Competence. Integrity. Commitment.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

THE BIR MUST EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR STARTING ITS INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY COMPUTATION FROM A ZERO TAXABLE INCOME, DESPITE THE TAXPAYER’S NET LOSS POSITION. Taxpayers must be informed in writing of the legal and factual bases of an assessment; otherwise, the assessment is void for violating due process. In this case, the BIR improperly set the taxpayer’s net taxable income to zero by completely disregarding its declared net operating loss without providing any explanation in the FLD/FAN and FDDA. The Court found that the reported loss was duly supported and constitutes a valid net operating loss. Consequently, the BIR’s unexplained disallowance was invalid, and the taxpayer’s net operating loss must be recognized in computing its 2016 income tax liability (DMCI Holdings, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10784, November 4, 2025)

THE BIR CANNOT VALIDLY DISALLOW EXPENSES RELATED TO PASSIVE INCOME. Taxpayers are allowed to deduct from gross income all ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the conduct of their trade or business, and there is no legal requirement to allocate or apportion such expenses based on the nature or source of income. The Supreme Court also held that common expenses are fully deductible without distinction among income streams. In this case, the BIR disallowed 99% of the reported expenses, by applying an allocation formula that limited allowable deductions to those supposedly attributable to its minimal “active income,” while disallowing expenses linked to “passive income.” The Court found this approach arbitrary and without legal basis, as the law does not mandate such allocation, and the cited authorities were inapplicable, involving different factual contexts such as foreign corporations or tax-exempt income. Moreover, the taxpayer substantiated that its total claimed expenses were properly recorded, reconciled with its audited financial statements, and directly related to its business operations, as confirmed by the ICPA. Consequently, the disallowance of expenses for being “unnecessary” was unsupported by both law and evidence and must be cancelled. (DMCI Holdings, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10784, November 4, 2025)

CASH RECEIPTS BOOKS ARE INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF EXEMPTION FROM DST ON ADVANCES. A DST is imposed on specific taxable transactions such as loans, advances, and certain lease agreements; moreover, DST attaches to the instrument and any party to the transaction may pay it, with full payment by one extinguishing the liability of the others. In this case, the Court upheld the DST assessment on the taxpayer’s “advances for future dividends” and “advances from affiliates,” ruling that the cash receipts book presented merely showed a breakdown of cash inflows and was insufficient to prove that the amounts were actually non-taxable dividends receivable rather than taxable advances subject to DST. However, the Court cancelled the DST assessment on “receivables from wholly owned subsidiary,” finding that the same intercompany transaction had already been subjected to and paid for DST. Finally, the taxpayer admitted liability for DST on rent expense, which was accordingly sustained. (DMCI Holdings, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10784, November 4, 2025)

TRAVEL EXPENSES AND GOLF MEMBERSHIP FEES ARE SUBJECT TO FBT IF NOT BUSINESS-RELATED. Fringe benefits furnished or granted by an employer to managerial or supervisory employees are subject to FBT, except when they are proven to be necessary business expenses or fall under specifically exempt categories. The burden rests on the taxpayer to substantiate that such expenditures are ordinary and necessary business-related costs. In this case, the BIR assessed the taxpayer for deficiency FBT arising from travel expenses, golf club memberships, and motor vehicle benefits allegedly granted to officers and directors. The Court partially granted the taxpayer’s position on travel expenses, recognizing that a portion incurred by the Managing Director was sufficiently substantiated as business-related participation in an investor event, and thus excluded from FBT. The remaining amount was properly subjected to FBT for lack of adequate proof that the expenses were business-necessary. The Court likewise sustained the FBT assessment on golf membership fees, finding that the taxpayer failed to establish that the club shares and related expenses were used exclusively for business purposes or constituted ordinary and necessary expenses, thereby classifying them as taxable fringe benefits. On the other hand, the FBT assessment on the motor vehicle was cancelled, as the Court found that the correct acquisition cost and computation showed that the taxpayer had properly reported and paid the corresponding tax, rendering the assessment without legal and factual basis. (DMCI Holdings, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10784, November 4, 2025)

