Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 215 views

    Cir Vs Acosta

    Uploaded by

    Dailyn Jaectin
    Acosta worked for Intel in 1996 and Intel withheld taxes from her salary and paid them to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Later, Acosta filed an amended tax return claiming an overpayment. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dismissed her petition for failing to first file a written claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as required by law. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the amended return was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that under Section 230 of the old tax code in effect in 1996, a written claim for refund must be filed with the CIR before filing a petition in court, in order to give the CIR opportunity to address the

    Copyright:

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

    Cir Vs Acosta

    Uploaded by

    Dailyn Jaectin
    215 views1 page
    Acosta worked for Intel in 1996 and Intel withheld taxes from her salary and paid them to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Later, Acosta filed an amended tax return claiming an overpayment. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dismissed her petition for failing to first file a written claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as required by law. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the amended return was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that under Section 230 of the old tax code in effect in 1996, a written claim for refund must be filed with the CIR before filing a petition in court, in order to give the CIR opportunity to address the

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Cir vs Acosta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Acosta worked for Intel in 1996 and Intel withheld taxes from her salary and paid them to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Later, Acosta filed an amended tax return claiming an overpayment. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dismissed her petition for failing to first file a written claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as required by law. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the amended return was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that under Section 230 of the old tax code in effect in 1996, a written claim for refund must be filed with the CIR before filing a petition in court, in order to give the CIR opportunity to address the

    Copyright:

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

    Cir Vs Acosta

    Uploaded by

    Dailyn Jaectin
    Acosta worked for Intel in 1996 and Intel withheld taxes from her salary and paid them to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Later, Acosta filed an amended tax return claiming an overpayment. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dismissed her petition for failing to first file a written claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as required by law. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the amended return was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that under Section 230 of the old tax code in effect in 1996, a written claim for refund must be filed with the CIR before filing a petition in court, in order to give the CIR opportunity to address the

    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

    CIR vs ACOSTA

    FACTS: Acosta is an employee of employee of Intel Manufacturing Phils., Inc.


    (Intel). She was assigned to a foreign country on 1996. During that year, Intel
    withheld the taxes due on her salary and remitted them to the BIR. Later on,
    Acosta filed a Non-Resident Citizen Income Tax Return. In an amended tax
    return that she filed on October 8, 1997, she then claimed that the income taxes
    withheld by Intel resulted in an overpayment.
    Acosta filed for a Petition for Review with the CTA. However, the CIR moved to
    dismiss the petition on the ground that the respondent failed to file the mandatory
    written claim for refund before the CIR.
    CTA dismissed the petition and ruled that Acosta failed to file a written claim for
    refund with the CIR, a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for review
    before the CTA. It also noted that Acosta's omission, inadvertently or otherwise,
    to allege in her petition the date of filing the final adjustment return, deprived the
    court of its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
    CA reversed ruling that that respondent's filing of an amended return indicating
    an overpayment was sufficient compliance with the requirement of a written claim
    for refund.
    ISSUE: WON the amended return filed by respondent indicating an overpayment
    constituted the written claim for refund required by law, thereby vesting the CTA
    with jurisdiction over this case.
    HELD:
    The applicable law on refund of taxes pertaining to the 1996 compensation
    income is Section 230 of the old Tax Code, which was the law then in effect, and
    not Section 204 (c) of the new Tax Code, which was effective starting only on
    January 1, 1998 (no retroactive application as the case involved refund for
    taxes withheld on 1996 and when she filed the amended return on October
    8, 1997, new NIRC was not yet in effect).
    The requirements under Section 230 for refund claims are as follows:
    1. A written claim for refund or tax credit must be filed by the taxpayer
    with the Commissioner;
    2. The claim for refund must be a categorical demand for
    reimbursement;
    3. The claim for refund or tax credit must be filed, or the suit or proceeding
    therefor must be commenced in court within two (2) years from date of
    payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause.
    A claimant must first file a written claim for refund, categorically demanding
    recovery of overpaid taxes with the CIR, before resorting to an action in court.
    This obviously is intended, first, to afford the CIR an opportunity to correct the
    action of subordinate officers; and second, to notify the government that such
    taxes have been questioned, and the notice should then be borne in mind in
    estimating the revenue available for expenditure.
    Petition granted in favor of CIR.

    You might also like