UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO

School of Law

COURSE OUTLINE
TAX II

I. TRANSER TAXATION

A. ESTATE TAX
a. Basic principles
b. Definition
c. Nature
Lorenzo v. Posadas, GR No. L-43082, June 18, 1937
Ferdinand R. Marcos II versus CA, et al, GR No. 120880, June 5, 1997

d. Purpose or object
e. Time and transfer of properties
f. Classification of decedent
g. Gross estate vis-à-vis net estate
Dizon v . CTA, GR No. 140944, April 30, 2008
h. Determination of gross estate and net estate
i. Composition of gross estate
j. Items to be included in gross estate
k. Deductions from estate
CIR v. CA and Pajonar, GR No. 123206, March 22, 2000
Rafael Arsenio S. Dizon versus CTA and CIR, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008

l. Exclusions from estate

m. Tax credit for estate taxes paid in a foreign country
n. Exemption of certain acquisitions and transmissions
o. Filing of notice of death
p. Estate tax return

B. DONOR’S TAX
a. Basic principles
b. Definition
c. Nature
d. Purpose or object
e. Requisites of valid donation
f. Transfers which may be constituted as donation
1) Sale/exchange/transfer of property for insufficient consideration
2) Condonation/remission of debt
g. Transfer for less than adequate and full consideration
h. Classification of donor
i. Determination of gross gift
j. Composition of gross gift
k. Valuation of gifts made in property
l. Tax credit for donor’s taxes paid in a foreign country
m. Exemptions of gifts from donor’s tax
n. Person liable
o. Tax basis

Page 1 of 20
 II. VALUE ADDED TAX

A. Concept/Nature
Kapatiran v. Tan, GR NO. L-81311, June 30, 1988
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, August 25, 1994 (orig dec) and GR No. 115455, October 30,
1995 (Motion for Reconsideration)
ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Ermita, GR. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, July 28, 2006
Philippine Acetylene v. CIR, August 17, 1967
CIR v. American Rubber, November 29, 1966
CIR v. John Gotamco and Sons, February 27, 1987
. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation versus CIR,
GR No. 198146 dated August 8, 2017. (whether sale of power plants are subject
to VAT; jurisdiction of DOJ)

SEC 105.(NIRC) Persons Liable. –not amended

The value-added tax is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or passed on
to the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services. This
rule shall likewise apply to existing contracts of sale or lease of goods, properties
or services at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act 7716
B. Characteristics/Elements of a VAT-Taxable transaction

C. Impact of tax

D. Incidence of tax

E. Tax credit method

F. Destination principle

G. Persons liable/VAT Person

H. VAT Exempt Person

For reporting – Discussion of old and new provisions (see Sec. 86 of RA No. 109863)

I. VAT on sale of goods or properties

1. Requisites of taxability of sale of goods or properties
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation versus CIR, GR No.
198146 dated August 8, 2017. (whether sale of power plants are subject to VAT;
jurisdiction of DOJ)

Zero-rated transactions
 Zero-rated sales of goods or properties, and effectively zero-rated sales of
goods or properties
 Zero-rated sale of services

Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, GR No. 172378, January 17, 2011

Microsoft Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 644 SCRA 433
CIR v. Seksui Jushi Phils, Inc. GR No. 149671, July 21, 2006
Western Mindanao Power Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 181136, June 13, 2012
Panasonic v. CIR, GR No. 178090, February 8, 2010
Hitachi v. CIR, GR No. 174212, October 20, 2010
CIR v. Manila Mining Corp., GR No. 153204, August 31, 2005
PAGCOR v. BIR, GR No. 172087, March 15, 2011
-Jurisdiction of DOJ over the case
-

SEE AMENDMENTS (SEC 108B)

Page 2 of 20
J. Doctrine on Effectively Zero-rated sales –
CIR v. Acesite Hotel Corp., GR No. 147295, February 16, 2007

K. Transactions deemed sale

CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, July 28, 2006

L. VAT on Services
CIR v. Placerdome Tech Services (Phils), GR No. 164365, June 8, 2007
CIR v. American Express Phil Branch, GR No. 1526-0, June 29, 2005

M. Change or cessation of status as VAT-registered person

1. Subject to VAT
2. Not subject to VAT

N. VAT on importation of goods

O. VAT on sale of service and use or lease of properties

P. VAT exempt transactions – Section 109, NIRC

1. Requisites
2. Exempt transaction, enumerated
Pawnshops-Tambunting Pawnshop Inc v. CIR, GR No. 179085, January 21, 2010

Q. Zero-rated sales and VAT exempt sales distinguished

For reporting. Discuss amendments and old provisions

R. Input tax and output tax, defined

S. Sources of input tax

T. Transitional Input Tax

Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. CIR, GR Nos. 158885 & 170580, April 2, 2009
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
Revenue District Officer, etc., G.R. No. 173425. January 22, 2013.

U. Persons who can avail of input tax credit

CIR V. Eastern Telecommunications Phil, Inc., GR No. 163835, July 7, 2010
San Roque Power Corp v. CIR, GR No. 180345, November 25, 2009

V. Determination of output/input tax; VAT payable; excess input tax credits

W. Substantiation of input tax credits

X. Refund or tax credit of excess input tax

Y. Invoicing requirements

Z. Refund of VAT – Section 112 v. Sec 229, NIRC

Nippon Express Phils. Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.

