Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    BPI V CA - CTA

    Uploaded by

    Ran Mendoza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI Savings Bank, finding that they were entitled to a tax refund of P112,491 from 1989 despite procedural issues. The Court took judicial notice of a separate CTA case that found BPI suffered losses in 1990, so they could not have applied the 1989 refund as a tax credit that year as the BIR claimed. While courts typically do not take judicial notice of other cases, it was appropriate here as the BIR did not dispute the loss and this fact supported that BPI deserved the refund.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI V CA - CTA

    Uploaded by

    Ran Mendoza
    29 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI Savings Bank, finding that they were entitled to a tax refund of P112,491 from 1989 despite procedural issues. The Court took judicial notice of a separate CTA case that found BPI suffered losses in 1990, so they could not have applied the 1989 refund as a tax credit that year as the BIR claimed. While courts typically do not take judicial notice of other cases, it was appropriate here as the BIR did not dispute the loss and this fact supported that BPI deserved the refund.

    Original Title

    52. BPI v CA _ CTA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI Savings Bank, finding that they were entitled to a tax refund of P112,491 from 1989 despite procedural issues. The Court took judicial notice of a separate CTA case that found BPI suffered losses in 1990, so they could not have applied the 1989 refund as a tax credit that year as the BIR claimed. While courts typically do not take judicial notice of other cases, it was appropriate here as the BIR did not dispute the loss and this fact supported that BPI deserved the refund.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI V CA - CTA

    Uploaded by

    Ran Mendoza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPI Savings Bank, finding that they were entitled to a tax refund of P112,491 from 1989 despite procedural issues. The Court took judicial notice of a separate CTA case that found BPI suffered losses in 1990, so they could not have applied the 1989 refund as a tax credit that year as the BIR claimed. While courts typically do not take judicial notice of other cases, it was appropriate here as the BIR did not dispute the loss and this fact supported that BPI deserved the refund.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI Savings Bank v.

    CA and CTA (2000) EVIDENCE Corporate annual ITR, testimonies, CTA


    case.
    Panganiban, J.

    TOPIC Judicial Notice - When Discretionary – I. FACTS


    Rule 129 Sec. 2
    SUMMARY BPI filed a claim for a tax refund of TAX REFUND. BPI wanted to get a tax refund
    P112,491 at the CIR, based on the tax (P112,491.00), representing petitioner’s tax withheld for
    withheld in 1989. BPI alleged that they the year 1989.
    were not able to apply for the 1989
    refundable amount when it filed a tax It appears from the 1989 Income Tax Return that
    return in 1990. This was allegedly petitioner had a total refundable amount of P297,492
    because of business losses they inclusive of the P112,491.00 being claimed as tax refund
    incurred. Pending the CIR’s decision, in the present case.
    they filed a petition for review with
    the CTA. CTA dismissed. However, BPI declared in the same 1989 Income Tax
    Return that the said total refundable amount of
    SC ruled in favor of BPI, that they were P297,492.00 will be applied as tax credit to the
    entitled to a refund. Their tax returns succeeding taxable year.
    show that they really did incur net losses
    in 1990. They could not have applied the CIR. On October 11, 1990, petitioner filed a written claim
    amount as a tax credit. When it is for the said refund with the respondent Commissioner of
    undisputed that a taxpayer is entitled to Internal Revenue alleging that it did not apply the 1989
    a refund, the State should not invoke refundable amount of P297,492.00 (including
    technicalities to keep money not P112,491.00) to its 1990 Annual Income Tax Return or
    belonging to it. Further, the SC took other tax liabilities due to the alleged business losses it
    judicial notice of the CTA case based on incurred for the same year.
    Rule 129 Sec 2, which held that
    Petitioner suffered a loss in 1990. This CTA. While the petition was not yet acted upon by the
    fact was not assailed by the CIR, petitioner filed a petition for review with respondent
    Respondents. Court of Tax Appeals, seeking the refund of the amount
    DOCTRINE Judicial Notice of P112,491.00.

