Case Digest (G.R. No. 190506) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Coral Bay Nickel Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, decided on June 13, 2016 under the 1987 Constitution, the petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of nickel and cobalt mixed sulphide, registered as a VAT taxpayer with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and, effective December 27, 2002, as an Ecozone Export Enterprise under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) at the Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone in Palawan. On August 5, 2003, the petitioner filed an amended VAT return declaring unutilized input tax of ₱50,124,086.75 for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and, on June 14, 2004, formally applied for refund or credit with Revenue District Office No. 36. Alleging inaction by the Commissioner, it elevated the claim to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on July 8, 2004 (CTA Case No. 7022). After trial, the CTA Division denied the claim on March 10, 2008, relying on Section 106(A)(2)(a)(5) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, Art... Case Digest (G.R. No. 190506) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Status
- Petitioner
- Coral Bay Nickel Corporation, domestic corporation manufacturing nickel/cobalt mixed sulphide
- VAT-registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
- PEZA Registration
- Registered as an Ecozone Export Enterprise under PEZA Certificate dated December 27, 2002
- Located inside Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone, a special economic zone under Proclamation No. 304, s. 2002
- Claim for Refund of Input VAT
- Amended VAT Return
- Filed August 5, 2003, declaring unutilized input tax for Q3–Q4 2002 amounting to ₱50,124,086.75
- Application for Tax Credit/Refund
- Filed June 14, 2004 with RDO 36, Palawan (BIR Form 1914) with supporting documents
- Elevation to CTA
- July 8, 2004: Petition for Review before CTA Division (CTA Case No. 7022) alleging inaction by the Commissioner
- CTA Division Decision
- March 10, 2008: Denial of refund claim based on NIRC §106(A)(2)(a)(5), Art. 77(2) Omnibus Investment Code, Cross Border Doctrine, citing Commissioner v. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. and RMC 42-03
- July 2, 2008: CTA Division denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
- CTA En Banc Decision
- May 29, 2009: Denial of petition (CTA EB Case No. 403)
- December 10, 2009: Denial of Motion for Reconsideration
- Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, G.R. No. 190506, June 13, 2016
- Main Contentions of Petitioner
- Toshiba inapplicable as petitioner was not yet PEZA-registered when input VAT was incurred (May–December 2002)
- Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements for refund entitlement
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Issue
- Whether the premature filing of the judicial claim in the CTA deprived the Court of jurisdiction
- Merits Issue
- Whether petitioner, an entity located within an ECOZONE, was entitled to refund of unutilized input taxes incurred before issuance of its PEZA registration
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)