JURISTS™ BAR OPS

FOR THE 2021 BAR EXAM

Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Question: What are the Constitutional provisions directly affecting taxation?

Suggested Answer: The Constitutional provisions directly affecting taxation are:
1. Prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax;
2. Progressive system of taxation;
3. Uniformity and equality of taxation;
4. Delegated authority of the President to impose tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage, wharfage dues;
5. Origin of revenue and tariff bills and appropriations;
6. Prohibition on use of tax levied for special purpose;
7. Votes required to grant tax exemptions;
8. Tax exemption of religious, charitable, and educational entities;
9. President’s veto power’
10. Non-impairment of Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction;
11. Non-appropriation or use of public money for religious purposes;
12. Non-taxability of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions; and
13. LGU’s power to create its own sources of revenue.

Question: What are the Constitutional provisions indirectly affecting taxation?

Suggested Answer: The Constitutional provisions indirectly affecting taxation are:
1. Due process;
2. Equal protection;
3. Non-impairment of obligations and contracts;
4. Religious freedom;
5. Freedom of speech and expression;
6. Presidential power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures after conviction by final judgment; and
7. No taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

Question: What is the required vote of Congress for granting of tax exemptions?
Suggested Answer: No law granting tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of
a majority of all the members of Congress.

Note: The phrase “majority of all members of Congress” means at least ½ plus one of all the
members voting separately.

Question: AAA University, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, filed an application for
a building permit to construct its medical center building in its campus. Building Permit Fee and
a Locational Clearance Fee were assessed by the local government unit. AAA University argues
that it is exempt from payment of the building permit fee and locational clearance fee. Being
non- stock, non-profit educational institution, it is exempt from all taxes. Is AAA University
correct?

Suggested Answer: No, AAA University is not correct.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that building permit fees and locational
clearance fees are in the nature of regulatory fees and not taxes. The fact that the revenue is
incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax.
Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 1 of 23
Hence, the local government can validly impose building permit fees and locational clearance
fees upon Angel U. (Angeles University Foundation v. City of Angeles, G.R. No. 189999, June
27, 2012)

INCOME TAX

Question: What is the Hornbook Doctrine?

Suggested Answer: Hornbook Doctrine pertains to interpretation of laws that “a statute will not
be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously.”
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals G. R. No. 115349, April 18, 1997)

Question: What is the “all-events test”?

Suggested Answer: Under the “all-events test” for an income or expense to accrue, the
following must be present:

i. The fixing of the right to income or liability to pay; and

ii. The availability of a reasonable and accurate determination of such income or
liability. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Isabela Cultural Corp. G. R. No.
172231, February 12, 2007)

Question: Define income.

Suggested Answer: Income, in the broad sense, means all wealth that flows into the taxpayer
other than as a mere return of capital. It includes all forms of income specifically described as
gains and profits, including gains derived from the sale or other disposition of capital assets.
(Section 36, Revenue Regulations No. 2-40)

Question: Ms. Maya Man is a Filipino citizen who migrated in the US where she is now a
permanent resident. She left the following properties in the Philippines:
1. An apartment building in the Philippines, on which she earns rental income;
2. A house and lot, which she recently sold; and
3. An interest-earning peso bank deposit.

In addition to the above, she earns income from her employment in US. Determine the income
tax liability of Ms. Maya Man in the Philippines, if any.

Suggested Answer: Ms. Maya Man is considered as a non-resident citizen.

The Tax Code provides that a non-resident citizen shall be subject to income tax only on his
income derived from sources within the Philippines.

Hence, Ms. Maya Man’s income tax liability in the Philippines shall be as follows:
a. On her rental income from the Philippines – this will be subject to the normal income tax;
b. On her sale of the house and lot – this will be subject to capital gains tax;
c. On her interest income from his peso bank deposit – this will be subject to final tax; and
d. On her income from employment in the US – not subject to Philippine income tax.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 2 of 23
Additional Note:
To determine taxability (applicable to both individual and corporate taxpayers:

Did you receive

something?

Yes No
Is this income?
end
Is this subject to tax?
(to be determined by status of the income receipient)

What kind of tax?

(FT? CGT? Reguar IT?)

What rate?

Question: Ms. BBB, an in-house counsel of CCC Corp., earned annual compensation in 2018 of
₱1,500,000 inclusive of 13th-month pay and other benefits. Aside from employment income, she
owns a realty business with annual gross receipts of ₱1,500,500.

(a) If Ms. BBB signifies her intention to avail of the 8% income tax rate under the TRAIN Law
(RA 10963), is she qualified thereto?
(b) Can she claim the P250,000 deduction in computing his income tax due?

Suggested Answers:
(a)
Yes, Ms. BBB is qualified to avail of the 8% income tax rate under the TRAIN Law.

Under the TRAIN law, if the total gross sales/receipts from business or practice of profession of
a mixed income earner do not exceed the threshold amount of P3,000,000.00 in a year she/he
has the option to avail of the 8% income tax rate based on gross sales and other non-operating
income in lieu of the graduated rates.