DIVIDENDS PAID TO A NRFC ARE GENERALLY SUBJECT TO 30% FWT, SUBJECT TO THE TAX-SPARING RULE, WHICH ALLOWS A REDUCED 15% RATE IF THE COUNTRY OF THE RECIPIENT ALLOWS A CREDIT FOR TAXES DEEMED PAID IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO PREFERENTIAL RATES UNDER APPLICABLE TAX TREATIES OR EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND CERTAIN FINANCING INSTITUTIONS. In this case, the BIR imposed 30% FWT on the taxpayer’s dividend payments to various foreign entities, alleging failure to sufficiently prove entitlement to exemptions or treaty relief. The Court partly sustained the assessment after reviewing the documentary submissions: (a) entities were recognized as foreign government institutions entitled to exemption; (b) certain were found entitled to 15% preferential treaty rates; and (c) other foreign institutional investors were treated as NRFCs subject to the 30% rate due to lack of sufficient proof of residency, beneficial ownership, or entitlement to tax sparing or treaty relief. (DMCI Holdings, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10784, November 4, 2025)

THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID WHEN THE BIR FAILS TO PROPERLY CONSIDER OR ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE TAXPAYER’S ARGUMENTS IN THE FLD/FAN, OR MERELY ACKNOWLEDGES THEM WITHOUT PROVIDING A CLEAR AND REASONED EXPLANATION. A tax assessment is void if the taxpayer is not properly informed in writing of the factual and legal bases thereof. Jurisprudence further requires the CIR to address the taxpayer’s defenses and evidence; failure to consider or explain the rejection of such arguments constitutes a violation of due process that renders the assessment void. In this case, the BIR failed to meaningfully address petitioner’s protests against the assessment, including its claim that the audit was merely a “table audit” without examination of books, as well as its specific legal and factual defenses on VAT, EWT, FWT, prescription, treaty exemptions, and tax incentives; instead, the either ignored or only partially acknowledged these arguments in the FLD/FAN without explaining their rejection, thereby depriving petitioner of an opportunity to intelligently contest the assessment. Consistent with Avon Case, such failure to consider and explain the rejection of the taxpayer’s evidence and arguments violates due process and invalidates the assessment. Accordingly, the Court cancelled and declared void the deficiency tax assessment (Subic Water & Sewerage Co. Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10465)

ASSESSMENT IS VOID WHEN THE BIR ISSUED THE FAN/FLD EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE PAN WAS RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER. A taxpayers must be given a mandatory 15-day period from receipt of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) to respond before the issuance of a Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN), and any violation of this due process requirement renders the assessment void; applying these rules, the taxpayer received the PAN on January 16, 2013 and thus had until January 31, 2013 to reply, yet the BIR issued the FLD/FAN on January 24, 2013, only eight days after receipt and well within the prohibited period, thereby depriving the taxpayer of its right to respond and invalidating the entire assessment regardless of any subsequent protest, leading the Court to declare the deficiency tax assessment null and void and to enjoin its collection (Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10459, March 2, 2026)

THE PROPER BASIS FOR APPEALING THE BIR’S ACTION BEFORE THE CTA IS THE WARRANT OF GARNISHMENT, NOT THE LETTERS OR CERTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY BANKS, WHICH ARE MERELY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE APPEALABLE ACTS. Appeals involving disputed assessments or “other matters” (including collection remedies like warrants of garnishment) must be brought within thirty (30) days from the taxpayer’s receipt of the Commissioner’s decision or from the actionable act itself; applying these principles, although the issuance of Warrants of Garnishment (WOGs) constitutes an appealable “other matter” under the CTA’s jurisdiction, the taxpayer failed to properly invoke such jurisdiction by erroneously treating bank-issued letters and certifications - mere ministerial confirmations of garnishment and not acts of the BIR rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial authority - as the appealable decisions triggering the reglementary period, instead of directly assailing the WOGs or timely obtaining copies thereof from the BIR despite having knowledge of the garnishment, thereby resulting in a failure to file a proper and timely appeal within the period prescribed by law; consequently, the Court is left with no recourse but to dismiss the Petition for Review for lack of jurisdiction without delving into the merits (Feliciano T. Baligod, CTA Case No. 11090, March 2, 2026)

