7 LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR

G.R. No. 165451. December 3, 2014.
*

LG ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
Taxation; Tax Amnesty; Taxpayers who availed themselves of the tax

amnesty program are entitled to the immunities and privileges under Section
6 of the law.—Taxpayers who availed themselves of the tax amnesty
program are entitled to the immunities and privileges under Section 6 of the
law: SEC. 6. Immunities and Privileges.—Those who availed themselves of
the tax amnesty under Section 5 hereof, and have fully complied with all its
conditions shall be entitled to the following immunities and privileges: (a)
The taxpayer shall be immune from the payment of taxes, as well as
additions thereto, and the appurtenant civil, criminal or administrative
penalties under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended,
arising from the failure to pay any and all internal revenue taxes for taxable
year 2005 and prior years. (b) The taxpayer’s Tax Amnesty Return and the
SALN as of December 31, 2005 shall not be admissible as evidence in all
proceedings that pertain to taxable year 2005 and prior years, insofar as such
proceedings relate to internal revenue taxes, before judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies in which he is a defendant or respondent, and except
for the purpose of ascertaining the net worth beginning January 1, 2006, the
same shall not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person or
government office. However, the taxpayer may use this as a defense,
whenever appropriate, in cases brought against him. (c) The books of
accounts and other records of the taxpayer for the years covered by the tax
amnesty availed of shall not be examined: Provided, That the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue may authorize in writing the examination of the said
books of accounts and other records to verify the validity or correctness of a
claim for any tax refund, tax credit (other than refund or credit of taxes
withheld on wages), tax incentives, and/or exemptions under existing laws.
All these immunities and privileges shall not apply where the person failed
to file a SALN and the Tax Amnesty Return, or where the amount of net
worth as of December 31, 2005 is proven to be under-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
512
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
stated to the extent of thirty percent (30%) or more, in accordance with

the provisions of Section 3 hereof.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; A tax amnesty is a general pardon or
the intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties
on persons otherwise guilty of violation of a tax law.—In several cases, this
court explained the nature of a tax amnesty. In Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 595 SCRA 234 (2009): A tax
amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the State of its
authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of violation of a
tax law. It partakes of an absolute waiver by the government of its right to
collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to
start with a clean slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never
favored or presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax
exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in
favor of the taxing authority.
Same; Same; Under Republic Act (RA) No. 9480 and Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) Memorandum Circular No. 55-2007, the qualified
taxpayer may immediately avail of the immunities and privileges upon
submission of the required documents.—Under Republic Act No. 9480 and
BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2007, the qualified taxpayer
may immediately avail of the immunities and privileges upon submission of
the required documents. This is clear from Section 2 of Republic Act No.
9480: SEC. 2. Availment of the Amnesty.—Any person, natural or juridical,
who wishes to avail himself of the tax amnesty authorized and granted
under this Act shall file with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a notice
and Tax Amnesty Return accompanied by a Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth (SALN) as of December 31, 2005, in such form as may be
prescribed in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act, and
pay the applicable amnesty tax within six months from the effectivity of the
IRR.
Same; Same; Only final and executory judgments are excluded from the
coverage of the tax amnesty program.—The law is clear. Only final and
executory judgments are excluded from the coverage of the tax amnesty
program, hence: SEC. 8. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty provided in Section
5 hereof shall not extend to the following persons or cases existing as of the
effectivity of this Act: . . . .
513
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 513

Revenue
(f) Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts.
(Emphasis supplied) This exception was reproduced in the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of the law: SEC. 5. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty
shall not extend to the following persons or cases existing as of the
effectivity of RA 9480: . . . . 7. Tax cases subject of final and executory
judgment by the courts. We hold that only cases that involve final and
executory judgments are excluded from the tax amnesty program.
Same; Income Taxation; Words and Phrases; In the seminal case of
Fisher v. Trinidad, 43 Phil. 973 (1922), the Supreme Court (SC) defined
income tax as “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions,
trades, and offices.”—Income tax is different from withholding tax, with
both operating in distinct systems. In the seminal case of Fisher v. Trinidad,
43 Phil. 973 (1922), this court defined income tax as “a tax on the yearly
profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” Otherwise
stated, income tax is the “tax on all yearly profits arising from property,
professions, trades or offices, or as a tax on a person’s income, emoluments,
profits and the like.”
Same; Withholding Tax; Words and Phrases; Withholding tax is a
method of collecting income tax in advance.—Withholding tax is a method
of collecting income tax in advance. “In the operation of the withholding tax
system, the payee is the taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed,
while the payor, a separate entity, acts no more than an agent of the
government for the collection of the tax in order to ensure its payment.
Obviously, the amount thereby used to settle the tax liability is deemed
sourced from the proceeds constitutive of the tax base.” There are three
reasons for the utilization of the withholding tax system: “first, to provide
the taxpayer a convenient manner to meet his probable income tax liability;
second, to ensure the collection of income tax which can otherwise be lost
or substantially reduced through failure to file the corresponding returns[;]
and third, to improve the government’s cash flow.”
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) is the proper party to represent the interests of the
government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).—We find that
the Office of the Solicitor General is the proper party to represent the
interests of the government through the Bureau of
514

Revenue
Internal Revenue. The Legal Division of the Bureau of Internal

Revenue should be mindful of this procedural lapse in the future. However,
records show that the Office of the Solicitor General has been apprised of
developments in the case since the beginning of the proceedings. We, thus,
rule that the interests of the government have been duly protected.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Tax Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno for petitioner.
Philip A. Mayo for respondent.