Here, the annual gross receipts of Ms. BBB from her business is P1,500,500, thus below the
3,000,000 threshold.

Hence, she may avail of the 8% income tax rate under the TRAIN Law

(b)

No, Ms. BBB cannot claim the P250,000 deduction in computing her income tax due.

Under the TRAIN Law, the P250,000 deduction is not applicable for mixed income earner under
the 8% income tax rate option. Further, the P250,000 is not a deduction but merely a threshold
in the computation of taxable income of an individual.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 3 of 23
Additional note:

Summary of Rules in Income Taxation:

KINDS OF INCOME AND TAXES

CAPITAL ALL
CAPITAL
GAIN ON INCOME
SOURCE OF GAIN ON
KINDS OF PASSIVE SALE OF OTHER
INCOME SALE OF
TAX INCOME SHARES THAN
REAL
OF (A), (B),
PROPERTY
STOCK (C)
W/IN W/OUT (A) (B) (C) (D)
CORPORATIONS ( including GCP)
DC ✔ ✔ FWT FWT FWT NIT
RFC ✔ ✖ FWT FWT N/A NIT
NRFC ✔ ✖ GIT/FT FWT N/A GIT/FT
INDIVIDUALS (including estates and trusts)
NIT or
RC ✔ ✔ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NIT or
NRC ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NIT or
RA ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NRAETB ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT NIT
GIT/FT GIT/FT
NRANETB ✔ ✖ FWT FWT
(25%) (25%)

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 4 of 23
Question: Mr. DDD is a resident Filipino citizen. He purchased a parcel of land in Makati City
in 1980 at a consideration of P1 Million. In 2018, the land, which remained undeveloped and
idle had a fair market value of P200 Million. Ms. EEE, another Filipino citizen, is very much
interested in the property and she offered to buy the same for P200 Million. The Assessor of
Makati City re-assessed in 2018 the property at P100 Million. Is Mr. DDD liable for income tax
in 2018 based on the offer to buy by Ms. EEE?

Suggested Answer: No, Mr. DDD is not liable for income tax in 2018 based on the offer to buy
by EEE.

The Supreme Court has held tax liability for income tax attaches only if there is a gain realized
resulting from a closed and complete transaction.

Here, the offer of Ms. EEE to buy the parcel of land is not yet accepted by Mr. DDD. Thus,
there is no closed and completed transaction between the two.

Hence, Mr. DDD is not liable for income tax (Madrigal v. Rafferty, G.R. No. L-12287, August 7,
1918).

Question: On April 16, 2017, the FFF Corporation filed its annual corporate income tax return
for 2016 showing an overpayment/excess of income tax of P1 Million, which is to be carried
over to the succeeding year(s).

On May 15, 2017, FFF Corporation sought advice from you and said that it contemplates to file
an amended return for 2016, which shows that instead of carryover of the excess income tax
payment, the same shall be considered as a claim for tax refund and the small box shown
as “refund” in the return will be filled up. Within the year, the corporation will file the formal
request for refund for the excess payment.

(A) Will you recommend to the corporation such a course of action and justify that the
amended return is the latest official act of the corporation as to how it may treat such
overpayment of/excess tax or should you consider the option granted to taxpayers
as irrevocable, once previously exercised by it? Explain your answer.

(B) Should the petition for review filed with the CTA on the basis of the amended tax
return be denied by the BIR and the CTA, could the corporation still carry over such
excess payment of income tax in the succeeding years, considering that there is no
prescriptive period provided for in the income tax law with respect to carry over of
excess income tax payments? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answers:
(A)

No, I will not recommend such action to FFF Corporation.

The Tax Code provides that once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income
tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been
made such option shall be considered irrevocable for the taxable year period and no
application for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefore. (Section
76, NIRC)

Here FFF Corporation already indicated in their tax return that the overpayment of/excess tax
shall be carried over to the succeeding periods.

Hence, I should consider the option chosen by FFF Corporation as irrevocable, once previously
exercised by it.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 5 of 23
 (B)

Yes, the corporation could still carry over such excess payment of income tax in the
succeeding years.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that carry-over of excess income tax
payments is no longer limited to the succeeding taxable year. Unutilized excess income tax
payments may now be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized (Belle
Corp. v. CIR, G.R. No. 181298, January 10, 2011).

Question: Foster Corporation (FC) is a Singapore-based foreign corporation engaged in

construction and installation projects. In 2016, Global Oil Petroleum Products (GOPP), awarded
an anti-pollution project to FC, whereby FC shall design, supply machinery and equipment,
provided that the installation part of the project may be sub-contracted to a local construction
company. Pursuant to the contract which was concluded in Singapore, the design and supply
contracts were done in Singapore by FC, while the installation works were sub-contracted by FC
with Philippine Construction Corporation (PCC), a domestic corporation. The project with a total
cost of P100 Million was completed in 2017 at the following cost components:

Design - P20 Million;

Machinery and Equipment - P50 Million; and
Installation - P30 Million.