THE PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CTA DIVISION’S DECISION IS COUNTED FROM THE OSG’S RECEIPT OF THE DECISION, NOT FROM THE BIR’S RECEIPT THEREOF. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) remains the principal counsel of the government even when it deputizes agency lawyers, such that service of decisions and the reckoning of reglementary periods must be based on the OSG’s receipt, not that of deputized counsel, who merely act under its control and supervision; applying these principles, the BIR’s argument that the prescriptive period should be counted from the BIR legal officers’ receipt of the assailed Decision fails, as the OSG, being the principal counsel, controls the computation of the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration regardless of who actually prepares the pleadings, and any internal arrangement or memorandum delegating such preparation to BIR officers cannot override established procedural rules and jurisprudence, especially where the lack of OSG involvement even contravenes the requirement of its direct supervision, thus rendering petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed out of time when reckoned from the OSG’s receipt and warranting denial of the Petition; accordingly, the Court affirms the ruling that the prescriptive period was correctly computed from the OSG’s receipt. [CIR v. First Telecom Philippines, Inc. CTA EB No. 3140 (CTA Case No. 10688), March 11, 2026]

FAN/FLD WITHOUT DUE DATE RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT VOID; FDDA CANNOT CURE THE DEFECT; DEFECT MAY STILL BE INVOKED EVEN IF RAISED BELATEDLY. A valid deficiency tax assessment must constitute a written notice and demand for payment of a definite tax liability, which becomes demandable only when it contains a specific due date for payment. The Supreme Court also invalidated assessments for failure to indicate due dates in the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN), emphasizing that such omission renders the demand incomplete and void; it was further clarified by the Supreme Court that defect in the FLD/FAN cannot be cured by subsequently stating a due date in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), as both documents serve distinct functions - the FLD/FAN being the operative demand for payment while the FDDA merely resolves the protest; applying these rules, the FLD/FAN failed to state any due date for payment, rendering the assessments void, and although the taxpayer argued that the issue was raised belatedly, the Court properly took cognizance of it since it is directly related to the validity of the assessment and based entirely on evidence already on record, while the BIR’s contention that the defect was cured by inserting due dates in the FDDA was rejected. [CIR v. Grand Union Supermarket, CTA EB No. 2893 (CTA Case No. 10299), March 12, 2026]

A RULING OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ON A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE THE CTA.  The CTA may only take cognizance of appeals involving a “decision, ruling, or inaction” of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) or his duly authorized representative in cases involving disputed assessments, and jurisprudence has consistently held that only such final, appealable acts of the CIR or a properly authorized representative may be elevated to the CTA, while acts of subordinate officials without clear delegation of authority are not considered appealable decisions; applying these rules, the taxpayer initially protested the FLD/FAN through an administrative protest and subsequently elevated the matter via a request for reconsideration to the CIR, but instead of a decision from the CIR or a duly authorized representative acting within delegated authority, it was merely Regional Director Tabule who issued the denial letter, despite the taxpayer’s own acknowledgment that only the CIR may resolve such administrative appeals, and no evidence was presented showing that RD Tabule was validly authorized to act for or bind the CIR in deciding the request for reconsideration; thus, RD Tabule’s denial cannot be deemed the final decision contemplated by law that would trigger the CTA’s appellate jurisdiction, as it is a non-appealable act of a subordinate officer lacking authority to render a final ruling on the protest, rendering the petition premature and outside the jurisdiction of the CTA [Bioenergy 8 Corporation v. CIR, CTA EB No. 3004 (CTA Case No. 10260), March 13, 2026)]

AN ASSESSMENT IS VOID WHEN ADDITIONAL EXAMINERS REVIEW THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT A NEW OR AMENDED LOA. A Letter of Authority (LOA) is a mandatory prerequisite for a valid tax audit because it confers upon specifically named revenue officers the legal authority to examine a taxpayer’s books, and any audit conducted by officers not expressly covered by a valid LOA - or by officers substituted or added through mere internal memoranda or endorsements without issuance of a new or amended LOA - is void and renders the resulting assessment without legal effect; applying these rules, although the LOA initially authorized Revenue Officers Jan Andre Abellera and Johnro Galicia to examine the taxpayer, the audit was later actually conducted with the participation of Revenue Officers Oradia and Zamora based only on a letter issued by the  Chief purportedly “authorizing” their assistance, without any corresponding new or amended LOA issued by the Commissioner or authorized representative, thereby violating the requirement that only officers named in a valid LOA may conduct or participate in the audit; since these unauthorized officers were actively involved in the examination that led to the issuance of the deficiency tax assessment, the entire audit process was tainted with invalidity, making the resulting assessments void. [CIR v. First Telecom Philippines, Inc. CTA EB No. 3079 (CTA Case No. 10486), March 13, 2026]

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Order No. 037-2026

Qualified taxpayers may electronically file specific income tax returns via the offline eBIRForms system, streamlining compliance with updated filing procedures.

