Tax Case Digest: CIR v. Acosta (2007)

CIR v. Acosta
G.R. No. 154068 August 3, 2007
QUISUMBING, J.

Lessons Applicable: Refund in the nature of tax exemption, exhaustion of administrative remedy, prospectivity of tax laws

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

• Rosemary Acosta, an employee of Intel Manufacturing Phils. Inc. assigned in a foreign country filed on March 21, 1977 for a period of January 1, 1996-December 31, 1996, a Joint Individual Income Tax Return with her husband on October 8, 1997, she filed an amended return indicating an overpayment of P 358,274 due to the income taxes withheld and paid by Intel.  
• April 15, 1999: She filed a petition for review with the CTA who dismissed her petition for failing to file a written claim for refund required under Sec. 230 of the old tax code.  Also, the omission of the date of filing the final adjustment return deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
• CA: reversed the CTA holding that the filing of an amended return indicating an overpayment was sufficient compliance with the requirement of a written claim for refund. 
• Applying sec. 204 (c) of the 1997 NIRC, the CIR sought reconsideration but was denied so it elevated the matter with the SC

ISSUES:

1. W/N the amended return is sufficient compliance of written claim
2. W/N the 1997 tax reform can be applied retrospectively

 HELD:  Granted.

1. NO.  The requirements under Section 230 for refund claims are as follows

• a.  A written claim for refund or tax credit must be filed by the taxpayer with the Commissioner;
• b. The claim for refund must be a categorical demand for reimbursement; 
• c. The claim for refund or tax credit must be filed, or the suit or proceeding therefor must be commenced in court within 2 years from date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause  
• It is intended to afford the CIR an opportunity to correct the action of its subordinate officers and to be notified.  Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government
• As tax refund involve a return of revenue from the government, the claimant must show the specific provision of law as basis of her right

      2.  NO.  Tax laws are prospective in operation, unless the language of the statute clearly provides  otherwise. Moreover,  a party seeking an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the        prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to court action.  Revenue statutes are substantive laws and in no sense must their application be equated with that of remedial laws which  must be faithfully and strictly implemented.