Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Philex Mining Corp Vs CIR

    Uploaded by

    Pat Espinoza
    This case involves Philex Mining Corporation protesting the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) demand for payment of P123 million in tax liabilities. Philex argued its P120 million in pending VAT input credit/refund claims should offset the liabilities. The BIR and Court of Tax Appeals rejected this, affirming that taxes owed to the government in its sovereign capacity cannot be subject to compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled against Philex, stating taxes must be paid when due regardless of other claims against the government to ensure effective tax collection. Philex's theory that pending claims would automatically offset liabilities could undermine the government's authority and revenue system.

    Copyright:

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

    Philex Mining Corp Vs CIR

    Uploaded by

    Pat Espinoza
    176 views2 pages
    This case involves Philex Mining Corporation protesting the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) demand for payment of P123 million in tax liabilities. Philex argued its P120 million in pending VAT input credit/refund claims should offset the liabilities. The BIR and Court of Tax Appeals rejected this, affirming that taxes owed to the government in its sovereign capacity cannot be subject to compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled against Philex, stating taxes must be paid when due regardless of other claims against the government to ensure effective tax collection. Philex's theory that pending claims would automatically offset liabilities could undermine the government's authority and revenue system.

    Original Title

    45. Philex Mining Corp Vs CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Philex Mining Corporation protesting the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) demand for payment of P123 million in tax liabilities. Philex argued its P120 million in pending VAT input credit/refund claims should offset the liabilities. The BIR and Court of Tax Appeals rejected this, affirming that taxes owed to the government in its sovereign capacity cannot be subject to compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled against Philex, stating taxes must be paid when due regardless of other claims against the government to ensure effective tax collection. Philex's theory that pending claims would automatically offset liabilities could undermine the government's authority and revenue system.

    Copyright:

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

    Philex Mining Corp Vs CIR

    Uploaded by

    Pat Espinoza
    This case involves Philex Mining Corporation protesting the Bureau of Internal Revenue's (BIR) demand for payment of P123 million in tax liabilities. Philex argued its P120 million in pending VAT input credit/refund claims should offset the liabilities. The BIR and Court of Tax Appeals rejected this, affirming that taxes owed to the government in its sovereign capacity cannot be subject to compensation. The Supreme Court also ruled against Philex, stating taxes must be paid when due regardless of other claims against the government to ensure effective tax collection. Philex's theory that pending claims would automatically offset liabilities could undermine the government's authority and revenue system.

    Copyright:

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

    PHILEX MINING CORPORATION VS.

    CIR AND CTA

    Doctrine: Taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the simple reason that the
    government and the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a
    material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its
    corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity.

    FACTS: On August 5, 1992, the BIR sent a letter to Philex asking it to settle its tax
    liabilities for the 2nd, 3rdand 4th quarter of 1991 as well as the 1st and 2nd quarter of
    1992 in the total amount of P123,821.982.52. In a letter dated August 20, 1992, Philex
    protested the demand for payment of the taxliabilities stating that it has pending claims
    for VAT input credit/refund for the taxes it paid for theyears 1989 to 1991 in the amount
    of P119,977,037.02 plus interest. Therefore these claims for tax credit/refund should be
    applied against the tax liabilities. In reply, the BIR, in a letter dated September 7, 1992,
    found no merit in Philex's position. Since these pending claims have not yet been
    established or determined with certainty, it follows that no legal compensation can take
    place. Hence, the BIR reiterated its demand that Philex settle the amount plus interest
    within 30 days from the receipt of the letter.

    In view of the BIR's denial of the offsetting of Philex's claim for VAT input credit/refund
    against its excise tax obligation, Philex raised the issue to the Court of Tax Appeals on
    November 6, 1992. In the course of the proceedings, the BIR issued Tax Credit
    Certificate SN 001795 in the amount of P13,144,313.88 which, applied to the total tax
    liabilities of Philex of P123,821,982.52; effectively lowered the latter's tax obligation to
    P110,677,688.52. Despite the reduction of its tax liabilities, the CTA still ordered Philex
    to pay the remaining balance of P110, 677,688.52 plus interest. Moreover, the Court of
    Tax Appeals ruled that "taxes cannot be subject to set-off on compensation since claim
    for taxes is not a debt or contract."

    Philex appealed before the CTA, April 8, 1996. CA affirmed CTA’s decision

    ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of its VAT input credit/refund should, ipso jure, off-set
    its excise tax liabilities?

    RULING: No. In several instances prior to the instant case, we have already made the
    pronouncement that taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the simple reason that
    the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a
    material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its
    corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. We
    find no cogent reason to deviate from the aforementioned distinction.

    It is important to note, that the premise of our ruling in the aforementioned case was
    anchored on Section 51 (d) of the National Revenue Code of 1939. However, when the
    National Internal Revenue
    Code of 1977 was enacted, the same provision upon which the Itogon-Suyoc
    pronouncement was based was omitted. Accordingly, the doctrine enunciated in Itogon-
    Suyoc cannot be invoked by Philex.

    Despite the foregoing rulings clearly adverse to Philex's position, it asserts that the
    imposition of surcharge and interest for the non-payment of the excise taxes within the
    time prescribed was unjustified. Philex posits the theory that it had no obligation to pay
    the excise tax liabilities within the prescribed period since, after all, it still has pending
    claims for VAT input credit/refund with BIR.

    We fail to see the logic of Philex's claim for this is an outright disregard of the basic
    principle in tax law that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be
    collected without unnecessary hindrance. Evidently, to countenance Philex's whimsical
    reason would render ineffective our tax collection system. Too simplistic, it finds no
    support in law or in jurisprudence.

    To be sure, we cannot allow Philex to refuse the payment of its tax liabilities on the
    ground that it has a pending tax claim for refund or credit against the government which
    has not yet been granted. It must be noted that a distinguishing feature of a tax is that it
    is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain. Hence, a tax does not depend upon the
    consent of the taxpayer. If any taxpayer can defer the payment of taxes by raising the
    defense that it still has a pending claim for refund or credit, this would adversely affect
    the government revenue system. A taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his taxes when they
    fall due simply because he has a claim against the government or that the collection of
    the tax is contingent on the result of the lawsuit it filed against the government.
    Moreover, Philex's theory that would automatically apply its VAT input credit/refund
    against its tax liabilities can easily give rise to confusion and abuse, depriving the
    government of authority over the manner by which taxpayers credit and offset their tax
    liabilities.

    Corollarily, the fact that Philex has pending claims for VAT input claim/refund with the
    government is immaterial for the imposition of charges and penalties prescribed under
    Section 248 and 249 of the Tax Code of 1977. The payment of the surcharge is
    mandatory and the BIR is not vested with any authority to waive the collection thereof.
    The same cannot be condoned for flimsy reasons, similar to the one advanced by
    Philex in justifying its non-payment of its tax liabilities.

    You might also like