to the subject tax refund.