Scribd
Upload
81 views1 page

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. Vs CIR

The petitioner, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., filed a claim for refund of alleged overpayment of VAT taxes amounting to ₱123,459,647.70 for the first quarter of 2008. However, the petitioner was only able to substantiate input taxes of ₱48,509,474.01 with official receipts, an amount that was still less than its output tax liabilities for the period. Both the CTA Division and CTA En Banc denied the petitioner's claim, holding that actions for tax refund are treated as claims for exemption and the taxpayer bears the burden of strictly proving compliance with requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the petitioner failed to establish it was

Uploaded by

Rosalie Recaido
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views1 page

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc. Vs CIR

The petitioner, Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., filed a claim for refund of alleged overpayment of VAT taxes amounting to ₱123,459,647.70 for the first quarter of 2008. However, the petitioner was only able to substantiate input taxes of ₱48,509,474.01 with official receipts, an amount that was still less than its output tax liabilities for the period. Both the CTA Division and CTA En Banc denied the petitioner's claim, holding that actions for tax refund are treated as claims for exemption and the taxpayer bears the burden of strictly proving compliance with requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting the petitioner failed to establish it was

Uploaded by

Rosalie Recaido
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

222428 February 19, 2018


COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner
vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Facts: On April 24, 2008, petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc, filed its Quarterly VAT
Return for the period of January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008 and amended the same a few times
thereafter.5 On May 27, 2009, the (BIR) issued a Letter of Authority to examine petitioner's books of
accounts for all internal revenue taxes for the period January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
Subsequently, on April 20, 2010, petitioner filed with the BIR's Large Taxpayers Service an
administrative claim for refund or tax credit of its alleged over/erroneous payment of VAT for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008 in the total amount of ₱l23,459,647.70.6 Three (3) days thereafter, or on April 23,
2010, petitioner filed with the CTA a judicial claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate
presenting its financial employees as witnesses in support of its case. According to the witnesses, all of
petitioner's records and documents, including invoices and official receipts for the period January 1 to
March 31, 2008 subject of the instant claim were completely destroyed. They were, however, able to
determine petitioner's input and output VAT through its computerized accounting system.
Petitioner maintains that its claim for refund, being based on erroneous payment of output VAT,
should not be construed against it and, in fact, necessitates only a preponderance of evidence for its
approbation like any other ordinary civil case.
CTA Division denied petitioner's claim for lack of merit. CTA En Banc affirmed the ruling of the
CTA Division.

Issue: whether the petitioner the petitioner be entitled to claim for tax refund without proper
supported official receipts.

Held: no. The petition is devoid of merit. As petitioner itself asserted, input taxes not reported in
the VAT Return may still be credited against output tax due for as long as the same were properly
substantiated. But as duly found by both the CTA En Banc and CTA Division, the substantiated amount is
not even enough to offset petitioner's output tax liabilities leaving no balance that may be refunded. In
this regard, the CTA En Banc held:
In this case, only P48,509,474.01 was properly supported by official receipts (ORs) out of the
claimed P123,459,647.70. The said amount was also recorded in petitioner's books of accounts but was
not reported in its VAT Return due to alleged inadvertence. In the assailed Decision, the CTA Division
made a pronouncement that even if the substantiated input taxes were declared in the VAT Return for the
First (1st) Quarter of 2008, still it would not be enough to offset the output taxes payable for the same
taxable period. Pertinent portions of the assailed Decision are reiterated with approval, as follows:
Petitioner's Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2008 shows the following output taxes
due in the amount of P1,269,933,934.95. Had Petitioner declared the substantiated input taxes of
P48,509,474.01 in its Quarterly VAT Return for the first quarter of 2008, considering its output taxes and
substantiated input taxes for the first quarter of 2008 per ICPA examination, it would not have had
enough input taxes to offset against its output taxes for the same taxable periods.
The Court reiterates its consistent ruling that actions for tax refund or credit, as in the instant case,
are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is not only construed in strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer, but also the pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption is strictissimi
scrutinized and must be duly proven. The burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied
with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy