Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Evidence Topic: TITLE: Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    Toshiba filed applications for tax credit/refund of its unutilized input VAT payments which the CIR denied. The CTA ruled Toshiba was entitled to refunds as it was a registered VAT entity. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Toshiba tax exempt. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR could not escape the binding effect of admitting in a joint stipulation that Toshiba was a registered VAT entity subject to 0% VAT on exports, as there was no evidence of a palpable mistake in the admission. The admission required no proof and could not be contradicted without showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

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

    Evidence Topic: TITLE: Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    29 views2 pages
    Toshiba filed applications for tax credit/refund of its unutilized input VAT payments which the CIR denied. The CTA ruled Toshiba was entitled to refunds as it was a registered VAT entity. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Toshiba tax exempt. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR could not escape the binding effect of admitting in a joint stipulation that Toshiba was a registered VAT entity subject to 0% VAT on exports, as there was no evidence of a palpable mistake in the admission. The admission required no proof and could not be contradicted without showing of palpable mistake.

    Original Description:

    Beni

    Original Title

    7. Marubeni

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Toshiba filed applications for tax credit/refund of its unutilized input VAT payments which the CIR denied. The CTA ruled Toshiba was entitled to refunds as it was a registered VAT entity. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Toshiba tax exempt. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR could not escape the binding effect of admitting in a joint stipulation that Toshiba was a registered VAT entity subject to 0% VAT on exports, as there was no evidence of a palpable mistake in the admission. The admission required no proof and could not be contradicted without showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Evidence Topic: TITLE: Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of

    Uploaded by

    IanBiagtan
    Toshiba filed applications for tax credit/refund of its unutilized input VAT payments which the CIR denied. The CTA ruled Toshiba was entitled to refunds as it was a registered VAT entity. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Toshiba tax exempt. The Supreme Court ruled the CIR could not escape the binding effect of admitting in a joint stipulation that Toshiba was a registered VAT entity subject to 0% VAT on exports, as there was no evidence of a palpable mistake in the admission. The admission required no proof and could not be contradicted without showing of palpable mistake.

    Copyright:

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

    EVIDENCE TOPIC: Plea of Guilty later withdrawn; Unaccepted Plea of Guilty

    TITLE: Toshiba Information v. Commissioner of GR NUMBER: G.R.No.157594


    Internal Revenue DATE: March 9, 2010
    PONENTE: TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
    CASTRO, Associate Justice
    PETITIONER(S): Toshiba Information Equipment RESPONDENT(S): Commissioner of Internal
    (Phils.) Inc. Revenue

    FACTS
    Toshiba is a domestic corporation registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA)
    as an Economic Zone (ECOZONE) export enterprise.It filed two separate applications for tax credit/refund
    of its unutilized input VAT payments. The CIR denied the application. On appeal, the CTA ruled that
    Toshiba is entitled to the credit/refund of the input VAT paid on its purchases of goods and services relative
    to such zero-rated export sales.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the CTA in the petition for review stating that
    Toshiba is a tax exempt entity under R.A. No. 7916 thus not entitled to refund the VAT payments made in
    the domestic purchase of goods and services.

    ISSUE/S
    Whether or not the CIR can escape the binding effect of his judicial admission in the Joint
    Stipulation before the CTA that Toshiba is a registered VAT entity.
    RULING
    No. The CIR cannot escape the binding effect of his judicial admissions. The arguments of the CIR
    that Toshiba was VAT-exempt and the latter’s export sales were VAT-exempt transactions are inconsistent
    with the explicit admissions of the CIR in the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (Joint Stipulation) that
    Toshiba was a registered VAT entity and that it was subject to zero percent (0%) VAT on its export sales.

    The Joint Stipulation was executed and submitted by Toshiba and the CIR upon being advised to do
    so by the CTA at the end of the pre-trial conference held on June 23, 1999. The approval of the Joint
    Stipulation by the CTA, in its Resolution dated July 12, 1999, marked the culmination of the pre-trial
    process in CTA Case No. 5762.

    The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated
    as a judicial admission. Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no
    proof. The admission may be contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable mistake or
    that no such admission was made. The Court cannot lightly set aside a judicial admission especially when
    the opposing party relied upon the same and accordingly dispensed with further proof of the fact already
    admitted. An admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does not require proof.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals when it ruled in its Decision dated August
    29, 2002 that the CIR could not be bound by his admissions in the Joint Stipulation because (1) the said
    admissions were made through palpable mistake which, if countenanced, would result in falsehood,
    unfairness and injustice and (2) the State could not be put in estoppel by the mistakes of its officials or
    agents. This ruling of the Court of Appeals is rooted in its conclusion that a palpable mistake had been
    committed by the CIR in the signing of the Joint Stipulation. However, the Court finds no evidence of the
    commission of a mistake, much more, of a palpable one.
    MISC DETAILS

    Bohol Cases | 3E 2018-19

    You might also like