185666,
4 February 2015
Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – G.R. No173241, 25 March
2015
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 183531, 25 March 2015
Northern Mindanao Power Corporation v. CIR- G.R. No. 185115, 18 February 2015
Panay Power Corporation v. CIR- G.R. No. 203351, 21 January 2015
Cargill Philippines v. CIR – G.R. No. 203774, 11 March 2015
Philippine National Bank v. CIR – G.R. No. 206019; 18 March 2015
Commisioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, G. R. No.180434,
January 20, 2016
Silicon Philippines, Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 182737, March 2, 2016

Page 3 of 20
 For reporting. See sec 31
AA. Filing of return and payment

BB. Withholding of final VAT on sales to government

CIR v. Ironcon Builders and Development Corp., GR No. 180042, February 8, 2010

VAT EXEMPT TRANSACTIONS AND PERSONS –Sec 86, RA 10963

III - Organization and Function of the Bureau of Internal Revenue

A. Rule-making authority of the Secretary of Finance

B. Power of the Commissioner to suspend the business operation of a taxpayer

IV - Tax Administration and Enforcement

A. Definition – Tax Administration

B. Stages or Processes of Taxation

a. Levy
b. Assessment
c. Payment

C. Administrative Agencies tasked to implement the Power of Taxation

V. TAX REMEDIES under the NIRC

A. Government remedies

1. Remedies as to Procedure
 Assessment and Collection
 Collection without assessment

Assessment -
 Concept of assessment
What constitutes assessment?
CIR v. Hon. Gonzales, GR No. 177279, October 13, 2010
CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corporation, GR No. 166387, January 19, 2009 relate
with CIR v. BPI, GR No. 134052, April 17, 2007
CIR v. Pascor Realty, June 29, 1999
CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January 27, 2006
 Principles
CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez and LM Camus Engineering Corporation, GR No.
177279, October 13, 2010
 Power of the Commissioner to make assessments and prescribe
additional requirements for tax administration and enforcement
 Kinds of assessment
 Statute of Limitation on Assessment of Internal Revenue Taxes (Sections 202, 222,
NIRC)
Rmo 20-90, Philippine Journalists Inc., v. CIR, GR No. 162852, December
16, 2004
CIR v. Kudos Metal Corporation, GR No. 178087, May 5, 2010
CIR v. CA AND CARNATION, GR No. 115712, February 25, 1999
RCBC v. CIR, GR No. 170257, September 7, 2011
 Suspension of prescriptive period
Republic v. Hizon, December 13, 1999
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942, March 7, 2008
 When assessment is made
 General provisions on additions to the tax
 Assessment process
Page 4 of 20
 Estate of the Late Juliana Diez vda De Gabriel v. CIR, GR No. 155541, January 27,
2004
CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January27, 2006
PNOC v. Court of Appeas, GR No. 109976, April 26, 2005
CIR v. Menguito, GR No. 16750, September 17, 2008 relate with CIR v. Metro Star
Superama, GR No. 185371, December 8, 2010
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. United Salvage and Towage (Phils), Inc., G.R. No. 197515,
July 2, 2014
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. GJM Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., GR
No. 202695, February 29, 2016 (BIR must prove receipt of notice by TP)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Liquigaz Philippines Corporation/Liquigaz
Philippines Corporation/Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No.
215534/215557, April 18, 2016 (FDDA)
 Necessity of Assessment before taxpayer can be prosecuted for violation of the
NIRC
Ungab v. Cusi, May 30, 1980
CIR v. CA, GR No. 119322, June 4, 1996
CIR v. Pascor Realty, June 29, 1999
CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez and LM Camus Engineering Corporation, GR No. 177279,
October 13, 2010
]
 Retroactivity – CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January 27, 2006
Instances when pre-assessment is not required (Section 228)

Collection
 Requisites
 Prescriptive periods
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
181836, July 9, 2014

 Distraint of personal property including garnishment

 Summary remedy of levy on real property
 Forfeiture to government for want of bidder
 Further distraint or levy
 Tax lien
 Compromise
 Civil and criminal questions

2. As to Nature of Proceedings
 Administrative Remedies in Detail
1. Tax Lien (Section 219, NIRC)
a. CIR v. NLRC, GR No. 74965, 9 November 1994
2. Compromise
3. Distant of personal property or garnishment of bank deposits
4. Levy of real properties
4. Forfeiture
5. Suspension if business operations
6. Enforcement of administrative fines

Conflicts between government agencies - Power Sector Assets and Liabilities

Management Corporation versus CIR, GR No. 198146 dated August 8, 2017.
(whether sale of power plants are subject to VAT; jurisdiction of DOJ)

 Judicial remedies
1. Civil Action
2. Criminal Action

 Judicial Remedies in Detail (Section 220. NIRC)

1. Period within which the action may be filed
a. Civil Cases (Sections 203, 222, NIRC)
b. Criminal Cases (See: Title X, NIRC; Section 281, NIRC)
2. Where should these cases be filed?
Page 5 of 20
 a. Criminal Cases (See the impossible penalty vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of courts)
b. Civil Cases (Consider the amount of tax sought to be collected vis-à-vis the
jurisdiction of courts, together with the provisions of RA9282)
3. Cases:
a. Republic v. Hizon, GR No. 130430, 13 December 1999 (re approval of filing of civil and
criminal action)
b. CIR v. La Suerte Cigar, G.G. No. 144942, 4 July 2002 (Re participation of the Office of
the Solicitor General)
c. PNOC v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109976, April 26, 2005*
d. Lim v. CA, GR. Nos. 48134-37, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 616 (re prescription of
criminal actions, Section 281, NIRC)
e. Marcos II v. CA, GR No. 120880, 5 June 1997 (re enforcement of tax liability during
pendency of probate proceedings)
f. Judy Anne Santos v. People, GR No. 173176, 26 August 2008

B. Effects of failure to pay the tax on time: Additions to the tax (Chapter I, Title X, NIRC)
1. Surcharges
a. Ordinary (Section 248A, NIRC)
 Failure to pay tax on time as required by the tax code or the regulations
 Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time fixed in the notice
 Filing of the return with the wrong office
b. Fraud Penalty (Section 248B, NIRC)
 CIR v. Javier Jr., GR No. 78953, 31 July 1991 (199 SCRA 825)
c. Cases:
i. Imposition of Surcharge in mandatory

2. Interest (Section 249, NIRC)

a. In General
b. Deficiency Interest
c. Delinquency Interest
d. On Extended Payments
3. Compromise Penalties
4. Effect of failure to file information returns (Section 250, NIRC)