The project was 40% complete in 2016 and 100% complete in 2017, based on the certificates
issued by the architects and engineers working on the project. GOPP paid FC as follows:

P60 Million in 2016; and

P40 Million in 2017

And FC paid PCC in foreign currency through a Philippine bank as follows:

P10 Million in 2016; and
P20 Million in 2017.

Is FC liable to Philippine income tax, and if so, how much revenue shall be reported by it in
2016 and in 2017? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer: No, FC is not liable to pay Philippine income tax.

Under the Tax Code, a non-resident foreign corporation shall be subject to Philippine income
tax on its income derived within the Philippines.

Here, the revenues from the design and supply contracts having been all done in Singapore
are income from without the Philippines

Hence, FC is not liable to pay Philippine income tax. (Section 42, NIRC; CIR v. Marubeni
Corporation G.R. No. 137377, December 18, 2001).

Question: Mr. HHH is the President and CEO of Malakas Kumita Toits Corp. (Corp.) The latter
owns a yacht and an airplane, the use of which are exclusively reserved to Mr. HHH. He uses
the airplane in his monthly visits in various branches of the company across Southeast Asia,
while he uses the yacht for the monthly 2-day R&R of his family. What is/are the tax
consequence/s of the above arrangements, if any?

Suggested Answer: There shall be a fringe benefit tax (FBT) due on the use of yacht, while
there shall be no tax consequence for the use of the airplane.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 6 of 23
Tax Laws provide that the use of a yacht by the employee, whether owned and maintained or
leased by the employer shall be treated as taxable fringe benefit (Sec. 2.33 (B)(3)(h), RR 03-
98). It is further provided that the use of an aircraft, including helicopters whether owned and
maintained or leased by the employer shall be treated as for business use, thus not subject to
FBT (Sec. 2.33 (B)(3)(g), RR 03-98).

Question: Will the non-use of ordinary asset intended for use in business convert such asset
into capital asset?

Suggested Answer: General rule: No. A property purchased for future use in the business of
the taxpayer, even though this purpose is later thwarted by circumstances beyond the
taxpayer’s control, does not lose its character as an ordinary asset. Nor does the discontinuance
of the active use of the property change its character as an ordinary asset.
Exception: Properties classified as ordinary assets for being used in business by a taxpayer
engaged in real estate business are automatically converted into capital assets upon showing of
proof that the same has not been in business for more than two years prior to the
consummation of the taxable transactions (Sec. 3(e), RR 07-03).

Question: May a property classified as a capital asset thereafter be treated as an ordinary asset?

Suggested Answer: Yes. Property initially classified as a capital asset may thereafter be
treated as an ordinary asset if a combination of the factors indubitably tends to show that the
activity was in furtherance of or in the course of the taxpayer’s business (Calasanz v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue G. R. No. L-26284, October 8, 1986).

Question: Who is a non-resident citizen?

Suggested Answer: The term 'nonresident citizen' means;

(1) A citizen of the Philippines who establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner the fact
of his physical presence abroad with a definite intention to reside therein.

(2) A citizen of the Philippines who leaves the Philippines during the taxable year to reside
abroad, either as an immigrant or for employment on a permanent basis.

(3) A citizen of the Philippines who works and derives income from abroad and whose
employment thereat requires him to be physically present abroad most of the time during the
taxable year.

(4) A citizen who has been previously considered as nonresident citizen and who arrives in the
Philippines at any time during the taxable year to reside permanently in the Philippines shall
likewise be treated as a nonresident citizen for the taxable year in which he arrives in the
Philippines with respect to his income derived from sources abroad until the date of his arrival in
the Philippines.

(5) The taxpayer shall submit proof to the Commissioner to show his intention of leaving the
Philippines to reside permanently abroad or to return to and reside in the Philippines as the case
may be for purpose of Section 22 of the Tax Code.

Questions:
(a) What is the Tax Sparing Rule?
(b) What are disguised dividends in income taxation?
(c) What is an ordinary expense?
(d) What is a necessary expense?

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 7 of 23
Suggested Answer:
(a)
Tax Sparing Rule provides that a lower 15% final withholding tax rate will be imposed on
dividends received by a non-resident foreign corporation (NRFC) if the country in which the
NRFC is domiciled allows a tax credit against the tax due from the NRFC representing taxes
deemed to have been paid in the Philippines equivalent to 15% (Section 28(B)(5)(b) of the Tax
Code).

(b)
Disguised dividends are those income payments made by a domestic corporation which is a
subsidiary of a non-resident foreign corporation, to the latter seemingly for services rendered by
the latter to the former, but which payments are disproportionately larger than actual value of
the services rendered. In which case, the amount which is over and above the true value of the
actual services rendered shall be treated as dividends, and shall be subject to the
corresponding 30% tax on Philippine-sourced gross income, or the preferential rate as may be
provided under the applicable Tax Treaty.