LEONEN, J.:

This case involves the determination of whether petitioner LG
Electronics Philippines, Inc. is entitled to the immunities and
privileges granted under Tax Amnesty Act of 1997.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of
Tax Appeals’ Decision2 dated May 11, 2004 and Resolution3 dated
September 22, 2004.
LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. (LG) is a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.4
On March 21, 1998, LG received a formal assessment notice and
demand letter from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 55-82.

2 Id., at pp. 86-104. The case was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 5715. The
decision was penned by Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. and concurred in
by Presiding Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista.
3 Id., at pp. 119-127. The resolution was signed by Presiding Justice Ernesto D.
Acosta and Associate Justices Lovell R. Bautista and Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr.
4 Id., at pp. 58 and 86.
515
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 515

Revenue
LG was assessed deficiency income tax of P267,365,067.41 for

the taxable year of 1994.5
The deficiency was computed on the basis of (a) disallowed
interest expenses for being unsupported; (b) disallowed salary
expenses for not being subjected to withholding tax on
compensation; (c) imputation of alleged undeclared sales; and (d)
disallowed brokerage fees for not being subjected to expanded
withholding tax.6 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue computed
the deficiency as follows:7
alt

_______________
5 Id., at p. 86.
6 Id., at pp. 86-87.
7 Id., at p. 87.
516

Revenue
LG, through its external auditor, Sycip Gorres Velayo &

Company (SGV), filed on April 17, 1998 an administrative protest
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue against the tax assessment.8
On June 16, 1998, LG filed a supplemental protest. It requested
for a reconsideration and reinvestigation of the tax assessment. It
claimed that the assessment did not have factual and legal bases. LG
also subsequently submitted supporting documents.9
Without waiting for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s
resolution of the protest, LG filed a Petition for Review before the
Court of Tax Appeals on January 11, 1999.10
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued before the Court
of Tax Appeals that the assessment issued was in accordance with
law since the interest expenses claimed by LG were unsupported by
sufficient proof. LG had undeclared income. Brokerage fees and
other charges were not subjected to expanded withholding tax.
Moreover, the details in the assessment notice substantially
complied with the provisions of Section 228 of the Tax Code, the
taxpayer having been informed in writing of the law and the facts on
which the assessment was based.11
Meanwhile, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued the
Report dated March 3, 1999, which recommended the reduction of
LG’s liability for deficiency income tax to P10,557,736.28.12
In its Decision dated May 11, 2004, the Court of Tax Appeals
ruled that LG was liable for the payment of P27,181,887.82,
representing deficiency income tax for taxable year 1994, in-
_______________
8 Id.
9 Id., at pp. 87-88.
10 Id., at p. 88.
11 Id.
12 Id.
517
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 517

Revenue
cluding 20% delinquency interest computed from March 18,
1998.13
According to the Court of Tax Appeals, “[w]hile petitioner
submitted documents to substantiate its interest expense by bank
statements, bank debit memoranda and letters of authority to debit
its account, computations of interest and bank reconciliation, it
failed to submit in evidence a vital document, which is the loan
agreement. Except for a photocopy of a pre-marked document . . . [,]
the court is unable to find any document purporting to be a loan
agreement.”14
The Court of Tax Appeals summarized LG’s deficiency income
tax:15
alt

The dispositive portion of the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision
reads:
_______________
13 Id., at p. 104.
14 Id., at p. 93.
15 Id., at p. 103.
518

Revenue
Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the respondent

Commissioner of Internal Revenue the amount of P27,181,887.82
representing petitioner’s deficiency income tax for the taxable year 1994,
plus 20% delinquency interest from March 18, 1998 until the amount is
fully paid pursuant to Section 249(c)(3) of the 1994 Tax Code.
SO ORDERED.16

LG filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration17 on June 4, 2004.
On September 22, 2004, the Court of Tax Appeals partially granted
the Motion.18 It reduced LG’s liability to P27,054,879.11.19 The
liability was reduced as follows:20

alt
_______________
16 Id., at p. 104.
17 Id., at pp. 105-118.
18 Id., at p. 127.
19 Id.
20 Id., at p. 126.
519
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 519

Revenue

alt

On November 18, 2004, LG filed the present Petition for Review
on Certiorari.21 On January 19, 2005, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue was required to file its Comment.22 This Comment23 was
noted on March 1, 2006.24 Petitioner was then required to submit its
Reply.25 After receipt of its Reply,26 this court resolved to require the
parties to submit their Memoranda.27
Petitioner filed a Manifestation dated January 29, 2008 stating
that it availed itself of the tax amnesty provided under Republic Act
No. 948028 by paying the total amount of P8,647,565.50.29 In
addition, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, through Assistant
Commissioner James Roldan, issued a ruling30 on January 25, 2008,
which held that petitioner complied with the provisions of Republic
Act No. 9480.31 Petitioner is, thus, entitled to the immunities and
privileges provided for under the law including “civil, criminal or
administrative penalties under the National Internal Revenue Code
_______________
21 Id., at p. 55.
22 Id., at p. 170.
23 Id., at pp. 181-185.
24 Id., at p. 187.
25 Id.
26 Id., at pp. 197-206.
27 Id., at p. 208.
28 An Act Enhancing Revenue Administration and Collection by Granting an
Amnesty on All Unpaid Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed by the National
Government for Taxable Year 2005 and Prior Years.
29 Rollo, p. 256. Petitioner stated that it paid P500,000.00 on October 26, 2007
and P8,147,565.50 on January 14, 2008.
30 Id., at pp. 267-272.
31 Id., at p. 257.
520

