Consolidating p26 No sign ups just fuck
The subsequent motion for reconsideration of petitioner corporation was also denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution, dated 14 December 1999. 148763 involves almost the same set of facts as in G. Petitioner corporation filed with the BIR its VAT Returns for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 1990, on 20 July 1990, 18 October 1990, and 20 January 1991, respectively.
Thus, petitioner corporation comes before this Court, via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assigning the following errors committed by the Court of Appeals THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE REQUIREMENT OF REVENUE REGULATIONS NO. It submitted separate applications to the BIR for the refund/credit of the input VAT paid on its purchases of capital goods and on its zero-rated sales, the details of which are presented as follows which were eventually consolidated.
Accordingly, the petition at bar is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
dated 6 July 1999, dismissed the appeal of petitioner corporation, finding no reversible error in the CTA Decision, dated 24 November 1997. 141104 presented above, except that it relates to the claims of petitioner corporation for refund/credit of input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its zero-rated sales made in the last three taxable quarters of 1990.
The complaint, the biggest tax evasion case under the Duterte administration, was filed nearly two months after the BIR lodged a similar complaint against them in connection with Mighty’s supposed failure to pay P9.6 billion in excises taxes.
After due trial, the CTA promulgated its Decision WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant claim for refund is hereby DENIED on the ground of prescription, insufficiency of evidence and failure to comply with Section 230 of the Tax Code, as amended.The prescriptive period for filing an application for tax refund/credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales made in 19 was governed by Section 106(b) and (c) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, which provided that SEC. No refund of input taxes shall be allowed unless the VAT-registered person files an application for refund within the period prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as the case may be. Clearly, there is the need to file a return first before a claim for refund can prosper inasmuch as the respondent Commissioner by his own rules and regulations mandates that the corporate taxpayer opting to ask for a refund must show in its final adjustment return the income it received from all sources and the amount of withholding taxes remitted by its withholding agents to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Hence, the petitioner corporation had until April 15, 1984 within which to file its claim for refund.By a plain reading of the foregoing provision, the two-year prescriptive period for filing the application for refund/credit of input VAT on zero-rated sales shall be determined from the close of the quarter when such sales were made. The petitioner corporation filed its final adjustment return for its 1981 taxable year on April 15, 1982. Considering that ACCRAIN filed its claim for refund as early as December 29, 1983 with the respondent Commissioner who failed to take any action thereon and considering further that the non-resolution of its claim for refund with the said Commissioner prompted ACCRAIN to reiterate its claim before the Court of Tax Appeals through a petition for review on April 13, 1984, the respondent appellate court manifestly committed a reversible error in affirming the holding of the tax court that ACCRAIN's claim for refund was barred by prescription. Thus, in resolving the instant case, it is necessary that we consider not only Section 292 (now Section 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code but also the other provisions of the Tax Code, particularly Sections 84, 85 (now both incorporated as Section 68), Section 86 (now Section 70) and Section 87 (now Section 69) on Quarterly Corporate Income Tax Payment and Section 321 (now Section 232) on keeping of books of accounts.“I’m inclined to assign the new complaint to the same panel (of prosecutors) since the two cases involve similar facts and issues. Top officials of the Bulacan-based cigarette manufacturing firm have been accused of using spurious tax stamps on Mighty’s products to intentionally avoid payment of excise taxes amounting to almost P36.5 billion.On Tuesday, the BIR filed a P26.93-billion tax evasion case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Mighty owner Alexander Wongchuking, president Edilberto Adan, vice president Oscar Barrientos and treasurer Ernesto Victa.
Fee-based income grew by 15 percent to P22.2 billion, with insurance premium contributing P8 billion.