(c)
An ordinary expense connotes payment which is normal in relation to the business of the
taxpayer and the surrounding circumstances (General Electric Inc. v. Collector of Internal
Revenue CTA Case No. 1117, July 14, 1963).

(d)
Necessary expense is where the expenditure is appropriate or helpful in the development of the
taxpayer’s business or that the same is proper for the purpose of realizing a profit or minimizing
a loss (General Electric Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 1117, July 14,
1963).

TRANSFER TAXES

Question: Mr. III, a resident citizen, is working for a large real estate development company in
the country and in 2017, he was promoted to Vice-President of the company. With more
responsibilities comes higher pay. In 2018, he decided to buy a new car worth P2 Million and he
traded in his old car with a market value of P800,000.00, and paid the difference of P1.2 Million
to the car company. The old car, which was bought three (3) years ago by the father of Mr. III at
a price of P700,000.00, was donated by him and registered in the name of his son. The
corresponding donor‟s tax thereon was duly paid by the father.
(a) How much is the cost basis of the old car to Mr. III? Explain your answer.

(b) What is the nature of the old car – capital asset or ordinary asset? Explain your
answer.

Suggested Answer:
(a)
The cost basis of the old car to Mr. III is P700,000.

The Tax Code provides that the cost basis of the property in the hands of the donee is the
carry-over basis (Section 40 (B)(3), NIRC).

(b)
The old car is a capital asset. It is property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with
his trade or business), but is not stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which
would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable
year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of
his trade or business, or property used in the trade or business, of a character which is subject
to the allowance for depreciation; or real property used in trade or business of the taxpayer
Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 8 of 23
(Section 39, NIRC).

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 9 of 23
Question: As part of its worldwide corporate restructuring plan, Parent, Inc. sold its shares of
stock in Ampon Corp. to its subsidiary Child Inc., after a series of negotiations, for P4,000,000
The current fair market value of the shares amount to P5,000,000. When they are already
applying for a Certificate Authorizing Registration with the BIR to effect the change in
ownership, the BIR assessed Parent Inc. of deficiency donor’s tax on the difference between the
current fair market value and the selling price, for being a transfer for less than an adequate and
full consideration. Decide.

Suggested Answer: I will decide against the position of the BIR.

The TRAIN Law provides that a sale, exchange, or other transfer of property made in the
ordinary course of business (a transaction which is a bona fide, at arm’s length, and free from
any donative intent), will be considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in
money or money’s worth.

Here, the transfer was made pursuant to a worldwide corporate restructuring plan, thus made in
the ordinary course of business. Further, the selling price was determined after a series of
negotiations, thus it is a bona fide, at arm’s length and free from donative intent.

Hence, the transaction is not subject to donor’s tax, and therefore, I will decide against the
position of the BIR.

Question: JJJ died leaving as his only heirs, his surviving spouse KKK, and three children,
XXX, YYY and ZZZ. Since XXX is already rich, she does not want to participate in the
distribution of the estate, she renounced her hereditary share in the estate.

(a) Is the renunciation subject to donor's tax?

(b) Supposing that XXX renounced her hereditary share in JJJ’s estate to ZZZ, would the
renunciation be subject to donor's tax?

Suggested Answer:
(a)
No, the renunciation is not subject to donor’s tax.

The Laws on Donation provide that general renunciation by an heir, including the surviving
spouse, of her share in the hereditary estate left by the decedent is not subject to donor's tax.

Here, XXX renounced her share without specifying to whose favor she is renouncing. Thus, this
is a general renunciation by an heir which is not subject to donor’s tax.

(b)
Yes, the renunciation in favor of ZZZ would be subject to donor's tax.

The Laws on Donation provide that when the renunciation was specifically and categorically
done in favor of an identified heir to the exclusion or disadvantage of the other co-heirs in the
hereditary estate, the renunciation will be subject to donor’s tax.

Here, Greta renounced her hereditary share in JJJ’s estate to ZZZ. Thus, this is a specific
renunciation, which is subject to donor’s tax.

Questions:
(a) What transfers are subject to donor’s tax?
(b) What are the gifts exempt from donor’s tax?

Suggested Answers:

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 10 of
 (a)
The donor’s tax is imposed on inter vivos gratuitous transfers, or those made between living
persons, to take effect during the lifetime of the donor.

(b)
The following gifts are exempt from donor’s tax:
1. Gifts made to or for the use of the National Government or any entity created by any of
its agencies which is not conducted for profit;
2. Gifts in favor of an educational institution, charitable, religious, cultural, social welfare
corporation, institution accredited non-government organization, trust, philanthropic
organization, or research institution or organization;
3. Athlete’s prizes and awards;
4. Encumbrance on the property donated, if assumed by the done;
5. Donations to entities exempted under Special Laws; and
6. Those specifically provided by the donor as diminution of the property donated.

VALUE-ADDED TAX

Question: Define value-added tax.

