Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    Asiaworld Vs CIR - CD

    Uploaded by

    Nolas Jay
    The petitioner filed for a refund of excess tax credits from 2001. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that once a taxpayer chooses to carry over excess tax credits to succeeding years, that option becomes irrevocable for the whole amount. Under the current tax code, excess credits can be applied to liabilities in succeeding years until fully used, unlike the previous tax code that limited carry overs to just the following year. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund as the credits must be used in future years until depleted.

    Copyright:

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

    Asiaworld Vs CIR - CD

    Uploaded by

    Nolas Jay
    94 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed for a refund of excess tax credits from 2001. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that once a taxpayer chooses to carry over excess tax credits to succeeding years, that option becomes irrevocable for the whole amount. Under the current tax code, excess credits can be applied to liabilities in succeeding years until fully used, unlike the previous tax code that limited carry overs to just the following year. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund as the credits must be used in future years until depleted.

    Original Title

    19. Asiaworld vs CIR - CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed for a refund of excess tax credits from 2001. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that once a taxpayer chooses to carry over excess tax credits to succeeding years, that option becomes irrevocable for the whole amount. Under the current tax code, excess credits can be applied to liabilities in succeeding years until fully used, unlike the previous tax code that limited carry overs to just the following year. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund as the credits must be used in future years until depleted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    94 views2 pages

    Asiaworld Vs CIR - CD

    Uploaded by

    Nolas Jay
    The petitioner filed for a refund of excess tax credits from 2001. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that once a taxpayer chooses to carry over excess tax credits to succeeding years, that option becomes irrevocable for the whole amount. Under the current tax code, excess credits can be applied to liabilities in succeeding years until fully used, unlike the previous tax code that limited carry overs to just the following year. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund as the credits must be used in future years until depleted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ASIAWORLD PROPERTIES PHILS CORP versus - CIR

    G.R. No. 171766


    July !" #1#
    SECOND DI$ISION
    %ACTS AS TO PETITIONER
    For the calendar year 2001, petitioner filed its Annual (ITR) on 5 April 2002. Petitioner
    declared a (!IT) due "ut #ith a refunda"le inco$e ta% pay$ent. Petitioner also indicated in
    its 2001 ITR its option to carry&o'er as ta% credit ne%t year()uarter. *n + April 2002,
    petitioner filed #ith the R,* re)uest for refund alle-edly representin- partial e%cess
    credita"le ta% #ithheld for the year 2001. Petitioner clai$ed that it is entitled to the refund of
    its unapplied credita"le #ithholdin- ta%es. Petitioner $aintains that the option to carry&o'er
    and apply the e%cess )uarterly inco$e ta% a-ainst the inco$e ta% due in the succeedin-
    ta%a"le years is irre'oca"le only for the ne%t ta%a"le period #hen the e%cess pay$ent #as
    carried o'er.
    %ACTS AS TO RESPONDENT
    *n 12 April 2002, "efore the .IR Re'enue ,istrict *ffice could act on petitioner/s clai$ for
    refund, petitioner filed a Petition for Re'ie# #ith the !ourt of Ta% Appeals #hich denied the
    petition for lac0 of $erit. Petitioner appealed to the !ourt of Appeals, #hich affir$ed the
    ,ecision of the !TA, rulin- that petitioner/s choice to carry&o'er its ta% credits for the ta%a"le
    year 1+++ to "e applied to its ta% lia"ilities for the succeedin- ta%a"le years is irre'oca"le
    and petitioner is not allo#ed to chan-e its choice in the follo#in- year. The carry&o'er of
    petitioner/s ta% credits is not li$ited only to the follo#in- year of 2000 "ut should "e carried&
    o'er to the succeedin- years until the #hole a$ount has "een fully applied.
    ISS&E RAISE '( PETITIONER
    Petitioner ar-ues that the carry&o'er of ta% credits is not li$ited only to the follo#in- year "ut
    should "e carried&o'er to the succeedin- years. 1ence for the unutili2ed ta% credits,
    petitioner ou-ht to "e refunded.
    ISS&E RAISE '( PETITIONER
    Respondent contends that the carry&o'er of petitioner/s ta% credits is not li$ited only to the
    follo#in- year "ut should "e carried&o'er to the succeedin- years until the #hole a$ount has
    "een fully applied.
    R&LING O% THE S&PRE)E CO&RT
    The !ourt ruled in fa'or of respondent
    3nder the old 4IR!, the option to carry&o'er the e%cess or o'erpaid inco$e ta% for a -i'en
    ta%a"le year is li$ited to the i$$ediately succeedin- ta%a"le year only.
    5
    In contrast, under
    6ection 57 of the 4IR! of 1++5, the application of the option to carry&o'er the e%cess
    credita"le ta% is not li$ited only to the i$$ediately follo#in- ta%a"le year "ut e%tends to the
    ne%t succeedin- ta%a"le years. The clear intent in the a$end$ent under 6ection 57 is to
    $a0e the option, once e%ercised, irre'oca"le for the 8succeedin- ta%a"le years.8
    PEERSONAL END NOTES
    *nce the ta%payer opts to carry&o'er the e%cess inco$e ta% a-ainst the ta%es due for the
    succeedin- ta%a"le years, such option is irre'oca"le for the #hole a$ount of the e%cess
    inco$e ta%, thus, prohi"itin- the ta%payer fro$ applyin- for a refund for that sa$e e%cess
    inco$e ta% in the ne%t succeedin- ta%a"le years.
    9
    The unutili2ed e%cess ta% credits #ill
    re$ain in the ta%payer/s account and #ill "e carried o'er and applied a-ainst the ta%payer/s
    inco$e ta% lia"ilities in the succeedin- ta%a"le years until fully utili2ed.
    +

    You might also like