NOTES
a. No injunction to restrain collection of taxes (Sec. 218, NIRC)
b. Period within which the government could collect (Sections 203, 222, NIRC)
Case: Republic v. Hizon, GR No. 130430, 13 December 1999; CIR v. Javier Jr., GR
No. 78953, 31 July 1991 (199 SCRA 825); PNOC v. CA, GR No. 109976, 26 April 2005;
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942, 7 March 2008
c. Determination of prescription of collection within CTA’s appellate jurisdiction: CIR v.
Hambrecht and Quist Philippines, GR No. 169225, 27 November 2010

C. Remedies available to taxpayers

Before Payment
1. Protest (Section 228, NIRC)
a. Requirements of a valid protest – Rev. Regs. 12-85
b. Kinds of Protest – CIR v. Philippine Global Communication, GR No. 167146, 31
October 2006
c. Effect of Failure to file Protest – CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez, GR No. 177279, 13 October
2010
d. What should be protested? – Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR, 5 February 2010

Page 6 of 20
 e. Effect of a protest on the period to collect deficiency taxes – Cases: CIR v. Wyeth Suaco
Laboratories, GR No. 76281, 30 September 1991 and CIR v. Atlas Consolidated
Mining, GR Nos. 31230-32, 14 February 2000
f. Failure if the BIR to act within the 180-day period – See the following: Lascona v. CIR,
CTA Case 5777, 4 January 2000 vis-à-vis Section 7 (2), RA 9282 and the Revised Rules
of Procedure of the CTA, AM No. 05-11-07-CTA; See also RCBC v. CIR (2007)
g. Administrative actions taken during the 180-day period – Compare: CIR v. Union
Shipping, GR No. 66160, 21 May 1990, 185 SCRA 548 and CIR v. Isabela Cultural
Corporation, GR No. 135210, 11 July 2001
h. Effect of a protest filed out of time – Protector’s Services v. CA, GR No. 118176, 12
April 2000
i. Remedies from a denial of the protest
 Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125, as amended by RA9282)
 Fishwealth Canning Corporation v. CTR, G.R. No. 179343, 21 January 2010
 Appeal to the CTA en bane should be preceded by a Motion for Reconsideration
(Commissioner of Customs v. Marina Sales, Inc., G.R. 183868, 22 November 2010
– Note: although a customs case, the ptrinciples are applicable)

2. Compromise

After Payment
1. Refund (Section 229, NIRC)
a. Must be strictly construed against the taxpayer; Taxpayer must show the legal
and factual basis for the tax refund – Case: Citibank, NA v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 107434, 10 October 1997, 280 SCRA 459; FEBTC v. CIR, GR No. 138919, 02
May 2006; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East Bank e Trust Co., G.R.
No. 173854 dated March 16, 2010
b. Grounds for filing a claim for refund (See Section 229, See also: Engtek Phils v.
CIR, CTA Case No. 6644, 26 January 2005)
c. Procedure in filing a claim for refund
 CIR v. Acosta, GR No. 154068, 3 August 2007
d. Period within which to file a claim for refund
 General rule is two years from the date of payment – Cases: ACCRA
Investments Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 96322, 20 December
1991; CIR v. TMX Sales, 15 January 1992; CIR v. PhilAm Life, 29 May
1995; CIR v. CA and BPI, GR No. 117254, 21 January 1999; CIR v. PNB,
GR No. 161997, 25 October 2005 (exception to the 2-year period); CIR v.
Primetown Property Group, GR No. 162155, 28 August 2007).
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power
Corporation/Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue/Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 187485/G.R. No. 196113/G.R. No. 197156. February 12, 2013
o
 In case of amended returns
 In case of taxpayers contemplating dissolution – Case: BPI v. CIR, 28
August 2001; See also: Sections 52(c) and 56(a)
 In case of VAT Refund (Please see topic on VAT)
e. Who has the personality to file a claim for refund?
1. CIR v. Proctor and Gamble, GR No. 66838, 2 December 1991**
2. CIR v. CA 20 January 1999
3. Silkair v. CIR, GR Nos. 171383 e 172379, 14 November 2008
4. CIR v. Smart Communications, GR No. 179045-46, 25 August 2010***
5. Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings v. CIR, GR No. 180909, 19
January 2011
6. Silkair (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Commissioner on Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 166482, 25 January 2012***
Page 7 of 20
 f. Is setting-off of taxes against a pending claim for refund allowed? – The doctrine
of equitable recoupment—Case: Philex MiningCorp. V. CIR, GR No. 125704, 28
August 1998
g. Is automatic application of excess tax credits allowed? (Sec. 76) – Please see
Calamba Steel v. CIR, GR No. 151857, 28 April 2005; Systra Philippines v. CIR,
GR No. 176290, 21 September2007; CIR v. BPI, GR No. 178490, 07 July 2009
(Irrevocability Rule)***; Philam Asset Management v. CIR, G.R. Nos.
156637/162004, December 14, 2005); Asianworld Properties Philippine
Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 171766, 29 July 2010; CIR v. Philam Life and Gen.
Ins. Co. GR No. 175124, 29 September 2010; CIR v. Mcgeorge Food Industries,
GR No. 174157, 20 October 2010; CIR v. Mirant (Philippnes) Operations
Corporation, G.R. No. 171742, 15 June 2011 CIR v. PL Management
Inernational Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160949, April 4, 2011.
h. Effect of existing tax liability on a pending claim for refund – Case: CIR v. CA
and Citytrust, GR No. 106611, 21 July 1994; See also (CIR v. CItytrust Banking
Corporation, 22 August, 22 August 2006).
i. Period of validity of a tax refund/credit (Sec. 230, NIRC)
i. Returns are not actionable documents for purposes of the rules on civil
procedure and evidence (See: Aguilar v. CIR, CA Case dated 3- March
1990)
ii. Nature of a tax credit certificate (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v.
CIR, GR No. 172598, 21 December 2007)
j. Refund and Protest are mutually exclusive remedies – Case: Vda. De San
Agustin v. VIR, 10 September 2001
k. Is the taxpayer entitled to claim interest on the refunded tax? (Sec. 79 (c) 2,
NIRC)
Other Remedies
1. Action to Contest Forfeiture of Chattel (Sec. 231)
2. Redemption of Property Sold (Sec. 214)