Suggested Answer: Value-added tax is a tax on the consumption levied on the sale, barter,
exchange, or lease of goods or properties and services in the Philippines and on importation of
goods into the Philippines.

Question: Who are liable for VAT?

Suggested Answer: Any person who, in the course of his trade or business, sells, barters,
exchanges, leases goods or properties, renders services and any person who imports goods
shall be liable for VAT.

Question: What is meant by the phrase “in the course of trade or business”?
Suggested Answer: In the course of trade or business means the regular conduct or pursuit of
a commercial or an economic activity, including transactions incidental thereto, by any person,
regardless of whether or not the person engaged therein is a non-stock, non-profit private
organization, or government entity.

Questions: Company X renders consultancy services to its affiliates. It is being paid on a

reimbursement-of-cost basis. In 2018, it rendered consultancy service to its affiliates, the cost
which amounts to P1,000,000. The payment of its affiliates to Company X of the P1,000,000
was not reported by Company X in its VAT returns, contending that it is merely a reimbursement
of the cost of rendering the consultancy services, and that no profits were derived in the
transactions.

(a) Is Company X correct?

(b) What is meant by gross receipts?

Suggested Answers:
(a)
No, Company X is not correct.

Tax Laws provide that the 12% VAT is based on the gross receipts derived from the sale of
services, and that the absence of a profit or margin does not make the performance of the
taxable services for fee exempt from VAT.

Here, Company X rendered consultancy services to its affiliates and received fess in exchange
for theses services. Thus, Company X’s gross receipts from consultancy is subject to VAT.

Hence Company X is not correct.

(b)

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 11 of
Gross receipts refers to the total amount of money or its equivalent representing the contract
price, compensation, service fee, rental or royalty, including the amount charged for materials
supplied with the services and deposits applied as payments for services rendered and advance
payments actually or constructively received during the taxable period for the service performed
or to be performed for another person, excluding VAT.

Question: Company A is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and wholesale

export of wearing apparel. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT
taxpayer and as an Ecozone Export Enterprise with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority
(PEZA). It filed for applications for tax refund of unutilized input VAT on its zero-rated sales with
the BIR. The BIR however, denied the application on the ground that it failed to indicate the
word “zero-rated” on its invoices. Is the BIR correct?

Suggested Answer: Yes, the BIR is correct.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that a VAT-registered taxpayer’s
compliance with the invoicing requirements is mandatory, and that failure to print the word zero-
rated in the invoices/receipts is fatal to a claim for tax refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales.

Here, Company A failed to indicate the word “zero-rated” on its invoices.

Hence, the BIR is correct in denying the claim for tax refund. (J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. CIR
G.R. No. 177127, October 11, 2010)

TAX REMEDIES UNDER THE NIRC

Question: Differentiate deficiency interest and delinquency interest.

Suggested Answer: The difference between deficiency interest and delinquency interest are as
follows:

As to nature:
Deficiency interest is imposed as an amount is still due and collectible from a taxpayer upon
audit or investigation, while delinquency interest is imposed for the failure to pay the tax due on
the date fixed by law or indicated in the assessment notice or letter of demand.

As to the tax base:

In deficiency interest it is the basic tax, while in delinquency interest basic tax plus deficiency
interest & surcharge.

As to reckoning point:
In deficiency interest from date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof, or upon
issuance of a notice and demand by the CIR, whichever comes earlier, while delinquency
interest from the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the CIR until the amount is
fully paid.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 12 of
Additional Note:

Questions: On September 30, 2004 Company B filed a claim of refund of input vat in relation to
its zero-rated sales from July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002. On the same day, Company B
filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals for the same action.

The BIR disputed the claim and alleged that the same was filed beyond the two-year period
given that 2004 was a leap year and thus the claim should have been filed on September 29,
2004.

The BIR also contends that a prior filing of an administrative claim is a “condition precedent”
before a judicial claim can be filed. Company B contends that the non-observance of the 120-
day period given to the BIR to act on the claim for tax refund) is not fatal because what is
important is that both claims are filed within the two-year prescriptive period.

(1) Did Company B file the claim for refund within the prescriptive period?
(2) Was the filing of the judicial claim premature?

Suggested Answers:
(1)
Yes, Company B filed the claim for refund within the prescriptive period.

The Supreme Court has held that the two-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from the
close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. It further held that a year is composed
of 12 calendar months.

Here, Company B filed claim for tax refund for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002.
Thus it has until September 30, 2004 to file for a refund.

Hence, Company B’s administrative claim was timely filed.

(2)
Yes, filing of the judicial claim was premature.

The Supreme Court has held that the taxpayer must wait until the end of the 120-day period
before it may appeal the BIR’s inaction to the CTA. The appeal must be made within 30 days
from the end of the 120-day period. The 120+30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Here, Company B filed the Petition for Review with the CTA on the same day that it filed for the
claim for refund with the BIR.