Revenue
of 1997 . . . arising from the failure to pay any and all internal
revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior years.”32
The following documents were attached to petitioner’s
manifestation: (1) Notice of Availment of Tax Amnesty;33 (2) Tax
Amnesty Return (BIR Form No. 2116);34 (3) Tax Amnesty Payment
Form (BIR Form No. 0617);35 (4) Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth (SALN);36 and (5) BTR-BIR deposit slip.37
Respondent was required to comment on the Manifestation
within 10 days from notice.38 According to respondent, petitioner
cannot claim the tax amnesty provided under Republic Act No. 9480
for the following reasons: (1) accounts receivable by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue as of the date of amnesty are not covered since
these constitute government property; (2) cases that have already
been favorably ruled upon by the trial court or appellate courts prior
to the availment of tax amnesty are not covered; and (3) petitioner’s
case involves withholding taxes that are not covered by the Tax
Amnesty Act.39
The parties raised the following original issues in their pleadings:
(1) Whether questions of fact may be touched upon in a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
i. Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals, while holding the

amount of P120,985.99 as a valid deduction representing a portion of
_______________
32 Id.
33 Id., at p. 260.
34 Id., at p. 261.
35 Id., at p. 262.
36 Id., at p. 263.
37 Id., at p. 264.
38 Id., at p. 279.
39 Id., at pp. 287-288.
521
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 521

Revenue
employees benefits, erred in disallowing the amount of P1,754,860.36 as

deduction from the gross income for alleged failure of the petitioner to
properly and substantially support the same by evidence[;] [and]
ii. Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals, while holding the
amount of P185,333.01 as a valid deduction representing brokerage fees not
subject to 5% withholding tax, erred in disallowing expenses for allege[d]
failure of the petitioner to duly support the claim with official receipts.40

(2) Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in ruling that interest
expense is deductible from gross income only if supported by a
written agreement of the indebtedness, which includes a stipulation
for the payment of interest; and

(3) Whether the Court of Tax Appeals erred in ruling that LG
Electronics cannot claim the amount of P6,989,338.00 as deduction
from its gross income for alleged failure to withhold income tax on
accrued bonuses.

However, in view of petitioner’s Manifestation stating that it
availed of the tax amnesty provided under Republic Act No. 9480,
the only issue for disposition is whether petitioner is entitled to the
immunities and privileges under the Tax Amnesty Law or Republic
Act No. 9480.
We deny the Petition for being moot and academic.

I
Petitioner claimed that it perfected the availment of tax amnesty
under Republic Act No. 9480 when it paid the correct amount and
submitted the required documents. It also relied
_______________
40 Id., at pp. 229-230.
522

Revenue
on the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s ruling dated January 25,

2008, which categorically ruled on petitioner’s tax amnesty.
Pertinent provisions of the ruling state:
On the basis of the foregoing, LGE should pay a tax amnesty rate
equivalent to five percent (5%) of its total declared networth as of Balance
Sheet dated December 31, 2005. Per attached certified true copy of Balance
Sheet of LGE dated December 31, 2005, LGE has a total declared networth
of One Hundred Seventy-Two Million Nine Hundred Fifty-One Thousand
Three Hundred Ten Pesos (P172,951,310.00). As such, LGE is liable for the
amount of Eight Million Six Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred
Sixty-Five Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P8,647,565.50).
It appears that LGE initially paid the amount of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00) on October 26, 2007 when it first availed of the tax
amnesty and it subsequently paid the amount of Eight Million One Hundred
Forty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Five Pesos and Fifty Centavos
(P8,147,565.50) on January 11, 2008 when it amended its tax amnesty
returns. As such, LGE has fully paid its liabilities under the Act.
....
Considering that LGE has paid the amnesty tax due for corporation and
has submitted its tax amnesty forms to Revenue District Office No. 47 of the
BIR of Pasig City, there is deemed full compliance with the provisions of
the Act. As such, LGE is entitled to the immunities and privileges provided
for under Section 6 of the Act and Section 10 of RMC No. 55-2007 which
provides, among others, immunity from payment of tax liabilities, as well as
arising from its failure to pay any and all internal revenue taxes for taxable
year 2005 and prior years. This includes immu-
523
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 523

Revenue
nity from payment of any internal revenue tax liability except those
provided for under Section 5 of the Act.41

On the other hand, respondent’s counsel from BIR Revenue
Region No. 7 Legal Division argued that petitioner cannot avail
itself of the tax amnesty program under Republic Act No. 9480. In
its Comment on the Manifestation dated January 29, 2008, it said
that:
Under Question No. 47 of Revenue Memorandum Circular 69-2007,

delinquent accounts/accounts receivable, including unpaid self-assessed
taxes, in the records of the BIR which are already accounts receivable of the
BIR/assets of the government as of date of amnesty are NOT COVERED by
the tax amnesty because the same are already properties of the government
prior to/upon taxpayer’s date of amnesty availment. Further, Question No.
49 of the same revenue issuance likewise states that tax assessments that are
disputed administratively or judicially are, as a general rule, covered by the
tax amnesty, except those cases excluded from the coverage of the Tax
Amnesty Program as discussed in this Circular and those cases involving
issues that have already been ruled by the trial court/appellate court in
favor of the BIR/Government prior to the taxpayer’s availment of the
amnesty law. It is to be emphasized that the case of the herein Petitioner had
already been resolved by the Court of Tax Appeals under CTA Case No.
5715 as early as 11 May 2004[.]
Further, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9480 specifically provides for the
exception to the coverage of the Tax Amnesty Program, one of which is the
withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities. . . .
It is crystal clear from the foregoing provisions of Republic Act No.
9480 that withholding taxes are not covered by the amnesty program. Since
the case of the Petitioner also involves withholding taxes, the Respondent
could not claim immunity under Republic Act No. 9480. The Bu-
_______________
41 Id., at pp. 269-272.
524

Revenue
reau of Internal Revenue does not have the power to grant immunity for
those types of taxes which are not covered by the tax amnesty law.42
(Emphasis in the original, underscoring supplied)

This court finds that petitioner has properly availed itself of the
tax amnesty granted under Republic Act No. 9480.