Revenue Memorandum Order No. 036-2026

Taxpayers are required to use the updated offline eBIRForms system, applying new forms, tax codes, and extended deadlines to ensure compliant electronic tax filing.

BIR DEADLINES FROM MAY 4, 2026 TO MAY 10, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

IN CWT REFUND, TAXPAYER MUST TRACE IN DETAIL THE INCOME PAYMENT SUBJECT TO CWT TO THE BOOKS; ICPA REPORT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. A taxpayer claiming a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWTs) must prove that the income payments from which the taxes were withheld were duly declared as part of the taxpayer’s gross income in its Annual Income Tax Return, and that such income can be properly traced and verified through the taxpayer’s books of accounts and supporting records; mere certification or conclusory findings of the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) are insufficient, as the Court is not bound by the findings of an ICPA and may require corroborative documentary evidence such as general ledgers or itemized revenue records to substantiate the linkage between BIR Form No. 2307 and reported income. In this case, the taxpayer failed to sufficiently demonstrate, through competent and traceable evidence, that the income payments subject of the claimed CWTs were included in its gross income, as the CPA’s report lacked detailed tracing to the general ledger or itemized verification of sales composition, and the Court found no adequate documentary basis to confirm the alleged inclusion in the Annual ITR; thus, the taxpayer failed to discharge its burden of proof, rendering its claim for refund untenable [(Sony Philippines, Incorporated vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10917, October 24, 2025; see also Ford Group Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 11128, October 1, 2025; see also CIR v. Novabalaja JV Corp, CTA EB No. 2952, CTA Case No. 10287, October 10, 2025)]

IN REFUND OF EXCISE TAX ON IMPORTED JET A-1 FUEL, REFUND MAY BE PARTIALLY DENIED IF THE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS AND FOREIGN AIR CARRIER’S PERMIT OF INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS IS EXPIRED/ABSENT. A taxpayer may recover excise taxes erroneously or illegally collected, provided it proves among other that the petroleum products were stored in bonded storage, sold to qualified international air carriers duly authorized to operate international flights, and used or consumed outside the Philippines. In this case, the taxpayer successfully established that it directly imported Jet A-1 fuel, paid excise taxes thereon, and subsequently sold the same to international air carriers for use outside the Philippines, supported by importation documents, customs records, withdrawal certificates, et. al.; however, the Court disallowed a portion of the claim corresponding to international carried whose authority to operate international flights had expired and without valid foreign air carrier’s permit. Accordingly, the Court granted a partial refund of excise taxes (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10966, August 12, 2025).

CAPITAL GAINS DERIVED BY A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF STOCK IN A DOMESTIC CORPORATION NOT TRADED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE MAY BE EXEMPT FROM PHILIPPINE TAXATION TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY A BINDING INTERNATIONAL TAX TREATY. Here, the claimant, a Netherlands tax resident, established through documentary evidence including a Certificate of Residence issued by the Dutch tax authority and SEC certification of non-registration in the Philippines, that it sold shares of stock in a domestic corporation and paid capital gains tax; however, under Philippines–Netherlands Tax Treaty, gains from the alienation of property other than immovable property, business property of a permanent establishment are taxable only in the state of residence, which in this case is the Netherlands, thereby allocating exclusive taxing rights to the Netherlands and exempting such gains from Philippine capital gains tax. Since the sufficiently proved its treaty residence status and ownership and sale of the shares, and, the Court held that the capital gains tax paid in the Philippines was erroneously collected and must be refunded. Health Products and Services B.V. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10968, July 28, 2025). Dissenting opinion:

PETITION FILED ON THE DATE OF DEADLINE VIA LBC AND RECEIVED BY THE COURT ONLY AFTER 2 DAYS IS DISMISSED FOR FILING OUT OF TIME; SEE DISSENTING OPINION. A petition for review of a denial of a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution, and initiatory pleadings must be filed personally or by registered mail (or with express court permission via electronic filing), such that filing through an unauthorized mode is treated as filing by ordinary mail and deemed filed only upon actual receipt by the Court. Here, the taxpayer filed the petition the granted extended date or July 24, but the court received it only on July 26 as the petition was filed via LBC courier service. Thus, the petition is considered filed out of time since  the mode of filing is not allowed for initiatory pleadings. The Court further found no compelling reason to relax the rules, especially since the appealed decision had already been correctly resolved at the division level and no injustice or exceptional circumstance was shown to justify liberal construction. Dissenting Opinion: procedural rules are not absolute and may be relaxed in the higher interest of substantial justice, especially where no prejudice is shown and strict application would result in a miscarriage of justice. [(Carmen Copper Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2779 (CTA Case No. 10074), October 27, 2025; see also CIR v. Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch, October 14, 2025)]

A LETTER-DENIAL OF REFUND BY THE REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICE IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE CTA. The CTA has jurisdiction only over decisions or inactions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or duly authorized official (such as a Regional Director), and a VAT refund claim may be appealed to the CTA only if there is a proper, appealable denial issued in accordance with the prescribed authority and procedure. In this case, the Court found that the petition was improperly elevated because it was anchored on a BIR letter issued by Revenue District Office (not by the Regional Director), which merely informed petitioner of the denial of its VAT refund claim and was not shown to be an appealable decision of the CIR or a duly authorized approving official; thus, the Petition for Review was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [Sankyu-ATS Consortium B v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2840 (CTA Case No. 10471), July 31, 2025]

ALKYLATE IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAX. This is because alkylate is not expressly covered as a taxable product, is not a product of distillation but of alkylation, and cannot be classified under “other similar products of distillation” under the principle of ejusdem generis, applying the rule that taxes must be strictly construed against the government and may not be imposed without clear statutory basis. Applying this doctrine, the Court En Banc ruled that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s imposition of excise tax on the importation of alkylate was erroneous and illegal, and that taxpayer was entitled to a refund [(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Petron Corporation, CTA EB No. 2894, CTA Case No. 9947, August 1, 2025)]

IN INPUT VAT REFUND CASES, ONLY DECISION OF THE CIR IS APPEALABLE TO THE CTA; “DEEMED DENIED” MECHANISM IS REMOVED UNDER THE TRAIN LAW; SEE DISSENTING OPINION. Statutory construction principles dictate that the deliberate deletion of language is presumed to reflect legislative intent, such that courts must give effect to the removal of the “deemed denied” mechanism previously allowing taxpayers to appeal CIR inaction, and under the doctrine that clear legislative omission cannot be judicially restored, a judicial claim for VAT refund may be filed only within 30 days from receipt of an actual denial and not from the lapse of the 90-day period. Applying this, the Court En Banc held that TRAIN intentionally removed any remedy based on CIR inaction, as shown by both textual amendment and legislative deliberations, leaving taxpayers with only one mode of appeal within 30 days from receipt of the CIR’s decision; thus rendering inaction non-appealable to the CTA. In other words, the taxpayer has no right to appeal to the CTA the inaction of the CIR after 90 days (only partial or full denial may be appealed). Dissenting Opinion: Deemed denial clause remains as the CTA rules expressly grant CTA jurisdiction over CIR inaction; removal of deemed denial provision would lead to absurd result where the taxpayer will be waiting indefinitely for the CIR’s action [Citco International Support Services Limited-Philippine ROHQ v CIR, CTA EB No. 2900 (CTA Case No. 10258), August 7, 2025; see also MD Rio Visa Agri-Ventures, Inc. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 2903, CTA Case No. 1124]