Hence, the 120+30-day period not having been observed, the judicial claim was premature. (CIR
v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. G.R. No. 184823 06Oct2010;)

*Note: Under the TRAIN Law it is 90 + 30

Questions: A final assessment notice was issued by the BIR to Company C on June 13, 2011,
and received by the taxpayer on June 15, 2011. The taxpayer protested the assessment on July
31, 2011. The protest was initially given due course, but was eventually denied by the
Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 13 of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a decision dated June 15, 2016. Company C then filed a
petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), but the CTA dismissed the same on
July 30, 2016.
(a) Is the CTA correct in dismissing the petition for review? Explain your answer.
(b) Assume that the CTA's decision dismissing the petition for review has become final. May
the Commissioner legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax? Explain.
Suggested Answers:
(a)
Yes, the CTA is correct in dismissing the petition for review.

The Tax Code provides that a taxpayer should file a protest within 30 days from receipt
of the final assessment notice. It is further provided that failure to file a protest makes the
assessment final and executory.

Here, Company C received the final assessment notice on June 15, 2011. Thus, it has
until July 15, 2011 to file a protest. Company C however, filed a protest on July 31, 2011, which
is already beyond the period allowed by law. Therefore, the assessment became final.

Hence the CTA was correct in dismissing the petition for review as the protest was filed
out of time.

(b)
No, the Commissioner may not legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax.

The Tax Code provides that the BIR may collect the delinquent tax within five (5) years
following the finality of the assessment of the tax.

Here, the assessment of the delinquency tax of Company C became final on July 16,
2011. Therefore, the BIR had until July 16, 2016 to collect the delinquency tax.

Hence, the Commissioner may not legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax
because the period to collect already prescribed.

Question: On March 10, 2017, Company D received a preliminary assessment notice (PAN)
dated January 1, 2017 issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) for deficiency
taxes for taxable year 2015. It failed to protest the PAN. The CIR thereupon issued a final
assessment notice (FAN) with letter of demand on April 30, 2017. The FAN was received by the
company on May 10, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the company filed it protest against the FAN.

The CIR denied the protest on the ground that the assessment had already become final and
executory, the company having failed to protest the PAN.

Is the CIR correct? Explain.

Suggested Answer: No, the CIR is not correct.

The Law on Tax Remedies provide that a protest to the FAN within 30 days from receipt thereof
prevents the assessment from becoming final. It is also stated that it is the FAN that must be
protested, not the PAN.

Here, Company D received the FAN on May 10, 2017, and protested the same on May 25.
2017, which is within the 30-day period required by law to protest a FAN.

Hence the CIR is correct in denying the protest.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 14 of
Question: On March 27, 2016, the BIR issued a notice of assessment against Company E, a
domestic corporation, informing the latter of its alleged deficiency corporate income tax for the
year 2013. On April 20, 2016, Company E filed a letter protest before the BIR contesting said
assessment and demanding that the same be cancelled or set aside.

However, on May 19, 2017, the BIR informed Company E that the latter’s letter protest was
denied on the ground that the assessment had already become final, executory and
demandable.

The BIR reasoned that its failure to decide the case within 180 days from filing of the letter
protest should have prompted Company E to seek recourse before the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) by filing a petition for review within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period as
mandated by Section 228 of the Tax Code.

According to the BIR, Company E’s failure to file a petition for review before the CTA rendered
the assessment final, executory and demandable. Is the contention of the BIR correct? Explain.

Suggested Answer: No, the contention of BIR is not correct.

The Supreme Court has held that the right of a taxpayer to consider the inaction of the
Commissioner on the protest within 180 days as an appealable decision is only optional. If,
however, the taxpayer opted to wait until the BIR decides, the failure to file a petition for review
before the CTA will not make the assessment final, executory and demandable.
Here, Company E opted to wait for the decision of the BIR, thus the 30-day period to appeal will
only start upon receipt of the decision of the BIR.

Hence, the contention of the BIR that Company E’s failure to file a petition for review before the
CTA rendered the assessment final, executory and demandable is not correct. (Section 228,
NIRC; Lascona Land Co., Inc. vs CIR G.R. No. 171251 March 5, 2012)

Question: The BIR issued in 2017 a final assessment notice and demand letter against F
Corporation covering deficiency income tax for the year 2015 in the amount of P10 million. X
Corporation earlier requested the advice of Atty. Pal Pak on whether or not it should file a
request for reconsideration or request for reinvestigation. Atty. Pal Pak said it does not matter
whether the protest filed against the assessment is a request for reconsideration or a request for
reinvestigation, because it has the same consequences or implications.

Do you agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak? Explain.

Suggested Answer: No, I do not agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak.

The difference between a request for reconsideration and a request for reinvestigation are as
follows:

Request for Reconsideration - plea for evaluation of assessment on the basis of existing records
without need of presentation of additional evidence. It does not suspend the prescriptive period
to collect the deficiency tax.

