Scribd
Upload
873 views2 pages

Asia International Auctioneers vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Angelo Castillo

1) Asia International Auctioneers (AIA) imports used vehicles and equipment for auction sales. It received an assessment for unpaid VAT and excise taxes. 2) AIA claimed the assessment was invalid as it had filed a tax amnesty application. The Bureau of Internal Revenue contended AIA was disqualified as it was a deemed withholding agent. 3) The court ruled against the BIR, finding that indirect taxes like VAT and excise are different from withholding taxes. AIA was assessed as the direct taxpayer, not as a withholding agent, so could avail the tax amnesty.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

Asia International Auctioneers vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Angelo Castillo
873 views2 pages
1) Asia International Auctioneers (AIA) imports used vehicles and equipment for auction sales. It received an assessment for unpaid VAT and excise taxes. 2) AIA claimed the assessment was invalid as it had filed a tax amnesty application. The Bureau of Internal Revenue contended AIA was disqualified as it was a deemed withholding agent. 3) The court ruled against the BIR, finding that indirect taxes like VAT and excise are different from withholding taxes. AIA was assessed as the direct taxpayer, not as a withholding agent, so could avail the tax amnesty.

Original Description:

Case Digests on Tax 1

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

1) Asia International Auctioneers (AIA) imports used vehicles and equipment for auction sales. It received an assessment for unpaid VAT and excise taxes. 2) AIA claimed the assessment was invalid as it had filed a tax amnesty application. The Bureau of Internal Revenue contended AIA was disqualified as it was a deemed withholding agent. 3) The court ruled against the BIR, finding that indirect taxes like VAT and excise are different from withholding taxes. AIA was assessed as the direct taxpayer, not as a withholding agent, so could avail the tax amnesty.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
873 views2 pages

Asia International Auctioneers vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Angelo Castillo
1) Asia International Auctioneers (AIA) imports used vehicles and equipment for auction sales. It received an assessment for unpaid VAT and excise taxes. 2) AIA claimed the assessment was invalid as it had filed a tax amnesty application. The Bureau of Internal Revenue contended AIA was disqualified as it was a deemed withholding agent. 3) The court ruled against the BIR, finding that indirect taxes like VAT and excise are different from withholding taxes. AIA was assessed as the direct taxpayer, not as a withholding agent, so could avail the tax amnesty.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Digests on Tax Law 1

ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS V. CIR


G.R. No. 179115, September 26,2012

Topic: Direct vs. Indirect Taxes


FACTS:
AIA is engaged in the importation of used motor vehicles and heavy equipment
which it sells to the public through auction.
Later, AIA received from the CIR a Formal Letter of Demand containing an
assessment for VAT and excise tax, a total amount of P 106,870,235.00,
inclusive of penalties and interest. AIA claimed that it filed a protest letter.
The CIR failed to act on the protest, prompting AIA to file a petition for review
before the CTA to which the CIR filed its Answer. The CIR filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction citing the alleged failure of AIA to
timely file its protest which thereby rendered the assessment final and
executory.
While the case is pending before the CTA, AIA filed a Manifestation and Motion
with Leave of the Honorable Court to Defer or Suspend Further Proceedings on
the ground that it availed of the Tax Amnesty Program under RA 9480.
Subsequently, it submitted to the Court a Certification of Qualification issued
by the BIR.
However, the CIR contends that AIA is disqualified under Section 8(a) of RA
9480 from availing itself of the Tax Amnesty Program because it is "deemed" a
withholding agent for the deficiency taxes.
ISSUE:

1|Page

Case Digests on Tax Law 1

Whether or not the contention of the CIR that AIA is disqualified from availing
itself of the Tax Amnesty Program because it is "deemed" a withholding agent
for the deficiency taxes.
HELD:
No, the contention of the CIR is untenable.
The CIR did not assess AIA as a withholding agent that failed to withhold or
remit the deficiency VAT and excise tax to the BIR under relevant provisions of
the Tax Code. Hence, the argument that AIA is "deemed" a withholding agent
for these deficiency taxes is fallacious.
Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding taxes. To
distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one person but
the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as
when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer who
ultimately pays for it. On the other hand, in case of withholding taxes, the
incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity, the statutory
taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who
merely collects, by withholding, the tax due from income payments to entities
arising from certain transactions and remits the same to the government. Due
to this difference, the deficiency VAT and excise tax cannot be "deemed" as
withholding taxes merely because they constitute indirect taxes. Moreover,
records support the conclusion that AIA was assessed not as a withholding
agent but, as the one directly liable for the said deficiency taxes.

2|Page

You might also like