Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    Purisima Vs Phil Tobacco Case Digest - Luigi

    Uploaded by

    Luigi Jaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 and Annex "D-1" of Revenue Memorandum Circular 90-2012 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) went beyond the express provisions of Republic Act No. 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012. While administrative rules enacted by agencies to implement laws have the force of law, they must remain consistent with and not override or modify the laws they intend to implement. In this case, the challenged BIR regulations created additional tax liabilities not allowed under RA 10351 by requiring cigarette manufacturers to pay taxes on packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. Thus, the BIR improperly amended the law through

    Copyright:

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

    Purisima Vs Phil Tobacco Case Digest - Luigi

    Uploaded by

    Luigi Jaro
    128 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 and Annex "D-1" of Revenue Memorandum Circular 90-2012 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) went beyond the express provisions of Republic Act No. 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012. While administrative rules enacted by agencies to implement laws have the force of law, they must remain consistent with and not override or modify the laws they intend to implement. In this case, the challenged BIR regulations created additional tax liabilities not allowed under RA 10351 by requiring cigarette manufacturers to pay taxes on packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. Thus, the BIR improperly amended the law through

    Original Description:

    Purisima vs Phil Tobacco Case Digest - Luigi

    Original Title

    Purisima vs Phil Tobacco Case Digest - Luigi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 and Annex "D-1" of Revenue Memorandum Circular 90-2012 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) went beyond the express provisions of Republic Act No. 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012. While administrative rules enacted by agencies to implement laws have the force of law, they must remain consistent with and not override or modify the laws they intend to implement. In this case, the challenged BIR regulations created additional tax liabilities not allowed under RA 10351 by requiring cigarette manufacturers to pay taxes on packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. Thus, the BIR improperly amended the law through

    Copyright:

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

    Purisima Vs Phil Tobacco Case Digest - Luigi

    Uploaded by

    Luigi Jaro
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 and Annex "D-1" of Revenue Memorandum Circular 90-2012 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) went beyond the express provisions of Republic Act No. 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012. While administrative rules enacted by agencies to implement laws have the force of law, they must remain consistent with and not override or modify the laws they intend to implement. In this case, the challenged BIR regulations created additional tax liabilities not allowed under RA 10351 by requiring cigarette manufacturers to pay taxes on packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. Thus, the BIR improperly amended the law through

    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

    Purisima vs. Phil. Tobacco Institute, G.R. No. 210251, Apr.

    17, 2017

    SHORT FACTS:
     RA 10351, otherwise known as the Sin Tax Reform Law, restructured the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco
    products by amending pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 8424
     Section 5 of RA 10351, which amended Section 145(C) of the NIRC, increased the excise tax rate of cigars and
    cigarettes and allowed cigarettes packed by machine to be packed in other packaging combinations of not more
    than 20.
     Upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), the Secretary of Finance issued RR 17-
    2012.
     Section 11 of RR 17-2012 imposes an excise tax on individual cigarette pouches of 5’s and 10’s even if they are
    bundled or packed in packaging combinations not exceeding 20 cigarettes.
     Pursuant to Section 11 of RR17-2012, the CIR issued RMC 90-2012 dated 27 December 2012.
     Annex “D-1” of RMC 90-2012 provides for the initial classifications in tabular form, effective January 1, 2013, of
    locally manufactured cigarette brands packed by machine according to the tax rates prescribed under RA 10351
    based on the:
    (1) BIR price survey of these products, and
    (2) Suggested net retail price declared in the latest sworn statement filed by the local manufacturer or
    importer.

    ISSUE: Is Section 11 of Revenue Regulation No. 17-2012 issued on authority of R.A. No. 10351, otherwise known as the Sin
    Tax Reform Law of 2012?

    RULING: No. By issuing Section 11 of RR 17-2012 and Annex “D-1” on Cigarettes Packed by Machine of RMC 90- 2012, the
    BIR went beyond the express provisions of R.A. No. 10351. It is an elementary rule in administrative law that
    administrative rules and regulations enacted by administrative bodies to implement the law which they are entrusted to
    enforce have the force of law and are entitled to great weight and respect. However, these implementations of the law
    must not override, supplant, or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to implement. It is
    only Congress which has the power to repeal or amend the law. The courts will not countenance an administrative
    regulation that overrides the statute it seeks to implement.

    In this case, a reading of Section 11 of RR 17-2012 and Annex “D-1” on Cigarettes Packed by Machine of RMC 90-2012
    reveals that they are not simply regulations to implement RA 10351. They are amendatory provisions which require
    cigarette manufacturers to be liable to pay for more tax than the law, RA 10351, allows. The BIR, in issuing these revenue
    regulations, created an additional tax liability for packaging combinations smaller than 20 cigarette sticks. In so doing, the
    BIR amended the law, an act beyond the power of the BIR to do.

    You might also like