IN CWT REFUND, FAILURE TO SUBMIT ALL LISTED DOCUMENTS IN BIR-LEVEL IS NOT FATAL; CTA MAY CONSIDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. The Court held that non-compliance with documentary requirements of the BIR does not automatically warrant denial of a tax refund claim, as these issuances merely serve as internal guidelines and do not impose mandatory conditions for entitlement; jurisprudence  confirms that failure to submit all listed documents is not fatal, especially absent notice from the BIR, and that cases before the CTA are litigated de novo, allowing consideration of additional evidence; further, CWT certificates constitute prima facie proof of withholding and remittance, and actual remittance need not be proven by the taxpayer since such duty lies with the withholding agent. The Court found that the taxpayer sufficiently substantiated its claim despite alleged documentary deficiencies, as the CIR failed to notify it of any missing documents, and the evidence presented, including financial records and independent CPA tracing, adequately established that the income related to the claimed CWTs was reported in its ITR; moreover, the CWT certificates were deemed sufficient proof of withholding without need to show actual remittance [(CIR v. Panay Power Corporation, CTA EB No. 2911 (CTA Case No. 10499), Decision dated September 30, 2025; see also CIR v. Global Business Power Corporation, CTA EB No. 2965, CTA Case No. 10500, October 10, 2025)]

INCOME PAYMENT TO BSP IS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING TAX. Income payments made to the national government and its instrumentalities including government agencies vested with corporate powers but not organized as stock or non-stock corporations are exempt from creditable withholding tax; jurisprudence recognize Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as a government instrumentality. Applying these principles, the Court En Banc held that is exempt from creditable withholding tax, such that the imposition of surcharge, interest, and compromise penalty for alleged late payment of expanded withholding tax was unwarranted; and even assuming the transaction was taxable, the obligation to withhold rests on the income payor and not BSP as payee. Finding that BSP sufficiently substantiated its refund claim, the Court affirmed the grant of refund [Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, CTA EB No. 2944 (CTA Case No. 10278), September 8, 2025]

A WITNESS MUST HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS. The franchise tax paid by the grantee is in lieu of all other taxes, duties, and charges, including import duties and taxes on commissary and catering supplies, provided that (i) the imported articles are used in the grantee’s transport-related operations and (ii) such items are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price, with the taxpayer bearing the burden of strictly proving compliance as tax exemptions and refunds are construed strictly against the claimant. Applying these principles, the Court En Banc held that petitioner’s claim for refund was anchored on the alleged exemption of imported alcohol and commissary supplies, but it failed to discharge its burden of proving that such items were not locally available because the evidence presented, consisting of price lists from only a limited number of suppliers and a comparative table, was not given probative weight, as the witnesses had no personal knowledge of the preparation of the documents and the actual preparers were not presented, rendering the documents hearsay and incompetent evidence regardless of lack of objection; thus, petitioner failed to establish even a prima facie case that would shift the burden to respondent, and jurisprudence allowing sufficiency of a single price list was distinguished because the controlling issue was not quantity of evidence but its reliability and admissibility. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of the refund [Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2949 (CTA Case No. 10730), October 29, 2025]

PAGCOR LICENSEE’S VAT FROM PURCHASES IS NOT REFUNDABLE; VAT ON IMPORTATION IS REFUNDABLE. PAGCOR and its licensees, upon payment of the 5% franchise tax, are exempt from all taxes, direct and indirect, by virtue of the “in lieu of all taxes” clause; the Supreme Court also clarified that input VAT is not creditable when attributable to VAT-exempt transactions, and that only taxes actually erroneously paid by the claimant may be recovered under refund provisions. Applying these rules, the Court held that Melco Resorts Leisure Corporation, as a PAGCOR licensee that paid the required 5% franchise tax, is VAT-exempt, but its operations (casino and hotel gaming-related activities) are not zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales under the Tax Code, thus, it cannot claim refund of input VAT passed on by its suppliers because such VAT is neither creditable nor refundable. However, the Court distinguished VAT on importations and VAT on services rendered by non-residents, finding that Melco, as the statutory taxpayer directly liable for such VAT, may recover amounts that were erroneously or illegally collected; consequently, only a limited portion of the claimed VAT (those directly paid, validly supported, and timely filed, including certain importation VAT) was refundable, while the bulk of the claimed input VAT on purchases from suppliers was denied. [Melco Resorts Leisure (PHP) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue / Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Melco Resorts Leisure (PHP) Corporation, CTA EB Nos. 2976 & 2980 (CTA Case Nos. 10099 & 10176), October 28, 2025)]

