View full case

CIR v. CA

FACTS:

Citytrust Banking Corporation filed a claim for refund with the BIR in the amount of P19,971,745.00 for overpaid income taxes for the years 1983, 1984, and 1985. Citytrust also filed a petition with the CTA to interrupt the prescriptive period. The CTA ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to grant a refund for 1984 and 1985 but denied the refund for 1983 due to prescription. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and later brought to the Supreme Court. The Commissioner argued that Citytrust's claim should be denied due to insufficient documentation and prescription. The Supreme Court found Citytrust's claim supported by evidence, affirming the CTA's decision to grant refunds for 1984 and 1985 but denying the refund for 1983 on the ground of prescription.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals erred in granting the claim for refund by private respondent Citytrust.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's supplemental motion for reconsideration regarding the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust.

  3. Whether the assessment created doubt and constituted a challenge against the accuracy of the tax return filed by Citytrust.

  4. Whether a refund can be granted without determining the proper assessment and the tax due.

  5. Whether the issue of the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust should be resolved jointly with its claim for tax refund.

  6. Whether the Court has the authority to remand the case to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings.

RULING:

  1. The case is remanded to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings. The BIR was denied its day in court due to the mistakes and/or negligence of its officials and employees. The records necessary for the case were not transmitted to the Solicitor General, resulting in the petitioner's counsel being unable to present any evidence. The BIR officials and/or employees also failed to remand the records to the Court of Tax Appeals as ordered. The government is not bound by the errors committed by its agents, especially in matters involving taxes. The grant of a refund assumes that the tax return is valid, and the existence of a deficiency assessment creates doubt and challenges the truthfulness of the return.

  2. Yes, the assessment created doubt and constituted a challenge against the accuracy of the tax return filed by Citytrust.

  3. No, a refund cannot be granted without determining the proper assessment and the tax due.

  4. Yes, the issue of the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust should be resolved jointly with its claim for tax refund.

  5. Yes, the Court has the authority to remand the case to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The government cannot be estopped by the neglect or omission of its officers and agents.

  • The government should not be prejudiced by bureaucratic lethargy in matters involving taxes.

  • The grant of a refund is based on the assumption that the tax return is valid and the facts stated therein are true and correct.

  • The existence of a deficiency assessment creates doubt and challenges the truthfulness of the tax return.

  • It is absurd and contradictory to award a refund while there is a pending deficiency assessment for the same year.

  • An assessment that creates doubt and challenges the accuracy of a tax return cannot be the basis for granting a refund without unquestionable evidence.

  • Section 82, Chapter IX of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 provides that no tax collected under an assessment that is deemed false, fraudulent, or contains understatement or undervaluation can be recovered unless it is proven that the statement or return was not false, fraudulent, or contained any understatement or undervaluation.

  • Granting a refund without determining the proper assessment and tax due would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and suits.

  • It is necessary and appropriate to resolve the issue of deficiency tax assessment together with the claim for tax refund to determine the correct amount of tax due or refundable in a single proceeding.

  • A determination of the correct liability of the taxpayer constitutes res judicata on both parties regarding all matters subject to or involved in the case.

  • The Court has the authority to remand a case to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings and appropriate action.