Request for reinvestigation – plea for evaluation of assessment based on newly discovered
evidence which are to be introduced for examination for the first time. It suspends the
prescriptive period to collect the deficiency tax.

Questions: On April 16, 2017, the G Corporation filed its annual corporate income tax return
for 2016 showing an overpayment/excess of income tax of P1 Million, which is to be carried
over to the succeeding year(s).
On May 15, 2017, G Corporation sought advice from you and said that it contemplates to file
an amended return for 2016, which shows that instead of carryover of the excess income tax

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 15 of
payment, the same shall be considered as a claim for tax refund and the small box shown
as “refund” in the return will be filled up. Within the year, the corporation will file the formal
request for refund for the excess payment.

(a) Will you recommend to the corporation such a course of action and justify that the
amended return is the latest official act of the corporation as to how it may treat such
overpayment of/excess tax or should you consider the option granted to taxpayers as
irrevocable, once previously exercised by it? Explain your answer.

(b) Should the petition for review filed with the CTA on the basis of the amended tax
return be denied by the BIR and the CTA, could the corporation still carry over such
excess payment of income tax in the succeeding years, considering that there is no
prescriptive period provided for in the income tax law with respect to carry over of excess
income tax payments? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answers:
(a)
No, I will not recommend such action to G Corporation.

The Tax Code provides that once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income
tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been
made such option shall be considered irrevocable for the taxable year period and no
application for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefore. (Section
76, NIRC)

Here G Corporation already indicated in their tax return that the overpayment of/excess tax shall
be carried over to the succeeding periods.

Hence I should consider the option chosen by G Corporation as irrevocable, once previously
exercised by it.

(b)
Yes, the corporation could still carry over such excess payment of income tax in the succeeding
years.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that carry-over of excess income tax
payments is no longer limited to the succeeding taxable year. Unutilized excess income tax
payments may now be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized. (Belle
Corp. v. CIR, G.R. No. 181298, January 10, 2011).

Question: TTT Corp. executed three waivers of Defense of Prescription for the fiscal year 2003
for assessment of its VAT, EWT, and Income Tax. All the three Waivers were received by the
BIR. On June 28, 2007, TTT Corp. received the FLD/FAN. The BIR partially considered the
Protest of TTT when it reduced the assessment in the FDDA. TTT Corp. appealed the FDDA
with the CTA. Both the CTA 2ndDivision and CTA En Banc cancelled the assessments by reason
of Prescription and the 3 waivers executed between TTT Corp. and the BIR were defective.
Would the defective waivers executed by TTT Corp. and BIR estop the former from raising it as
a defense on its appeal?
Suggested Answer: No, the defective waivers executed by TTT Corp. and BIR would not estop
the former from raising
it as a defense on its appeal.
In a case with similar facts, Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be
applied as an exception to the statute of limitations on tax assessment where the BIR fails to
strictly follow the detailed procedure on the execution of the waiver under the regulations. The
waivers being invalid, did not interrupt the maximum three-year period for assessing taxes thus

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 16 of
BIR’s right to assess had already prescribed. (CIR vs. Systems Technology, Inc. GR No.
220835, July 26, 2017)

Question: The BIR issued Preliminary 15-day letter to UUU, Inc. stating the deficiency taxes
due from UUU, Inc. for 1999. Five months later, UUU, Inc. received a Final Assessment
Notice/Final Letter of Demand (FAN/FLD) from the BIR for the same deficiency taxes. After
being served with a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy to enforce the collection of taxes, UUU, Inc.
appealed to the BIR but was denied. Claiming that it did not receive a Preliminary Assessment
Notice (PAN) and was, therefore, not accorded due process, UUU, Inc. appealed to CTA. The
CTA ruled in favor of UUU, Inc. and invalidated the assessments issued by the BIR. BIR argued
that a PAN was mailed, although UUU, Inc. denied receiving it. The BIR also argued that even
assuming that no PAN was issued, UUU, Inc. nevertheless accorded due process since it was
issued a FAN/FLD. Was the FAN/FLD valid even if UUU, Inc. did not receive the PAN?

Suggested Answer: No, the FAN/FLD was not valid if UUU, Inc. did not receive the PAN.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that PAN is part of the due process
requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, the absence of which renders
nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The PAN is a substantive and not merely
a formal requirement. (CIR vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc. G.R. No. 185371, December 8, 2010)

Questions: The BIR sent by registered mail a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) to ABC Corp. for
deficiency tax liabilities for the taxable year 2011. The FAN was sent to ABC Corp.’s former Las
Piñas City address. The BIR also sent a “Notice Before Issuance of Warrant of Distraint and
Levy” to the residence of one of ABC Corp.’s directors in March 2016. BCIPI protested the FAN
on the ground of lack of due process. During trial, it was found out that BIR was actually aware
of ABC Corp.’s new address.
(a) Was there a valid issuance of the FAN by the BIR?
(b) Can the BIR issue a Warrant of Distraint and Levy without first issuing a valid FAN?