The pertinent provisions on the grant and availment of tax
amnesty state:
SECTION 1. Coverage.—There is hereby authorized and granted a

tax amnesty which shall cover all national internal revenue taxes for the
taxable year 2005 and prior years, with or without assessments duly issued
therefore, that have remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005: Provided,
however, That the amnesty hereby authorized and granted shall not cover
persons or cases enumerated under Section 8 hereof.
SEC. 2. Availment of the Amnesty.—Any person, natural or juridical,
prescribed in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act, and
pay the applicable amnesty tax within six months from the effectivity of the
IRR.
....
SEC. 5. Grant of Tax Amnesty.—Except for the persons or cases covered
in Section 8 hereof, any person, whether natural or juridical, may avail
himself of the benefits of tax amnesty under this Act, and pay the amnesty
tax due thereon, based on his net worth as of December 31, 2005 as declared
in the SALN as of said period, in accordance with the following schedule of
am-
_______________
42 Id., at pp. 287-288.
525
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 525

Revenue
nesty tax rates and minimum amnesty tax payments required:

alt

Taxpayers who availed themselves of the tax amnesty program
are entitled to the immunities and privileges under Section 6 of the
law:
SEC. 6. Immunities and Privileges.—Those who availed themselves

of the tax amnesty under Section 5 hereof, and have fully complied with all
its conditions shall be entitled to the following immunities and privileges:
(a) The taxpayer shall be immune from the payment of taxes, as well as
year 2005 and prior years.
(b) The taxpayer’s Tax Amnesty Return and the SALN as of December
31, 2005 shall not be admissible as
526

Revenue
evidence in all proceedings that pertain to taxable year 2005 and prior
years, insofar as such proceedings relate to internal revenue taxes, before
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies in which he is a defendant or
respondent, and except for the purpose of ascertaining the net worth
beginning January 1, 2006, the same shall not be examined, inquired or
looked into by any person or government office. However, the taxpayer may
use this as a defense, whenever appropriate, in cases brought against him.
(c) The books of accounts and other records of the taxpayer for the
years covered by the tax amnesty availed of shall not be examined:
Provided, That the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may authorize in
writing the examination of the said books of accounts and other records to
verify the validity or correctness of a claim for any tax refund, tax credit
(other than refund or credit of taxes withheld on wages), tax incentives,
and/or exemptions under existing laws.
All these immunities and privileges shall not apply where the person
failed to file a SALN and the Tax Amnesty Return, or where the amount of
net worth as of December 31, 2005 is proven to be understated to the extent
of thirty percent (30%) or more, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 3 hereof.

In addition to the above provisions of law, BIR Revenue
Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 55-2007,43 which reproduces the
Department of Finance Department Order 29-07,44 provides:
_______________
43 Publishing the Full Text of Department Order No. 29-07 Dated August 15,
2007, “Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9480,”
Otherwise Known as “Tax Amnesty Act of 2007.”
44 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9480
(2007).
527
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 527

Revenue
SEC. 3. Taxes Covered.—The tax amnesty shall cover all national

internal revenue taxes imposed by the National Government for the taxable
year 2005 and prior years, with or without assessments duly issued therefor,
that have remained unpaid as of December 31, 2005.
SEC. 4. Who May Avail of Tax Amnesty.—The following may avail
of the tax amnesty under RA 9480:
1. Individuals, whether resident or nonresident citizens, or resident or
nonresident aliens;
2. Estates and trusts;
3. Corporations;
4. Cooperatives and tax exempt entities that have become taxable as of
December 31, 2005; and
5. Other juridical entities including partnerships.
For this purpose, an individual taxpayer in his/her own capacity shall be
treated as a different taxpayer when he acts as administrator/executor of the
estate of a deceased taxpayer. The pertinent provisions of Sec. 236 of the
Tax Code on the registration of the estate of the decedent by the
administrator or executor and the issuance of new TIN shall be complied
with. Therefore, an individual taxpayer, seeking to avail of the tax amnesty
and who at the same time is an executor or administrator of the estate of a
deceased taxpayer who would also like to avail of the tax amnesty, shall file
two (2) separate amnesty tax returns, one for himself as a taxpayer and the
other in his capacity as executor or administrator of the estate of the
decedent with respect to the revenue and other income earned or received by
the estate.
....
RULE III
AVAILMENT AND PAYMENT OF AMNESTY

SEC. 6. Method of Availment of Tax Amnesty.—
528

Revenue
1. Forms/Documents to be filed.—To avail of the general tax amnesty,

concerned taxpayers shall file the following documents/requirements:
a. Notice of Availment in such form as may be prescribed by the BIR.
b. Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as of
December 31, 2005 in such form, as may be prescribed by the BIR.
c. Tax Amnesty Return in such form as may be prescribed by the BIR.
2. Place of Filing of Amnesty Tax Return.—The Tax Amnesty Return,
together with the other documents stated in Sec. 6(1) hereof, shall be filed as
follows:
a. Residents shall file with the Revenue District Officer (RDO)/Large
Taxpayer District Office of the BIR which has jurisdiction over the legal
residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, as the case may be.
b. Nonresidents shall file with the office of the Commissioner of the BIR,
or with any RDO.
c. At the option of the taxpayer, the RDO may assist the taxpayer in
accomplishing the forms and computing the taxable base and the amnesty
tax payable, but may not look into, question or examine the veracity of the
entries contained in the Tax Amnesty Return, Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth, or such other documents submitted by the
taxpayer.
3. Payment of Amnesty Tax and Full Compliance.—Upon filing of the
Tax Amnesty Return in accordance with Sec. 6(2) hereof, the taxpayer shall
pay the amnesty tax to the authorized agent bank or in the absence thereof,
the Collection Agent or duly authorized Treasurer of the city or municipality
in which such person has his legal residence or principal place of business.
529
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 529