D. Statutory offenses and penalties

E. Compromise and abatement of taxes

VI. Judicial Remedies (R.A. No. 1125, as amended, and the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals)

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

A. Nature
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toledo, Power, Inc., G.R. No. 183880, January 20, 2014.
B. Legal Basis
C. Powers
D. Composition
E. Jurisdiction
Automatic Review – Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 84111, Decmber 22, 1989
Real Property cases decided by RTC not under CTA Juris – Habawel v. CTA, GR No. 174759,
September 7, 2011
Final and Executory or Undisputed Assessments – Republic v. Abella, GR No. L-26989,
February 20, 1981
Ancillary remedy – Commissioner of Customs v. Alikpala, GR No. L-32542, November 26, 1970
Silicon Philippines, Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 182737, March 2, 2016
Spouses Emmanuel D. Paquiao and Jinkee J. Paquiao Vs. The Court of Tax Appeals (1st
Division) and the Commission of Internal Revenue, GR No. 213394, April 6, 2016

F. Appeal Periods

G. Instances when decisions are final –

Oceanic Wireless Network Inc., v. CIR, GR No. 148380, December 9, 2005
Commissioner v. Ayala Securities Corp., GR No, 29485, March 31, 1976 –demand letter
Commissioner v. Union Shipping GR No. 66160, May 21, 1990 – filing of a judicial action
Page 8 of 20
 Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 175097, February 5, 2010 –FAN,

New Issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal

CIR v. Wander Philippines, Inc., GR No. 68375, April 15, 1988
Exceptions –
Defense of prescription - Visayan Land Transportation v. Collector, CTA case no.
1119, September 30, 1964
Errors of Admin Officials – Commissioner v. Procter & Gamble Phils., Mfg Corp,
GR No. 66838, April 15, 1988 and see Commissioner v. Procter & Gamble, GR No.
66838, December 2, 1991

H. Who can file appeal

I. Procedure after decision of the CTA

1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil tax cases

a) Cases within the jurisdiction of the court en banc
b) Cases within the jurisdiction of the court in divisions
2. Criminal cases
a) Exclusive original jurisdiction
b) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases

B. Judicial procedures
1. Judicial action for collection of taxes a)
Internal revenue taxes
b) Local taxes
(i) Prescriptive period
2. Civil cases
a) Who may appeal, mode of appeal, effect of appeal
(i) Suspension of collection of tax
a) Injunction not available to restrain collection
(ii) Taking of evidence
(iii) Motion for reconsideration or new trial
b) Appeal to the CTA, en banc
c) Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
3. Criminal cases
a) Institution and prosecution of criminal actions
(i) Institution of civil action in criminal action
b) Appeal and period to appeal
(i) Solicitor General as counsel for the people and government officials sued
in their official capacity
c) Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court

C. Taxpayer’s suit impugning the validity of tax measures or acts of taxing authorities
1. Taxpayer’s suit, defined
2. Distinguished from citizen’s suit
3. Requisites for challenging the constitutionality of a tax measure or act of taxing
authority
a) Concept of locus standi as applied in taxation
b) Doctrine of transcendental importance c) Ripeness for judicial determination

VII – LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXATION

A. Local taxation
 Nature of the local taxing power
1. Constitutional provision (Section 5, Article X)
2. Delegated power
a. City of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes, 25 March 1999
b. Meralco v. Province of Laguna, 5 May 1999
c. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 11 September 1996
d. NAPOCOR v. City of Cabanatuan, 9 April 2003
Page 9 of 20
 3. Extent of the power of Congress in local taxation
a. City Government of Quezon City v. Bayantel, G.R. No. 162015, March 6, 2006
4. Residual power tax (Section 186, LGC)
 Fundamental principles on the exercise of the local taxing power (Section 130, LGC)
 Exercise of local taxing power
 Camp John Hay Development Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

B. Common Limitations on the exercise of the local taxing power and the principle of
preemption. Exclusionary rule (Section 133, LGC)
 The principle of preemption
Cases:
1. Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, 27 November 1998
2. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 125948, December 29, 1998
(Section 133j; Local Tax on Common Carriers)
3. Palama Development Corporation v. Municipality of Malangas, GR No. 152492, 16
October 2003 (Section 133e)
4. Batangas Power Corporation v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, 28 April 2004 (Section
133g)
5. MIAA v. CA and Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006 (Section 133 o)
6. LTO v. City of Butuan, 20 January 2000 (re Section 133(l))
7. Philreca v. DILG, 10 June 2003 (re Section 133 n)
8. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco, GR no. 158881, 16 April 2008 (Petroleum Products)

C. Specific Taxing Powers of Local Government Units

 Provinces
1. Scope of the taxing power (Section 134 vis-à-vis Sections 142 and 186, LGC)
2. Taxes that may be levied by provinces (Sections 135-141, LGC)
3. Cases:
a. Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, 27 November 1998 (Sand and Gravel)
b. PBA v. CA, 8 August 2000 (Amusement)
c. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp. v. Ambanloc, 29 June 2010 (Sand and
Gravel)
d. Smart Communications v. City of Davao, 16 September 2008 (Franchise)
e. Quezon City v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting, 6 October 2008 (Franchise)
f. San Juan v. Castro, GR No. 174617, 27 December 2007 (transfer of Real
Property Ownership)
 Municipalities
1. Scope of the taxing power (Section 142 vis-à-vis Sections 134 and 186, LGC)
2. Taxes that may be levies by municipalities (Sections 143-149, LGC)
a. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation, G.R. No. 154993, 25 October
2005 re taxes on businesses
b. Ericson Telecommunications v. City of Pasig, GR No. 176667, 22 November
2007
3. Situs of the tax (Section 150, LGC)
 Cities (Section 151, NIRC)
 Barangays (Section 152, NIRC)
 Common revenue raising powers
 Community Tax

