Case Digest (G.R. No. 192024)
Facts:
Fortune Tobacco Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 192024, July 01, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Fortune Tobacco Corporation; respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).Petitioner manufactured various cigarette brands whose excise-tax classification was governed by R.A. No. 8240 (shifting cigarettes from an ad valorem to a specific tax system) and the Tax Code’s Section 145 (1997 NIRC) and Annex D. To implement a congressionally mandated 12% increase effective January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the CIR, issued Revenue Regulations No. 17-99 (RR 17-99) on December 16, 1999; RR 17-99 also provided that the new specific tax rate for any existing brand shall not be lower than the excise tax actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000.
On March 31, 2005 petitioner filed a claim for tax credit or refund under Section 229 of the 1997 NIRC for alleged overpaid specific excise taxes covering June 1 to December 31, 2004, in the amount of Php219,566,450.00. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on November 14, 2005. The case was initially heard by the Former First Division of the CTA, which on April 30, 2009 rendered a decision holding RR 17-99 contrary to law but denying petitioner’s refund claim for insufficiency of evidence; the Division denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 18, 2009.
Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc (docketed CTA EB No. 533). On March 12, 2010 the CTA En Banc affirmed in toto the CTA Division’s April 30, 2009 Decision; its April 26, 2010 Resolution denied petitioner’s subsequent procedural recourses. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, seeking review of the CTA En Banc’s March 12, 2010 Decision and April 26, 2010 Resolution. The record reflects that petitioner relied largely on photocopied summaries (identified as Annexes G, G-1 to G-7, and H) purporting to show production, removals and payments and an Excise Tax Refund Computation Summary; the CTA Division and En Banc either provisionally admitted or excluded such exhibits as mere photocopies and found petitioner did not tender excluded evidence or otherwise justify why or...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner raise a question of law within the scope of a Rule 45 petition, or does the petition call for re‑examination of factual findings committed to the CTA?
- Did the CTA err in denying petitioner’s claim for refund for June 1 to December 31, 2004 for insufficiency of evidence and in excluding petitioner’s photoco...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)