Revenue
The RDO shall issue sufficient Acceptance of Payment Forms, as may be

prescribed by the BIR for the use of — or to be accomplished by — the
bank, the collection agent or the Treasurer, showing the acceptance of the
amnesty tax payment. In case of the authorized agent bank, the branch
manager or the assistant branch manager shall sign the acceptance of
payment form.
The Acceptance of Payment Form, the Notice of Availment, the SALN,
and the Tax Amnesty Return shall be submitted to the RDO, which shall be
received only after complete payment. The completion of these requirements
shall be deemed full compliance with the provisions of RA 9480.
....
RULE V
IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

SEC. 10. Immunities and Privileges.—Taxpayers who have fully
complied with the conditions under RA 9480 and these rules shall be
entitled to the following immunities and privileges:
1. The taxpayer shall be immune from the payment of taxes, as well as
year 2005 and prior years.
2. The taxpayer’s Tax Amnesty Return and the SALN as of December
31, 2005 shall not be admissible as evidence in all proceedings that pertain
to taxable year 2005 and prior years, insofar as such proceedings relate to
internal revenue taxes, before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies in which he is a de-
530

Revenue
fendant or respondent and, except for the purpose of ascertaining the net
worth beginning January 1, 2006, the same shall not be examined, inquired
or looked into by any person or government office. However, the taxpayer
may use this as a defense, whenever appropriate, in cases brought against
him.
3. The books of accounts and other records of the taxpayer for the years
covered by the tax amnesty availed of shall not be examined by the BIR.
However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may authorize in writing
the examination of the said books of accounts and other records to verify the
validity or correctness of a claim for any tax refund, tax credit (other than
refund or credit of taxes withheld on wages), tax incentives, and/or
exemptions under existing laws.
The above stated immunities and privileges shall not apply where the
person failed to file a SALN and the Tax Amnesty Return, or where the
amount of net worth as of December 31, 2005 is proven to be understated to
the extent of thirty percent (30%) or more, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 4 of RA 9480 and Section 9, Rule IV hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

In several cases, this court explained the nature of a tax amnesty.
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue:45
A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the

State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of
violation of a tax law. It partakes of an absolute waiver by the government
of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders who wish to
relent a chance to start with a clean
_______________
45 612 Phil. 544; 595 SCRA 234 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
531
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 531

Revenue
slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or

presumed in law. The grant of a tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption,
must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
taxing authority.46

This court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Gonzalez47
further described the role of tax amnesties in the government’s
collection of taxes:
Tax amnesty is a general pardon to taxpayers who want to start a clean

tax slate. It also gives the government a chance to collect uncollected tax
from tax evaders without having to go through the tedious process of a tax
case.48

Under Republic Act No. 9480 and BIR Revenue Memorandum
Circular No. 55-2007, the qualified taxpayer may immediately avail
of the immunities and privileges upon submission of the required
documents. This is clear from Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9480:
SEC. 2. Availment of the Amnesty.—Any person, natural or juridical,

prescribed in the im-
_______________
46 Id., at p. 565; p. 254, citing Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global

Business Bank, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 597 Phil. 363, 388; 577
SCRA 366, 392 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
47 647 Phil. 462; 633 SCRA 139 (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
48 Id., at p. 487; p. 165, citing Bañas, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 144, 156;
325 SCRA 259, 273 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
532

Revenue
plementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act, and pay the
applicable amnesty tax within six months from the effectivity of the IRR.
(Emphasis supplied)

Meanwhile, Section 6 of BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular
No. 55-2007 and Department of Finance Department Order 20-07
provide:
SEC. 6. Method of Availment of Tax Amnesty.—

1. Forms/Documents to be filed.—To avail of the general tax amnesty,
concerned taxpayers shall file the following documents/requirements:
a. Notice of Availment in such form as may be prescribed by the BIR.
b. Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as of
December 31, 2005 in such form, as may be prescribed by the BIR.
c. Tax Amnesty Return in such form as may be prescribed by the BIR.
2. Place of Filing of Amnesty Tax Return.—The Tax Amnesty Return,
together with the other documents stated in Sec. 6(1) hereof, shall be filed as
follows:
a. Residents shall file with the Revenue District Officer (RDO)/Large
Taxpayer District Office of the BIR which has jurisdiction over the legal
residence or principal place of business of the taxpayer, as the case may be.
b. Nonresidents shall file with the office of the Commissioner of the BIR,
or with any RDO.
c. At the option of the taxpayer, the RDO may assist the taxpayer in
accomplishing the forms and computing the taxable base
533
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 533