    As a rule, courts are not authorized to CTA dismissed. It found that that petitioner failed to
    take judicial notice of the contents of the present as evidence its Corporate Annual Income Tax
    records of other cases, even when such Return for 1990 to establish the fact that petitioner had not
    cases have been tried or are pending in yet credited the amount of P297,492.00 (inclusive of the
    the same court, and notwithstanding the amount P112,491.00 which is the subject of the present
    fact that both cases may have been controversy) to its 1990 income tax liability. MR Denied.
    heard or are actually pending before the
    same judge. Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA.

    However, Section 2, Rule 129 provides: II. ISSUE


    WON BPI is entitled to refund – YES
    Rule 129, Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when
    discretionary. –A court may take judicial III. RATIONALE
    notice of matters which are of public
    knowledge, or are capable of As a rule, the factual findings of the appellate court are
    unquestionable demonstration, or binding on this Court. This rule, however, does not apply
    ought to be known to judges because where, inter alia, the judgment is premised on a
    of their judicial functions. misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court
    failed to notice certain relevant facts which if considered
    would justify a different conclusion. This case is one such undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination of a
    exception. controversy.
    Evidence presented by the Petitioner: Judicial Notice of CTA case
    Petitioner presented evidence to prove its claim that it did Petitioner also calls the attention of this Court to a
    not apply the amount as a tax credit: Decision by the Tax Court in CTA Case No. 4897,
    involving its claim for refund for the year 1990.
    1. Testimony of Ms. Yolanda Esmundo, the manager of
    petitioner’s accounting department. In that case, the Tax Court held that “petitioner suffered a
    net loss for the taxable year 1990 x x x.” Respondent,
    2. The claim for refund and a certification issued by Mr. however, urges this Court not to take judicial notice of the
    Gil Lopez, petitioner’s vice-president, stating that the said case.
    amount of P112,491 “has not been and/or will not be
    automatically credited/offset against any succeeding Section 2, Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial
    quarters’ income tax liabilities for the rest of the calendar notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of
    year ending December 31, 1990.” their judicial functions. 1
    3. Quarterly returns for the first two quarters of 1990. In this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in
    CTA Case No. 4897 was attached to the Petition for
    4. The Final Adjustment Return for 1990 was attached to Review filed before this Court. Significantly, respondents
    petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed before the do not claim at all that the said Decision was fraudulent or
    CTA. A final adjustment return shows whether a nonexistent. Indeed, they do not even dispute the
    corporation incurred a loss or gained a profit during the
    contents of the said Decision, claiming merely that the
    taxable year. In this case, that Return clearly showed that Court cannot take judicial notice thereof.
    petitioner incurred P52,480,173 as net loss in 1990.
    Clearly, it could not have applied the amount in dispute as To the Court’s mind, respondents’ reasoning underscores
    a tax credit. the weakness of their case. For if they had really believed
    that petitioner is not entitled to a tax refund, they could
    No evidence from BIR have easily proved that it did not suffer any loss in 1990.
    The Bureau of Internal Revenue, for its part, failed to In any event, the Decision in CTA Case No. 4897 is not
    controvert petitioner’s claim. In fact, it presented no the sole basis of petitioner’s case. It is merely one more
    evidence at all. Because it ought to know the tax records bit of information showing the stark truth: petitioner did not
    of all taxpayers, the CIR could have easily disproved use its 1989 refund to pay its taxes for 1990.
    petitioner’s claim. To repeat, it did not do so.
    Strict technical rules not applicable IV. DISPOSITIVE
    The strict procedural rules generally frown upon Petition granted.
    submission of the Return after the trial. The law creating
    the Court of Tax Appeals, however, specifically provides
    that proceedings before it “shall not be governed strictly
    by the technical rules of evidence.” The paramount
    consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. Verily,
    the quest for orderly presentation of issues is not an
    absolute. It should not bar courts from considering

    1
    Rule 129, Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. – demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
    A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of because of their judicial functions.
    public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable

    You might also like