REFUND OF CWT AND DST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PAYMENT, NOT 6 YEARS. Administrative and judicial claims for refund of national internal revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously, illegally, excessively, or wrongfully collected must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment; jurisprudence consistently holds that the provision constitutes a special law that prevails over the 6-year prescriptive period of Civil Code on quasi-contracts (solutio indebiti). Applying these doctrines, the Court ruled that petitioner’s claims for refund of CWT, which were paid by a bank and passed on to petitioner in connection with an extrajudicial foreclosure sale later nullified by the RTC, are still governed exclusively by NIRC because at the time of payment the amounts were treated as national internal revenue taxes, making the claims for recovery necessarily tax refund actions subject to the 2-year; thus, petitioner’s argument that the 6-year period under solutio indebiti should apply was rejected, as the Civil Code cannot override the Tax Code. The Court further held that even if petitioner reframed the action as solutio indebiti, the CTA would still lack jurisdiction because it is a court of special and limited jurisdiction confined to tax-related disputes, not ordinary civil actions for recovery of sums of money, and therefore it can only resolve claims clearly falling under tax statutes. Consequently, finding that both administrative and judicial claims were filed beyond the mandatory two-year prescriptive period, the Court affirmed their dismissal as time-barred and without merit [(Lyk Property Holdings, Inc. v. CIR, ), CTA EB No. 2986 (CTA Case No. 10754), September 30, 2025)]

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDED DECISION IS A PRE-REQUISITE TO APPEAL TO CTA EN BANC. A Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc must be preceded by a timely Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial filed before the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision, and failure to comply with this mandatory requirement is a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal; jurisprudence further clarifies that even an Amended Decision must first be subjected to a motion for reconsideration when it substantially modifies the original ruling, such as by re-evaluating evidence or altering the amount of relief granted, since it is treated as a distinct decision. Applying these rules, the Court dismissed the Petition for Review because petitioner directly elevated the CTA Division’s Amended Decision to the En Banc without first filing a Motion for Reconsideration, despite the Amended Decision materially modifying the original ruling by reassessing evidence and increasing the amount of refund awarded, thereby falling squarely within the category of amendatory rulings requiring reconsideration; as a result, the En Banc held that it lacked jurisdiction and affirmed the Amended Decision. [(CIR v. Halliburton Worldwide Limited-Philippine Branch, CTA EB No. 3070, CTA Case No. 10467, September 16, 2025)]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Under the SEC Notice on the Extension of Temporary Use of the 2020 Form for Filing of General Information Sheet on eFAST, all corporations are authorized to continue using the 2020 GIS Form until 15 May 2026, particularly those still completing access or registration requirements in the SEC online systems. 

BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

BIR DEADLINES FROM APRIL 25, 2026 TO MAY 3, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

AITR AND AFS FILING DEADLINES EXTENDED TO MAY 15, 2026 (BIR) AND 15 JUNE 2026 (SEC)

Dear CLIENTS, COLLEAGUES and FRIENDS: 

We would like to inform you of recent developments regarding the filing deadlines for the 2025 Annual Income Tax Returns (AITR) and Annual Financial Statements (AFS). Don’t miss our  OTHER UPDATES. 

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-2026

In response to Executive Order No. 110, s. 2026, which declared a State of National Energy Emergency, an extension has been granted for annual tax compliance. To provide relief during the ongoing energy crisis and rising oil prices, the deadline for taxpayers to file their 2025 Annual Income Tax Returns, settle due taxes, and submit all necessary attachments has been extended from April 15, 2026, to May 15, 2026. No penalties will be imposed for filings and payments made within this new deadline.

Securities and Exchange Commission (Notice dated April 14, 2026)

The SEC has extended the filing deadlines for the 2025 AFS and related reportorial requirements.

This extension follows the issuance by the BIR of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 30-2026, which moved the deadline for filing the 2025 AITR  and its attachments to 15 May 2026.

The extension applies to corporations with fiscal year ending 31 December 2025.

All AFS submitted to the SEC must also be filed with and received by the BIR in accordance with existing regulations.

Should, you require assistance with compliance, filing, or coordination with auditors, please feel free to reach out to us.