D. Remedies in Local Taxation

Page 10 of 20
  Remedies of the Government
1 . Angeles City v. Angeles City Electric Corporation, GR No. 166134, 29 June 2010
(Prohibition re injunction on tax collection not applicable to local taxes)
2. Administrative
a. Local government’s lien
b. Assessment by local treasurer (Section 194, LGC)
c. Distraint (Section 175, LGC)
d. Levy (Section 176, LGC)
a. Properties exempt from distraint and levy
3. Judicial
 Period within which to collect (Section 194, LGC)
4. Other Provisions
 Accrual of the tax (Section 166, LGC)
 Time of Payment (Section 167, LGC)
 Surcharges, Interests and Penalties
 Remedies of the Taxpayer
5. Administrative
1. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice re newly enacted tax ordinance (Section 187,
LGC)
a. Drilon v. Lim, 4 August 1994
b. Jardine Davies v. Judge Alipose, 27 February 2003
2. Protest of the Assessment (Section 195, LGC)
a. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation, G.R. no. 154993, 25 October
2005 re denial protest
3. Claim for refund (Section 196, LGC)
4. Remedies from a denial of the protest and refund
6. Judicial

E. Grant of tax exemption by local government units (Section 282 (b), IRR)
a. Tax Exemption v. Tax Incentive
Provicial Assesor of the Agusan Del Sur Vs. Filipinas Palm Plantation, Inc. GR No. 183416,
October 5, 2016 (exemption of cooperatives)

F. Real Property Taxation

1. Governing Law
2. Nature of Real Property Taxes – National or Local?
3. Fundamental Principles (Section 198, LGC)
a. Appraisal at current fair market value and based on actual use: Allied Banking
Corporation v. Quezon City, GR No. 154126, 15 September 2006 in relation to Local Ass.
Reg. 1-92
4. Properties Covered
a. Article 415, et seq, Civil Code
b. Caltex v. CBAA, 31 May 1982
c. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. vs. City of Pasig, G.R. no. 166838, June 15,
2011
Capitol Wireless, Inc. Vs. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, the Provicial Asseso of
Batangas, The Municipal Treasurer of and Assessor of Nasugbu Batangas, GR No. 180110, May
30, 2016
5. Properties Exempt
a. Section 234, LGC
b. Section 238, LGC
Page 11 of 20
 c. Constitutional Exemptions
d. Cases
i. MIAA v. Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006; MIAA v. Pasay GR No.
163072, April 2, 2009
ii. Lung Center of the Philippines v. QC., 29 June 2004
iii. LRTA v. CBAA, 12 October 2000
iv. NAPOCOR v. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, 15 July 2009;
NAPOCOR v. CBAA, GR No. 171470, 30 January 2009
v. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. CBAA, etc., G.R. No. 178030,
December 15, 2012
vi. City of Pasig v. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 185023, 24 August 2011
Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas, the Provicial Asseso of
Batangas, The Municipal Treasurer of and Assessor of Nasugbu Batangas, GR No. 180110, May
30, 2016
6. May LGUs grant exemption?
7. Who are liable for the Real Property Taxes
a. Ownership v. Use
b. Testate Estate of Concordia Lim v. Manila, 21 February 2000
c. Government Service Insurance System v. City Treasurer and City Assessor of the City
of Manila, G.R. No. 186242 23 December 2009
8. Procedure in Real Property Taxation
a. Lopez v. City of Manila, 19 February 1999
b. Declaration of real properties - whose duty?
c. Valuation by Assessors
Callanta v. Ombudsman, 30 January 1998
d. Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values
e. Enactment of a Real Property tax Ordinance
f. Levy annual ad valorem tax
1. Scope of the LGU’s taxing power (Sec. 232, LGC)
a. Provinces – 1 %; Cities, Municipalities in MM – 2%
b. SEF – 1%; Idle land tax – 5%; Special Assessments
ii. Fix assessment levels
iii. Provide for appropriations
iv. Adopt Schedule of Fair Market Values
1. Fair Market Value and Assessed Value – What’s the difference?

9. Remedies in Local Taxation

a. Remedies of the Government
i. Administrative
1. Contents of Assessment
a. Meralco v. Barlis, 2 February 2002
2. Who is entitled to the notice of assessment?
a. Talusan v. Tayag, G.R. No. 133698, 4 April 2001
ii. Judicial
1. Period within which to collect
iii. Other provisions
1. Accrual of the tax
2. Time of Payment
3. Surcharges, Interests and Penalties

Page 12 of 20
 10. Remedies of the Taxpayer
i. Administrative
1. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice re newly enacted tax ordinance (Section 187,
LGC)
a. Drilon v. Lim, 4 August 1994
b. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 1999
c. Hagonoy Market Vendors Association v. Municipality of Hagonoy,
Bulacan, G.R. No. 137621. February 6, 2002
d. Ty v. Trampe, 1 December 1995
2. Appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals, (Section 226, 252, LGC)
a. Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, G.R. No. 146382,
August 7, 2003
b. Olivare v. Marquez, G.R. No. 155591, September 22, 2004
3. Protest of the Assessment (Section 226,252, LGC)
a. Cagayan Robina v. Court of Appeals, 12 October 2000
b. Meralco v. Barlis, 18 May 2001
c. Meralco v. Barlis, 2 February 2002
d. Meralco v. Barlis, 29 June 2004
e. National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon and Municipality of
Pagbilao, G.R. No. 171586 25 January 2010
National Power Corporation Vs. The Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, et al.,
GR No. 209303, November 14, 2016
4. Claim for refund (Section 253, LGC)
a. Period
5. Remedies from a denial of the protest and refund
a. mandamus is not a proper remedy: Habawel v. Court of Tax Appeals,
G.R. No. 174759, 7 September 2011
6. Redemption of Property Sold (Section 261, LGC; City Mayor of Quezon City v.
RCBC, GR No. 171033, 3 August 2010)
ii. Judicial
1. Questioning tax sale: Aquino v. QC, GR No. 137534, 3 August 2006; NHA v.
Iloilo City, GR No. 172267, 20 August 2008

