Case Digest (G.R. No. 162155) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc. (G.R. No. 162155, August 28, 2007), respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc., through its vice-chair Gilbert Yap, sought a refund or credit of P26,318,398.32 representing quarterly corporate income tax and creditable withholding tax paid in 1997 despite suffering an overall loss of P71,879,228 due to the Asian Financial Crisis. On March 11, 1999, Yap formally requested the refund from Revenue District Officer Arturo V. Parcero of Makati. After being asked by Revenue Officer Elizabeth Y. Santos on May 13, 1999, to submit supporting documents, respondent complied but received no action. Consequently, it filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on April 14, 2000, which was dismissed on December 15, 2000 for being filed one day beyond the two-year prescriptive period prescribed in Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The CTA computed the two-year period as 731 days by a Case Digest (G.R. No. 162155) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Claim
- Petitioners: Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Arturo V. Parcero, Revenue District Officer, RDO No. 049 (Makati)
- Respondent: Primetown Property Group, Inc.
- Underlying Transaction and Tax Payments
- Business Context: 1997 Asian Financial Crisis caused increase in costs, financing difficulties, and slowdown in real estate projects
- Financial Outcome: Respondent incurred P 71,879,228 loss in 1997 but nevertheless paid quarterly corporate income tax and remitted creditable withholding tax totaling P 26,318,398.32
- Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
- March 11, 1999: Vice‐chair Gilbert Yap filed a claim for refund or credit under NIRC § 229 with the BIR, submitting supporting documents upon BIR’s request on May 13, 1999
- April 14, 2000: Respondent filed CTA Case No. 6113 after inaction by BIR; December 15, 2000 CTA dismissed for prescription (filed 731 days after April 14, 1998 final adjusted return)
- CA‐G.R. SP No. 64782: On August 1, 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed CTA, ruling respondent’s petition was within the two‐year period notwithstanding the leap year
Issues:
- Prescriptive Period Computation
- Whether the two‐year prescriptive period under NIRC § 229 is measured in days (365 per year) or calendar months
- Governing Law on Legal Periods
- Whether Article 13, Civil Code (year = 365 days) or Section 31, Administrative Code of 1987 (year = 12 calendar months) governs computation of the two‐year period
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)