Suggested Answers:
(a)
No, there was no valid issuance of the FAN by the BIR.
In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that FAN sent by the BIR to a wrong
address of the taxpayer is not deemed received, cannot attain finality, and therefore not valid.
(b)
No, the BIR cannot issue a Warrant of Distraint and Levy (WDL) without first issuing a valid FAN.

The Supreme Court has held that to proceed with collection without first establishing a valid
assessment violates the cardinal principle in administrative investigations, which is that the
taxpayer should be able to present its case and adduce supporting evidence.
Here, when the BIR issued the WDL, it already collecting from ABC Corp. However, as there
was no valid FAN, the BIR cannot procced with collection.
Hence, the BIR cannot issue the WDL. (CIR vs. v Basf Coating + Inks Phils., Inc. G.R. No.
198677, 26Nov2014)
Additional Note:
Please see below flowchart of the assessment process.

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 17 of
 Through the issuance of Notice for Informal Conference,
the taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the
discrepancy or discrepancies in his payments of internal
revenue taxes.

Notice of The “Informal Conference” shall last for not more than 30
Informal days from taxpayer’s receipt of the notice. If the taxpayer
Conference (NIC) is still liable to deficiency taxes and the taxpayer is not
amenable to the tax assessment after the “Informal
Conference” stage, the BIR shall endorse the case for
issuance of deficiency tax assessment within 7 days from
conclusion of Informal Conference.

It is a communication issued by the Regional Assessment

Division or by the Commissioner or his duly
authorized representative informing the taxpayer who has
Preliminary been audited of the findings of the Revenue Officer
Assessment following the review and evaluation of these findings.
Notice
(PAN) It shall be in writing and shall show in detail the facts and
the law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which
the proposed assessment is based; otherwise, the
assessment is void. (Sec. 228, NIRC; RR No.18-13)

It is a declaration or deficiency taxes issued to a taxpayer

who fails to respond to a PAN within the
prescribed period, or whose reply is found to be without
Final merit.
Assessment
Notice Like the PAN, shall be in writing and shall show in detail
(FAN) the facts and the law, rules and regulations or
jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is
based; otherwise, the assessment is void. (RMC No. 18-
13)

It indicates the decision of the Commissioner of

Final Decision on
Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative
Disputed
and it shall state the facts and the law, rules and
Assessment
regulations or jurisprudence on which the decision is
(FDDA)
based; otherwise, it is void. (RMC No. 18-13)

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 18 of
Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 19 of
Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 20 of
Protesting Assessment of Local Tax

Jurists Last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
the filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the
of criminal charges.
filing Page 21 of
Court Jurisdiction Over Tax Collection Cases
Court Original Jurisdiction
MTC Over tax collection cases where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties does not exceed
P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila.

RTC Over tax collection cases where the principal

amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties exceeds P300,000 or
P400,000 in Metro Manila; provided it is less
than P1,000,000.

CTA - Division Over tax collection cases where the principal

amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
charges and penalties is P1,000,000 or more.

Court Jurisdiction Over Criminal Offenses

Court Original Jurisdiction
MTC or RTC Over criminal offenses arising from violations
of the NIRC or TCCP and other laws
administered by the BIR or the BOC, where
the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is
less than P1,000,000 or where there is no
specified amount claimed.

CTA - Division Over criminal offenses arising from violations

of the NIRC or TCCP and other laws
administered by the BIR or the BOC, where
the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is
P1,000,000 or more.

Original Jurisdiction – CTA Division

 Criminal offenses arising from violation of the NIRC, TCC and other laws administered
by the BIR or the BOC, if principal tax or fee (exclusive of penalties and charges) is P1M
or more.
 Over tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees,
charges, and penalties, if principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of penalties and
charges is P1M or more.

Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA Division

 Appeals from judgments of the RTC in their original or appellate jurisdiction in the same
criminal offenses decided by them, if principal tax or fee, exclusive of penalties and
charges is less than P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed.
 Judgments of the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them or in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, if principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
penalties and charges is less than P1M.
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving:
 disputed assessments,
 refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in
relation thereto, or
  other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or
part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
 Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving:
 disputed assessments,
 refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations
thereto, or
 other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal
Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction
shall be deemed a denial;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties,
fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,
forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
 Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally
decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically
for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the
Government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Sec. 301 and
302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under
Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to
impose said duties.

Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA En Banc

 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the CTA Division in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction;
 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the CTA Division in the exercise of its
exclusive original jurisdiction;
 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the RTC in the exercise of its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction;
 Decisions of the CBAA in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city
board of assessment appeals;

Jurists last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar
reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
of
thecriminal
filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC asPage 22 the
well as of
Appeal Procedure in Civil Cases

Appeal Procedure in Criminal Cases

Jurists last-Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For the exclusive use of 2020 and 2021 Jurists bar
reviewees.
© 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading,
downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including
of
thecriminal
filing of administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC asPage 23 the
well as of