VIII. TARIFF AND CUSTOMS LAWS

A. Scope of Tariff and Customs Laws

B. Meaning of Tariff and Customs Duties
C. Purpose for imposition

Governing Laws
D. Agency tasked with enforcement of Tariff and Customs Laws
a. Powers and Functions of the Bureau of Customs
E. What may be the subject of custom duties?
F.
G. Classification of goods
1. Taxable importation
2. Prohibited importation
3. Conditionally-free importation

H. Requirements of importation
1. Beginning and ending of importation
2. Obligations of importer
a) Cargo manifest
Page 13 of 20
 b) Import entry
c) Declaration of correct weight or value
d) Liability for payment of duties
e) Liquidation of duties
f) Keeping of records

I. Importation in violation of tax credit certificate

1. Smuggling
2. Other fraudulent practices

H. Classification of duties
1. Ordinary/regular duties
a) Ad valorem; methods of valuation
(i) Transaction value
(ii) Transaction value of identical goods
(iii) Transaction value of similar goods
(iv) Deductive value
(v) Computed value
(vi) Fallback value
b) Specific
2. Special duties
a) Dumping duties
b) Countervailing duties
c) Marking duties
d) Retaliatory/discriminatory duties
e) Safeguard

I. Valuation of Goods
a. Home Consumption Value
b. Transaction Value (Republic Act No. 9135)
J. Flexible Tariff
K. Cases that may be decided by the Bureau of Customs
a. Customs Protest Cases
i. Procedure
ii. Case: Nestle Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134114. July 6, 2001
iii. Concept of Automatic Review
b. Seizure and Forfeiture Cases
i. Proceeding In Rem
ii. Primary Jurisdiction
iii.Search of Dwelling House
iv. Some Illustrative Cases: Mison v. Natividad, GR No. 82526, 11 September 1992;
Provident Tree Farms v. Batario, GR No. 92285, 28 March 1994; Zuno v. Cabredo,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1779. April 30, 2003

I. Remedies
1. Government
a) Administrative/extrajudicial
(i) Search, seizure, forfeiture, arrest
b) Judicial
(i) Rules on appeal including jurisdiction
2. Taxpayer
a) Protest
b) Abandonment
c) Abatement and refund

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation Vs.

Commission on Customs, GR No. 195876,
December 5, 2016 (abandonment)
Page 14 of 20
 V. TAX REMEDIES under the NIRC

A. Government remedies
1. As to Nature of Proceedings
 Administrative Remedies in Detail
1. Tax Lien (Section 219, NIRC)
a. CIR v. NLRC, GR No. 74965, 9 November 1994
2. Compromise
3. Distant of personal property or garnishment of bank deposits
4. Levy of real properties
4. Forfeiture
5. Suspension if business operations
6. Enforcement of administrative fines

 Judicial remedies
1. Civil Action
2. Criminal Action

 Judicial Remedies in Detail (Section 220. NIRC)

1. Period within which the action may be filed
a. Civil Cases (Sections 203, 222, NIRC)
b. Criminal Cases (See: Title X, NIRC; Section 281, NIRC)
2. Where should these cases be filed?
a. Criminal Cases (See the impossible penalty vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of courts)
b. Civil Cases (Consider the amount of tax sought to be collected vis-à-vis the
jurisdiction of courts, together with the provisions of RA9282)
3. Cases:
a. Republic v. Hizon, GR No. 130430, 13 December 1999 (re approval of filing of
civil and criminal action)
b. CIR v. La Suerte Cigar, G.G. No. 144942, 4 July 2002 (Re participation of the
Office of the Solicitor General)
c. PNOC v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109976, April 26, 2005*
d. Lim v. CA, GR. Nos. 48134-37, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 616 (re prescription
of criminal actions, Section 281, NIRC)
e. Marcos II v. CA, GR No. 120880, 5 June 1997 (re enforcement of tax liability
during pendency of probate proceedings)
f. Judy Anne Santos v. People, GR No. 173176, 26 August 2008

2. Remedies as to Procedure
 Assessment and Collection
 Collection without assessment

Assessment -
 Concept of assessment
What constitutes assessment?
CIR v. Hon. Gonzales, GR No. 177279, October 13, 2010
CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corporation, GR No. 166387, January 19, 2009
relate with CIR v. BPI, GR No. 134052, April 17, 2007
CIR v. Pascor Realty, June 29, 1999
CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January 27, 2006
 Principles
CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez and LM Camus Engineering Corporation, GR No.
177279, October 13, 2010
 Power of the Commissioner to make assessments and prescribe
Page 15 of 20
 additional requirements for tax administration and enforcement
 Kinds of assessment
 Statute of Limitation on Assessment of Internal Revenue Taxes (Sections 202, 222,
NIRC)
Rmo 20-90, Philippine Journalists Inc., v. CIR, GR No. 162852, December
16, 2004
CIR v. Kudos Metal Corporation, GR No. 178087, May 5, 2010
CIR v. CA AND CARNATION, GR No. 115712, February 25, 1999
RCBC v. CIR, GR No. 170257, September 7, 2011
 Suspension of prescriptive period
Republic v. Hizon, December 13, 1999
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942, March 7, 2008
 When assessment is made
 General provisions on additions to the tax
 Assessment process
Estate of the Late Juliana Diez vda De Gabriel v. CIR, GR No. 155541,
January 27, 2004
CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January27, 2006
PNOC v. Court of Appeas, GR No. 109976, April 26, 2005
CIR v. Menguito, GR No. 16750, September 17, 2008 relate with CIR v.
Metro Star Superama, GR No. 185371, December 8, 2010
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. GJM Philippines Manufacturing,
Inc., GR No. 202695, February 29, 2016 (BIR must prove receipt of notice
by TP)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Liquigaz Philippines
Corporation/Liquigaz Philippines Corporation/Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, GR No. 215534/215557, April 18, 2016 (FDDA)
 Necessity of Assessment before taxpayer can be prosecuted for violation of the
NIRC
Ungab v. Cusi, May 30, 1980
CIR v. CA, GR No. 119322, June 4, 1996
CIR v. Pascor Realty, June 29, 1999
CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez and LM Camus Engineering Corporation, GR No.
177279, October 13, 2010
 Retroactivity – CIR v. Reyes, GR No. 159694, January 27, 2006
Instances when pre-assessment is not required (Section 228)

