Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 338 views

    Silkair Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Nelly Herrera
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Silkair's petition for review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals en banc was timely, as its previous counsel of record JGLaw was still considered its representative when the decision was served. 2) Petron Corporation, not Silkair, was the proper party to claim a tax refund, as Petron was the statutory taxpayer responsible for paying the excise tax. 3) The air transport agreement between the Philippines and Singapore did not clearly intend to exempt indirect taxes, so Silkair was not exempt from paying them. Exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Silkair Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Nelly Herrera
    338 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Silkair's petition for review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals en banc was timely, as its previous counsel of record JGLaw was still considered its representative when the decision was served. 2) Petron Corporation, not Silkair, was the proper party to claim a tax refund, as Petron was the statutory taxpayer responsible for paying the excise tax. 3) The air transport agreement between the Philippines and Singapore did not clearly intend to exempt indirect taxes, so Silkair was not exempt from paying them. Exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Silkair vs Cir

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Silkair's petition for review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals en banc was timely, as its previous counsel of record JGLaw was still considered its representative when the decision was served. 2) Petron Corporation, not Silkair, was the proper party to claim a tax refund, as Petron was the statutory taxpayer responsible for paying the excise tax. 3) The air transport agreement between the Philippines and Singapore did not clearly intend to exempt indirect taxes, so Silkair was not exempt from paying them. Exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    338 views2 pages

    Silkair Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Nelly Herrera
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Silkair's petition for review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals en banc was timely, as its previous counsel of record JGLaw was still considered its representative when the decision was served. 2) Petron Corporation, not Silkair, was the proper party to claim a tax refund, as Petron was the statutory taxpayer responsible for paying the excise tax. 3) The air transport agreement between the Philippines and Singapore did not clearly intend to exempt indirect taxes, so Silkair was not exempt from paying them. Exemptions must be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SILKAIR Pte. Ltd. vs.

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue


    G.R. No. 173594 | 2008-02-06

    CARPIO MORALES, J.:

    FACTS: PETITIONER: Silkair, represented by JGLaw, filed with the BIR a written application for the refund of P4,567,450.79 excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchases of jet fuel from Petron Corporation from January to June 2000. It also argues that it is exempt from indirect taxes because the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore grants exemption "from the same customs duties, inspection fees and other duties or taxes imposed in the territory of the first Contracting Party." It invokes Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr. which upheld the claim for tax credit or refund by the National Power Corporation (NPC) on the ground that the NPC is exempt even from the payment of indirect taxes. Seven days later, Silkair filed a petition for review as the CTA did not act on the application. RESPONDENT: In opposition of the petition, the CIR argued that Petitioner failed to prove that the sale of the petroleum products was directly made from a domestic oil company to the international carrier. The excise tax on petroleum products is the direct liability of the manufacturer/producer, and when added to the cost of the goods sold to the buyer, it is no longer a tax but part of the price which the buyer has to pay to obtain the article. On October 13, 2005, JGlaw withdrew its appearance and petitioner is now represented by the BenGzon Law Firm which entered its appearance on Sep 12, 2005. The Second Division of the CTA denied Silkair's petition on the ground that as the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products, any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser. Petitioner, now represented by the Bengzon Law Firm, received a copy of the Sep 22, 2005 decision 37 days after it was promulgated then filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review. A second motion for extension was filed and granted by the CTA en banc. Petitioner then filed their petition for review within the period granted by the CTA en banc but by resolution of the former, the petition was dismiss for having been filed out of time. NOTE: THE DATES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE FIRS ISSUE!!!

    ISSUE: 1. Was the petition for review filed with the honorable Court of Tax Appeals en banc was timely filed? 2. Assuming the honorable Supreme Court would hold that the filing of the petition for review with the honorable court of tax appeals en banc was timely, whether or not the petitioner is the proper party to claim for refund or tax credit. 3. Is Silkair exempt from indirect taxes because the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore grants exemption? RULING: 1. JGLaw filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance on October 13, 2005[35] after the Bengzon Law Firm had entered its appearance. While Silkair claims it dismissed JGLaw as its counsel as early as August 24, 2005, the same was communicated to the CTA only on October 13, 2005.[36] Thus, JGLaw was still Silkair's counsel of record as of October 3, 2005 when a copy of the September 22, 2005 resolution of the CTA Second Division was served on it. The service upon JGLaw on October 3, 2005 of the September 22, 2005 resolution of CTA Second Division was, therefore, for all legal intents and purposes, service to Silkair, and the CTA correctly reckoned the period of appeal from such date. 2. The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another.[37] Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC provides that "[u]nless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production." Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore. Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser. 3. The exemption granted under Section 135 (b) of the NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore cannot, without a clear showing of legislative intent, be construed as including indirect taxes. Statutes granting tax exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, [43] and if an exemption is found to exist, it must not be enlarged by construction. PERSONAL END NOTES: It is critical to know that when substituting the services of a legal counsel for another, it is important to enter the new counsels appearance during the pendency of the case. This is so the court is aware that the new counsel is the counsel of record. The proper party to seek a refund of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to another since taxes are non-transferable.

    You might also like