Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    GR 122480 Bpi

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    1) A bank filed a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos for excess taxes paid in 1989. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the claim because the bank did not provide its 1990 tax return to prove it did not apply the excess as a tax credit that year. 3) The Supreme Court overturned this decision, finding that procedural technicalities should not prevent consideration of undisputed facts, and that the bank had established it incurred losses in 1990 and had no tax liability to apply the credit towards. Substantial justice was found to be on the side of the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    GR 122480 Bpi

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    53 views1 page
    1) A bank filed a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos for excess taxes paid in 1989. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the claim because the bank did not provide its 1990 tax return to prove it did not apply the excess as a tax credit that year. 3) The Supreme Court overturned this decision, finding that procedural technicalities should not prevent consideration of undisputed facts, and that the bank had established it incurred losses in 1990 and had no tax liability to apply the credit towards. Substantial justice was found to be on the side of the bank.

    Original Title

    4. GR 122480 BPI

    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) A bank filed a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos for excess taxes paid in 1989. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the claim because the bank did not provide its 1990 tax return to prove it did not apply the excess as a tax credit that year. 3) The Supreme Court overturned this decision, finding that procedural technicalities should not prevent consideration of undisputed facts, and that the bank had established it incurred losses in 1990 and had no tax liability to apply the credit towards. Substantial justice was found to be on the side of the bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    GR 122480 Bpi

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Inot
    1) A bank filed a claim for a tax refund of 112,491 pesos for excess taxes paid in 1989. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the claim because the bank did not provide its 1990 tax return to prove it did not apply the excess as a tax credit that year. 3) The Supreme Court overturned this decision, finding that procedural technicalities should not prevent consideration of undisputed facts, and that the bank had established it incurred losses in 1990 and had no tax liability to apply the credit towards. Substantial justice was found to be on the side of the bank.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., V CA G.R. No.

    122480, April 12, 2000

    Monday, January 26, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

    Facts: Petitioner bank’s annual corporate income tax return for 1989 showed that it suffered a loss of P8,286,960, and
    that it had a total refundable amount of P297,492 inclusive of P112,491 being claimed as tax refund in the present case.
    However, petitioner declared in its 1989 income tax return as a tax credit in the succeeding taxable year.

    On October 11, 1991, petitioner bank filed a written claim for refund of P112,491 with the BIR alleging that it did
    not apply the 1989 refundable amount of P297,492 as tax credit to its 1990 annual corporate income tax return or either
    tax liabilities due to business losses it incurred for the same year. Without waiting for respondent CIR’s action in its claim
    for refund, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA.

    CTA dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner bank failed to present as evidence its 1990 annual income tax
    return to prove that it had not yet credited the amount of P297,422, inclusive of P112,491 which is the subject of the
    present controversy to its 1990 tax liability. Since petitioner declared in its 1989 income tax return that it
    would apply the excess withholding tax as tax credit for the following year, the tax court presumed that it did so. It held
    that Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption because it did not present its 1990 tax return which would have
    shown that the amount was not applied as a tax credit. Hence, it was concluded that petitioner was not entitled to a tax
    refund. The CA affirmed said decision of the CTA. Hence, the petition.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a tax refund of P112,491 representing creditable withholding tax paid
    for in 1989.

    Held: YES. As a rule, the factual findings on the appellate court are binding on the SC. This rule, however, does
    not apply where, inter alia, the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts or when
    the appellate court failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered would justify a different conclusion. This
    case is one such exception.

    Strict procedural rules generally frown upon the submission of the return after the trial. R.A. 1125, the law creating the
    CTA, however, specifically provides the proceedings before it “shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of
    evidence”. The paramount considerations remain the ascertainment of truth. Verily, the quest for orderly presentation
    of issues is not an absolute. It should not bar courts from considering undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination
    of a controversy.
    While tax refunds are in the nature of the exceptions and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the claimant,
    under the facts of this case, petitioner has established its claim.

    It should be stressed that the rationale of the rules of procedure is to secure a just determination of every action. They
    are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. But there can be no just determination of the present action if
    we ignore, on grounds of strict technicality, the Return submitted before the CTA and even before this Court. To repeat,
    the undisputed fact is that petitioner suffered a net loss in 1990; accordingly, it incurred no tax liability to which the
    tax credit could be applied. Consequently, there is no reason for the BIR and this Court to withhold the tax refund
    which rightfully belongs to the petitioner.

    Substantial justice, equity and fair play are on the side of petitioner. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted,
    should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it and thereby enrich itself at the expense
    of its law-abiding citizens. If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so
    must it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments of such taxes. Indeed, the State must lead
    by its own example of honor, dignity and uprightness.

    You might also like