Collection
 Requisites
 Prescriptive periods
 Distraint of personal property including garnishment
 Summary remedy of levy on real property
 Forfeiture to government for want of bidder
 Further distraint or levy
 Tax lien
 Compromise
 Civil and criminal questions

B. Effects of failure to pay the tax on time: Additions to the tax (Chapter I, Title X, NIRC)
1. Surcharges
a. Ordinary (Section 248A, NIRC)
 Failure to pay tax on time as required by the tax code or the regulations
 Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time fixed in the notice
 Filing of the return with the wrong office
b. Fraud Penalty (Section 248B, NIRC)
 CIR v. Javier Jr., GR No. 78953, 31 July 1991 (199 SCRA 825)
c. Cases:
i. Imposition of Surcharge in mandatory

2. Interest (Section 249, NIRC)

Page 16 of 20
 a. In General
b. Deficiency Interest
c. Delinquency Interest
d. On Extended Payments
3. Compromise Penalties
4. Effect of failure to file information returns (Section 250, NIRC)

NOTES
a. No injunction to restrain collection of taxes (Sec. 218, NIRC)
b. Period within which the government could collect (Sections 203, 222, NIRC)
Case: Republic v. Hizon, GR No. 130430, 13 December 1999; CIR v. Javier Jr., GR
No. 78953, 31 July 1991 (199 SCRA 825); PNOC v. CA, GR No. 109976, 26 April 2005;
BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942, 7 March 2008
c. Determination of prescription of collection within CTA’s appellate jurisdiction: CIR v.
Hambrecht and Quist Philippines, GR No. 169225, 27 November 2010

C. Remedies available to taxpayers

Before Payment
1. Protest (Section 228, NIRC)
a. Requirements of a valid protest – Rev. Regs. 12-85
b. Kinds of Protest – CIR v. Philippine Global Communication, GR No. 167146, 31
October 2006
c. Effect of Failure to file Protest – CIR v. Hon. Gonzalez, GR No. 177279, 13 October
2010
d. What should be protested? – Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR, 5 February 2010
e. Effect of a protest on the period to collect deficiency taxes – Cases: CIR v. Wyeth Suaco
Laboratories, GR No. 76281, 30 September 1991 and CIR v. Atlas Consolidated
Mining, GR Nos. 31230-32, 14 February 2000
f. Failure if the BIR to act within the 180-day period – See the following: Lascona v. CIR,
CTA Case 5777, 4 January 2000 vis-à-vis Section 7 (2), RA 9282 and the Revised Rules
of Procedure of the CTA, AM No. 05-11-07-CTA; See also RCBC v. CIR (2007)
g. Administrative actions taken during the 180-day period – Compare: CIR v. Union
Shipping, GR No. 66160, 21 May 1990, 185 SCRA 548 and CIR v. Isabela Cultural
Corporation, GR No. 135210, 11 July 2001
h. Effect of a protest filed out of time – Protector’s Services v. CA, GR No. 118176, 12
April 2000
i. Remedies from a denial of the protest
 Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125, as amended by RA9282)
 Fishwealth Canning Corporation v. CTR, G.R. No. 179343, 21 January 2010
 Appeal to the CTA en bane should be preceded by a Motion for Reconsideration
(Commissioner of Customs v. Marina Sales, Inc., G.R. 183868, 22 November 2010
– Note: although a customs case, the ptrinciples are applicable)
2. Compromise

After Payment
1. Refund (Section 229, NIRC)
a. Must be strictly construed against the taxpayer; Taxpayer must show the legal
and factual basis for the tax refund – Case: Citibank, NA v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 107434, 10 October 1997, 280 SCRA 459; FEBTC v. CIR, GR No. 138919, 02
May 2006; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Far East Bank e Trust Co., G.R.
No. 173854 dated March 16, 2010
b. Grounds for filing a claim for refund (See Section 229, See also: Engtek Phils v.
CIR, CTA Case No. 6644, 26 January 2005)
c. Procedure in filing a claim for refund