Revenue
and the amnesty tax payable, but may not look into, question or examine
the veracity of the entries contained in the Tax Amnesty Return, Statement
of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, or such other documents submitted by
the taxpayer.
3. Payment of Amnesty Tax and Full Compliance.—Upon filing of the
Tax Amnesty Return in accordance with Sec. 6(2) hereof, the taxpayer shall
pay the amnesty tax to the authorized agent bank or in the absence thereof,
the Collection Agent or duly authorized Treasurer of the city or municipality
in which such person has his legal residence or principal place of business.
The RDO shall issue sufficient Acceptance of Payment Forms, as may be
prescribed by the BIR for the use of — or to be accomplished by — the
bank, the collection agent or the Treasurer, showing the acceptance of the
amnesty tax payment. In case of the authorized agent bank, the branch
manager or the assistant branch manager shall sign the acceptance of
payment form.
The Acceptance of Payment Form, the Notice of Availment, the SALN,
and the Tax Amnesty Return shall be submitted to the RDO, which shall be
received only after complete payment. The completion of these requirements
shall be deemed full compliance with the provisions of RA 9480. (Emphasis
supplied)

In Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank,
Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,49 this court ruled that the
completion of the requirements and compliance with the procedure
laid down in the law and the implement-
_______________
49 Supra note 46.
534

Revenue
ing rules entitle the taxpayer to the privileges and immunities

under the tax amnesty program.50
In this case, petitioner showed that it complied with the
requirements laid down in Republic Act No. 9480. Pertinent
documents were submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and
attached to the records of this case. Petitioner’s compliance was also
affirmed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in its ruling dated
January 25, 2008. Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the immunities
and privileges granted under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9480.
We now proceed to the arguments against petitioner’s availment
of tax amnesty raised by respondent.

II
Respondent erred when it relied on the answers to questions
numbered 47 and 49 of BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No.
69-200751 reproduced below:
Q-47 Are Delinquent Accounts/Accounts Receivable, including unpaid

self-assessed taxes, in the records of the BIR which are already Accounts
Rec[ei]vable of the BIR/assets of the Government as of date of amnesty
availment by the taxpayer still covered by such amnesty availment?
_______________
50 Id., at p. 388; pp. 392-393. This court held that “[c]onsidering that the
completion of these requirements shall be deemed full compliance with the tax
amnesty program, the law mandates that the taxpayer shall thereafter be immune from
the payment of taxes, and additions thereto, as well as the appurtenant civil, criminal
or administrative penalties under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, arising from the
failure to pay any and all internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior
years.”
51 Clarification of Issues Concerning The Tax Amnesty Program Under Republic
Act No. 9480 as Implemented by Department Order No. 29-07.
535
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 535

Revenue
A-47 No. This is so because these are already properties/assets of the

Government prior to/upon taxpayer’s date of amnesty availment.
....
Q-49 Are tax assessments that are disputed administratively or judicially
still covered by the tax amnesty law?
A-49 As a rule yes, except those cases excluded from the coverage of the
Tax Amnesty Program as discussed in this CIRCULAR and those cases
involving issues that have already been ruled by the trial court/appellate
court in favor of the BIR/Government prior to taxpayer’s availment of the
amnesty law. (Emphasis supplied)

The law is clear. Only final and executory judgments are
excluded from the coverage of the tax amnesty program, hence:
SEC. 8. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty provided in Section 5 hereof

effectivity of this Act:
....
(f) Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts.52
(Emphasis supplied)

This exception was reproduced in the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the law:
SEC. 5. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty shall not extend to the

following persons or cases existing as of the effectivity of RA 9480:
....
7. Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts.53
_______________
52 Rep. Act No. 9480, Sec. 8.
536
Revenue
We hold that only cases that involve final and executory

judgments are excluded from the tax amnesty program.
This court has already ruled on the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s
unjustified expansion of cases not covered under the tax amnesty
program.
In Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank,
Inc.), this court categorically found that “BIR’s inclusion of ‘issues
and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in
favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer’ as one
of the exceptions . . . is misplaced.”54 This court said that:
RA 9480 is specifically clear that the exceptions to the tax amnesty

program include “tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the
courts.” The present case has not become final and executory when
Metrobank availed of the tax amnesty program.55
_______________
53 DOF D.O. 29-07 and BIR RMC No. 55-2007.

54 Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank, Inc.) v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra note 46 at
p. 389; p. 393. This case involved the assessment of deficiency documentary stamp
taxes of petitioner Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank,
Inc.) for the taxable years 1996 and 1997. (p. 368; p. 370) Petitioner availed of the tax
amnesty program under Rep. Act No. 9480 during pendency of the case. (p. 387; p.
393)
BIR RMC No. 19-2008, which the court pronounced as erroneous in Philippine
Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, is substantially the same as BIR RMC No. 69-2007 with regard to the
inclusion of “issues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality)
in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer” as an exception to the
coverage of the tax amnesty program, (p. 389; p. 393) and on which respondent relies
on in the present case.
55 Id.
537
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 537
Revenue
In the recent case of CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue56 we declared that:
While tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly

against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority, it is also a
well-settled doctrine that the rule-making power of administrative agencies
cannot be extended to amend or expand statutory requirements or to
embrace matters not originally encompassed by the law. Administrative
regulations should always be in accord with the provisions of the statute
they seek to carry into effect, and any resulting inconsistency shall be
resolved in favor of the basic law. We thus definitively declare that the
exception “[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without
finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer”
under BIR RMC 19-2008 is invalid, as the exception goes beyond the scope
of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law.57 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)

BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008, declared by
this court as erroneous, is substantially the same as the answers to
the questions numbered 47 and 49 in BIR Revenue Memorandum
Circular No. 69-2007, which respondent relied upon in the present
case. Pertinent provisions of BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular
No. 19-2008 are the following:
A BASIC GUIDE ON THE TAX AMNESTY ACT OF 2007

The following is a basic guide for taxpayers who wish to avail of tax
amnesty pursuant of Republic Act No. 9480 (Tax Amnesty Act of 2007).
_______________
56 CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182399,

March 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 614 [Per CJ. Sereno, First Division].
57 Id., at pp. 633-634.
538
Revenue
Who may avail of the amnesty?

