Amnesty availment of taxpayer with pending tax cases

Taxpayers with pending tax cases may avail themselves of the tax amnesty program under Republic Act No. 9480.

In CS Garment, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[1] the Supreme Court has "definitively declare[d] . . . the exception '[i]ssues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer' under BIR [Revenue Memorandum Circular No.] 19-2008 [as] invalid, [for going] beyond the scope of the provisions of the 2007 Tax Amnesty Law."[2] Thus:
[N]either the law nor the implementing rules state that a court ruling that has not attained finality would preclude the availment of the benefits of the Tax Amnesty Law. Both R.A. 9480 and DOF Order No. 29-07 are quite precise in declaring that "[t]ax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts" are the ones excepted from the benefits of the law. In fact, we have already pointed out the erroneous interpretation of the law in Philippine Banking Corporation (Now: Global Business Bank, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, viz:
The BIR's inclusion of "issues and cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the BIR prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" as one of the exceptions in RMC 19-2008 is misplaced. RA 9480 is specifically clear that the exceptions to the tax amnesty program include "tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts." The present case has not become final and executory when Metrobank availed of the tax amnesty program.[3] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Moreover, in the fairly recent case of LG Electronics Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[4] the Supreme Court confirmed that only cases that involve final and executory judgments are excluded from the tax amnesty program as explicitly provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9480.[5]

[1] G.R. No. 182399, March 12, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/march20I4/182399.pdf> [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].

[2]  Id. at 14.

[3] Id. at 13.

[4] G.R. No. 165451, December 3, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.htinl?file=/jurisprudence/2014/december2014/16545 l.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[5] Id. at 16.

Popular Posts