Page 17 of 20
  CIR v. Acosta, GR No. 154068, 3 August 2007
d. Period within which to file a claim for refund
 General rule is two years from the date of payment – Cases: ACCRA
Investments Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 96322, 20 December
1991; CIR v. TMX Sales, 15 January 1992; CIR v. PhilAm Life, 29 May
1995; CIR v. CA and BPI, GR No. 117254, 21 January 1999; CIR v. PNB,
GR No. 161997, 25 October 2005 (exception to the 2-year period); CIR v.
Primetown Property Group, GR No. 162155, 28 August 2007).
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power
Corporation/Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue/Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 187485/G.R. No. 196113/G.R. No. 197156. February 12, 2013
o
 In case of amended returns
 In case of taxpayers contemplating dissolution – Case: BPI v. CIR, 28
August 2001; See also: Sections 52(c) and 56(a)
 In case of VAT Refund (Please see topic on VAT)
e. Who has the personality to file a claim for refund?
1. CIR v. Proctor and Gamble, GR No. 66838, 2 December 1991**
2. CIR v. CA 20 January 1999
3. Silkair v. CIR, GR Nos. 171383 e 172379, 14 November 2008
4. CIR v. Smart Communications, GR No. 179045-46, 25 August 2010***
5. Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings v. CIR, GR No. 180909, 19
January 2011
6. Silkair (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Commissioner on Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 166482, 25 January 2012***
f. Is setting-off of taxes against a pending claim for refund allowed? – The doctrine
of equitable recoupment—Case: Philex MiningCorp. V. CIR, GR No. 125704, 28
August 1998
g. Is automatic application of excess tax credits allowed? (Sec. 76) – Please see
Calamba Steel v. CIR, GR No. 151857, 28 April 2005; Systra Philippines v. CIR,
GR No. 176290, 21 September2007; CIR v. BPI, GR No. 178490, 07 July 2009
(Irrevocability Rule)***; Philam Asset Management v. CIR, G.R. Nos.
156637/162004, December 14, 2005); Asianworld Properties Philippine
Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 171766, 29 July 2010; CIR v. Philam Life and Gen.
Ins. Co. GR No. 175124, 29 September 2010; CIR v. Mcgeorge Food Industries,
GR No. 174157, 20 October 2010; CIR v. Mirant (Philippnes) Operations
Corporation, G.R. No. 171742, 15 June 2011 CIR v. PL Management
Inernational Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160949, April 4, 2011.
h. Effect of existing tax liability on a pending claim for refund – Case: CIR v. CA
and Citytrust, GR No. 106611, 21 July 1994; See also (CIR v. CItytrust Banking
Corporation, 22 August, 22 August 2006).
i. Period of validity of a tax refund/credit (Sec. 230, NIRC)
i. Returns are not actionable documents for purposes of the rules on civil
procedure and evidence (See: Aguilar v. CIR, CA Case dated 3- March
1990)
ii. Nature of a tax credit certificate (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v.
CIR, GR No. 172598, 21 December 2007)
j. Refund and Protest are mutually exclusive remedies – Case: Vda. De San
Agustin v. VIR, 10 September 2001
k. Is the taxpayer entitled to claim interest on the refunded tax? (Sec. 79 (c) 2,
NIRC)
Other Remedies
1. Action to Contest Forfeiture of Chattel (Sec. 231)
2. Redemption of Property Sold (Sec. 214)

D. Statutory offenses and penalties

Page 18 of 20
E. Compromise and abatement of taxes

V. Judicial Remedies (R.A. No. 1125, as amended, and the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals)

A. Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals

VI – COURT OF TAX APPEALS

A. Nature
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toledo, Power, Inc., G.R. No. 183880, January 20, 2014.
B. Legal Basis

C. Powers

D. Composition

E. Jurisdiction
Automatic Review – Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 84111, Decmber 22, 1989
Real Property cases decided by RTC not under CTA Juris – Habawel v. CTA, GR No. 174759,
September 7, 2011
Final and Executory or Undisputed Assessments – Republic v. Abella, GR No. L-26989,
February 20, 1981
Ancillary remedy – Commissioner of Customs v. Alikpala, GR No. L-32542, November 26, 1970
Silicon Philippines, Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 182737, March 2, 2016
Spouses Emmanuel D. Paquiao and Jinkee J. Paquiao Vs. The Court of Tax Appeals (1st Division) and
the Commission of Internal Revenue, GR No. 213394, April 6, 2016

F. Appeal Periods

G. Instances when decisions are final –

Oceanic Wireless Network Inc., v. CIR, GR No. 148380, December 9, 2005
Commissioner v. Ayala Securities Corp., GR No, 29485, March 31, 1976 –demand letter
Commissioner v. Union Shipping GR No. 66160, May 21, 1990 – filing of a judicial action
Allied Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 175097, February 5, 2010 –FAN,

New Issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal

CIR v. Wander Philippines, Inc., GR No. 68375, April 15, 1988
Exceptions –
Defense of prescription - Visayan Land Transportation v. Collector, CTA case no.
1119, September 30, 1964
Errors of Admin Officials – Commissioner v. Procter & Gamble Phils., Mfg Corp,
GR No. 66838, April 15, 1988 and see Commissioner v. Procter & Gamble, GR No.
66838, December 2, 1991

H. Who can file appeal

I. Procedure after decision of the CTA

1. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil tax cases

a) Cases within the jurisdiction of the court en banc
b) Cases within the jurisdiction of the court in divisions
2. Criminal cases
a) Exclusive original jurisdiction
b) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases

B. Judicial procedures
1. Judicial action for collection of taxes a)
Internal revenue taxes
b) Local taxes
(i) Prescriptive period
2. Civil cases
a) Who may appeal, mode of appeal, effect of appeal
(i) Suspension of collection of tax
Page 19 of 20
 a) Injunction not available to restrain collection
(ii) Taking of evidence
(iii) Motion for reconsideration or new trial
b) Appeal to the CTA, en banc
c) Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
3. Criminal cases
a) Institution and prosecution of criminal actions
(i) Institution of civil action in criminal action
b) Appeal and period to appeal
(i) Solicitor General as counsel for the people and government officials sued
in their official capacity
c) Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court

C. Taxpayer’s suit impugning the validity of tax measures or acts of taxing authorities
1. Taxpayer’s suit, defined
2. Distinguished from citizen’s suit
3. Requisites for challenging the constitutionality of a tax measure or act of taxing
authority
a) Concept of locus standi as applied in taxation
b) Doctrine of transcendental importance c) Ripeness for judicial determination

END OF OUTLINE

Prepared by: Rosemary G. Limmayog-Saldo

References :
1. Syllabus - 2017 BAR Exams for Taxation
2. NIRC, Reviewer by Mamalateo; RA No. 10963
3. Course Outline of Atty. Jason Barlis, Reviewer (Taxation)
4. Supreme Court Decisions

Information regarding Philippine tax laws, issuance and cases can be seen from the following
government websites:
http://www.ntrc.gov.ph/13-tax-laws/120-ra-amendments-to-nirc

Page 20 of 20