....
EXCEPT:
Issues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in
favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer. (e.g.,
Taxpayers who have failed to observe or follow BOI and/or PEZA rules
on entitlement to Income Tax Holiday Incentives and other incentives).
....
Delinquent Accounts/Accounts Receivable considered as assets of the

BIR/Government, including self-assessed tax.

Accordingly, answers to the questions numbered 47 and 49 of
BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 69-2007 are declared
invalid for going beyond the text of the law.

III

Furthermore, contrary to respondent’s argument, the case does
not involve withholding taxes. This is readily seen in Republic Act
No. 9480 and BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2007.
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9480 provides:
SEC. 8. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty provided in Section 5 hereof

effectivity of this Act:
(a) Withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax
liabilities[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2007
states:
539
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 539
Revenue
SEC. 5. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty shall not extend to the

following persons or cases existing as of the effectivity of RA 9480:
1. Withholding agents with respect to their withholding tax liabilities[.]

Income tax is different from withholding tax, with both operating
in distinct systems.
In the seminal case of Fisher v. Trinidad,58 this court defined
income tax as “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property,
professions, trades, and offices.”59 Otherwise stated, income tax is
the “tax on all yearly profits arising from property, professions,
trades or offices, or as a tax on a person’s income, emoluments,
profits and the like.”60
On the other hand, withholding tax is a method of collecting
income tax in advance.61 “In the operation of the withholding tax
system, the payee is the taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is
imposed, while the payor, a separate entity, acts no more than an
agent of the government for the collection of the tax in order to
ensure its payment. Obviously, the amount thereby used to settle the
tax liability is deemed sourced from the proceeds constitutive of the
tax base.”62
There are three reasons for the utilization of the withholding tax
system: “first, to provide the taxpayer a convenient manner to meet
his probable income tax liability; second, to ensure the collection of
income tax which can otherwise be
_______________
58 43 Phil. 973 (1922) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc].

59 Id., at p. 981.
60 Mamalateo, Victorino C., Reviewer on Taxation, p. 66 (2nd ed., 2008), citing
Tax Code, Sec. 43 and Fisher v. Trinidad, id.
61 See Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 835,
841; 316 SCRA 480, 485 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].
62 Bank of America NT & SA v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103092, July 21,
1994, 234 SCRA 302, 310 [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
540
Revenue
lost or substantially reduced through failure to file the

corresponding returns[;] and third, to improve the government’s cash
flow.”63
In Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue,64 this court ruled that “the liability of the
withholding agent is independent from that of the taxpayer.”65
Further:
The [withholding agent] cannot be made liable for the tax due because it
is the [taxpayer] who earned the income subject to withholding tax. The
withholding agent is liable only insofar as he failed to perform his duty to
withhold the tax and remit the same to the government. The liability for the
tax, however, remains with the taxpayer because the gain was realized and
received by him.66

The cause of action for failure to withhold taxes is different from
the cause of action arising from nonpayment of income taxes.67
“Indeed, the revenue officers generally disallow the expenses
claimed as deductions from gross income, if no withholding of tax
as required by law or the regulations was withheld and remitted to
the BIR within the prescribed dates.”68
_______________
63 Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc. v. Romulo, 628 Phil.
508, 536; 614 SCRA 605, 632-633 (2010) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
64 Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 170257, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 70 [Per J. Mendoza, Third
Division].
65 Id., at p. 83.
66 Id.
67 See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 129
Phil. 165, 170; 21 SCRA 944, 949 (1967) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
68 Mamalateo, Reviewer on Taxation, supra note 60 at p. 264.
541
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 541
Revenue
In Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue,69 respondent therein argued that petitioner was not
entitled to the grant of tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480 as
petitioner was deemed a withholding agent of the assessed
deficiency value added tax and deficiency excise tax.70 Petitioner
was, thus, disqualified under Section 8 of the law.71 This court
rejected such contention:
The CIR did not assess AIA as a withholding agent that failed to
withhold or remit the deficiency VAT and excise tax to the BIR under
relevant provisions of the Tax Code. Hence, the argument that AIA is
“deemed” a withholding agent for these deficiency taxes is fallacious.
Indirect taxes, like VAT and excise tax, are different from withholding
taxes. To distinguish, in indirect taxes, the incidence of taxation falls on one
person but the burden thereof can be shifted or passed on to another person,
such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer
who ultimately pays for it. On the other hand, in case of withholding taxes,
the incidence and burden of taxation fall on the same entity, the statutory
taxpayer. The burden of taxation is not shifted to the withholding agent who
merely collects, by withholding, the tax due from income payments to
entities arising from certain transactions and remits the same to the
government. Due to this difference, the deficiency VAT and excise tax
cannot be “deemed” as withholding taxes merely because they constitute
indirect taxes. Moreover, records support the conclusion that AIA was
assessed not as a withholding agent but, as the one directly liable for the
said deficiency taxes.72 (Citations omitted)
_______________
69 G.R. No. 179115, September 26, 2012, 682 SCRA 49 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe,
Second Division Resolution].
70 Id., at p. 56.
71 Id.
72 Id., at p. 57.
542
Revenue
In this case, petitioner was assessed for its deficiency income

taxes due to the disallowance of several items for deduction.
Petitioner was not assessed for its liability as withholding agent. The
two liabilities are distinct from and must not be confused with each
other.
The main reason for the disallowance of the deductions was that
petitioner was not able to fully substantiate its claim of remittance
through receipts or relevant documents.

IV

Furthermore, we find it appropriate to pronounce that the Bureau
of Internal Revenue Legal Division is not the proper representative
of respondent.
We observe that respondent is represented by a lawyer from the
Legal Division of Revenue Region No. 7 of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and not by the Office of the Solicitor General.
We are mindful of Section 220 of Republic Act No. 8424 or the
Tax Reform Act of 1997, which provides that legal officers of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue are the ones tasked to institute the
necessary civil or criminal proceedings on behalf of the government:
Section 220. Form and Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising under

this Code.—Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf
of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the
Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action for the
recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under
this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner.
(Emphasis supplied)
543
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 543

Revenue
Nonetheless, this court has previously ruled on the issue of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue’s representation in appellate
proceedings, particularly before this court:
The institution or commencement before a proper court of civil and

criminal actions and proceedings arising under the Tax Reform Act which
“shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue” is
not in dispute. An appeal from such court, however, is not a matter of right.
Section 220 of the Tax Reform Act must not be understood as overturning
the long-established procedure before this Court in requiring the Solicitor
General to represent the interest of the Republic. This Court continues to
maintain that it is the Solicitor General who has the primary responsibility
to appear for the government in appellate proceedings. This pronouncement
finds justification in the various laws defining the Office of the Solicitor
General, beginning with Act No. 135, which took effect on 16 June 1901, up
to the present Administrative Code of 1987. Section 35, Chapter 12, Title
III, Book IV, of the said Code outlines the powers and functions of the
Office of the Solicitor General which includes, but not limited to, its duty to
—
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
....
(3) Appear in any court in any action involving the validity of any
treaty, law, executive order or proclamation, rule or regulation when in his
judgment his intervention is necessary or when requested by the Court.
In Gonzales v. Chavez, the Supreme Court has said that, from the
historical and statutory perspectives, the Solici-
544

Revenue
tor General is the “principal law officer and legal defender of the
government.”73 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

From the foregoing, we find that the Office of the Solicitor
General is the proper party to represent the interests of the
government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Legal
Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue should be mindful of
this procedural lapse in the future.
However, records show that the Office of the Solicitor General
has been apprised of developments in the case since the beginning of
the proceedings. We, thus, rule that the interests of the government
have been duly protected.
As petitioner is found entitled to the immunities and privileges
granted under the tax amnesty program, the issue on the assessed
deficiency income taxes is, thus, moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, in view of petitioner LG Electronics
Philippines, Inc.’s availment of the tax amnesty program under
Republic Act No. 9480, the petition is DENIED for being MOOT
and ACADEMIC. Petitioner’s deficiency taxes for taxable year
2005 and prior years are deemed fully settled.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr. ** and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition denied for being moot and academic.
_______________
73 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory,

433 Phil. 463, 467-468; 384 SCRA 117, 119 (2002) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc
Resolution].
* * Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1888 dated November 28,
2014.
545
VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 545

Revenue
Notes.—A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional

overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on
persons otherwise guilty of violating a tax law. (Asia International
Auctioneers, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 682 SCRA
49 [2012])
While tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed
strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing
authority, it is also a well-settled doctrine that the rule-making power
of administrative agencies cannot be extended to amend or expand
statutory requirements or to embrace matters not originally
encompassed by the law. (CS Garment, Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 718 SCRA 614 [2014])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

7 LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 165451. December 3, 2014.

Taxation; Tax Amnesty; Taxpayers who availed themselves of the tax

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

stated to the extent of thirty percent (30%) or more, in accordance with

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 513

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Internal Revenue. The Legal Division of the Bureau of Internal

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Rollo, pp. 55-82.

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 515

LG was assessed deﬁciency income tax of P267,365,067.41 for

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LG, through its external auditor, Sycip Gorres Velayo &

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 517

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the respondent

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 519

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

i. Whether . . . the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals, while holding the

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 521

employees beneﬁts, erred in disallowing the amount of P1,754,860.36 as

40 Id., at pp. 229-230.

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

on the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s ruling dated January 25,

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 523

Under Question No. 47 of Revenue Memorandum Circular 69-2007,

41 Id., at pp. 269-272.

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SECTION 1. Coverage.—There is hereby authorized and granted a

42 Id., at pp. 287-288.

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 525

nesty tax rates and minimum amnesty tax payments required:

SEC. 6. Immunities and Privileges.—Those who availed themselves

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 527

SEC. 3. Taxes Covered.—The tax amnesty shall cover all national

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. Forms/Documents to be ﬁled.—To avail of the general tax amnesty,

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 529

The RDO shall issue sufﬁcient Acceptance of Payment Forms, as may be

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 531

slate. A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or

Tax amnesty is a general pardon to taxpayers who want to start a clean

SEC. 2. Availment of the Amnesty.—Any person, natural or juridical,

46 Id., at p. 565; p. 254, citing Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SEC. 6. Method of Availment of Tax Amnesty.—

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 533

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ing rules entitle the taxpayer to the privileges and immunities

Q-47 Are Delinquent Accounts/Accounts Receivable, including unpaid

VOL. 743, DECEMBER 3, 2014 535

A-47 No. This is so because these are already properties/assets of the

SEC. 8. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty provided in Section 5 hereof

SEC. 5. Exceptions.—The tax amnesty shall not extend to the

52 Rep. Act No. 9480, Sec. 8.

We hold that only cases that involve ﬁnal and executory

RA 9480 is speciﬁcally clear that the exceptions to the tax amnesty