Best regards,

Dumlao & Co.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA) HAS JURISDICTION ONLY OVER DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (COC), NOT OVER THE LATTER’S INACTION. In this case, petitioner’s claim was based on the alleged inaction of the COC on its protest, which is not appealable to the CTA; moreover, the protest itself was not shown to have been filed in proper form (it failed to specify the ruling protested and lacked proof of payment of protest fees), and no subsequent motion for reconsideration or appealable decision by the COC was established. Consequently, absent a valid appealable decision and compliance with procedural requirements, the CTA had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and was constrained to dismiss the petition. (L.T.J.S. Store, represented by Antonio De Jesus Silva vs. District Collector of Customs, et al., CTA Case No. 10582)

CHANGING THE INVOICE HEADER FROM “CHARGE INVOICE” TO “COMMERCIAL INVOICE” WITHOUT SECURING A NEW PERMIT TO USE COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IS A MERE NOMINAL CHANGE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT. A VAT-registered taxpayer claiming zero-rated export sales must substantiate its claim through duly registered VAT invoices containing all required information (including the notation “zero-rated sale”) and proof of actual exportation, such as bills of lading or airway bills; moreover, such invoices must be issued pursuant to a duly authorized system. In this case, although the BIR disallowed the claim on the ground that the taxpayer altered its invoice header from “Charge Invoice” to “Commercial Invoice” without securing a new permit to use CAS, the Court held that the change was merely nominal and did not constitute a “system enhancement” since it neither added value to nor modified the system’s functionality, nor did it result in any change in system release or version number; thus, the existing permit remained valid and the commercial invoices retained their probative value. (MD Isalon Organic Banana Agri-Ventures, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10623, July 2, 2025)

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMERCIAL INVOICE GENERATED BY COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IS NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ZERO-RATING. VAT zero-rating applies only to sales by VAT-registered persons involving the actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, paid in acceptable foreign currency and properly accounted for under Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas rules, with the sale evidenced by VAT sales invoices and bills of lading or airway bills, and the invoices must be duly registered with the BIR. In this case, the taxpayer issued only Commercial Invoices instead of Charge or VAT Sales Invoices as required under its BIR-authorized Computerized Accounting System (CAS) permit. The Commercial Invoices were merely supplementary documents and outside the approved serial range of its permit to use CAS, and thus could not serve as principal evidence of zero-rated sales. As a result, the taxpayer failed to establish the essential element for zero-rating – that the issuance of valid VAT sales invoices showing actual export sales - and consequently could not substantiate its zero-rated sales. Accordingly, the Court denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit. (MD Davao Agri-Ventures, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10625)

AMOUNTS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF INWARD REMITTANCE MUST BE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, ITEMIZED, OR TRACEABLE TO THE CLAIMED ZERO-RATED EXPORT SALES. A valid zero-rated export sale requires that proceeds be paid in acceptable foreign currency and duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules. In this case, although the taxpayer submitted bank certifications of inward remittances, the Court found that such documents merely reflected lump-sum remittances without sufficient linkage to specific zero-rated sales transactions, and neither the schedules nor the ICPA Report identified corresponding remittance references or provided a breakdown tracing the payments to the claimed export sales; even attempts to reconcile the reported figures showed discrepancies. Consequently, in the absence of clear, itemized, and traceable proof that the alleged export sales proceeds were received in foreign currency and properly accounted for under BSP rules, petitioner failed to establish compliance with this essential requirement, warranting the denial of its VAT refund claim. (MD Isalon Organic Banana Agri-Ventures, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10623, July 2, 2025)

IMPORTATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND MEDICINES FOR DIABETES AND HYPERTENSION BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2020 IS VAT-EXEMPT; VAT MUST NOT BE CLAIMED AS CREDIT IN THE VAT RETURNS. Requisites (1) the medicines are covered by the DOH-FDA approved list; (2) importation occurred within the covered period; (3) the products are qualifying prescription drugs; and (4) the VAT paid was not claimed as input tax credit in VAT returns. In this case, the taxpayer failed to prove compliance with the fourth requirement, as the records showed that the VAT paid was reported in its VAT returns, and significant discrepancies and unreconciled differences between the VAT returns and the ICPA’s findings prevented the Court from determining whether the same amount had already been excluded from input tax credits, raising the possibility of double recovery. Consequently, due to the taxpayer’s failure to clearly establish that the erroneously paid VAT was not utilized as input tax credit, its claim for refund must be denied for lack of sufficient substantiation. (Novartis Healthcare Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10773; see also Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals (Philippines) Inc., v CIR, CTA Case No. 10725, August 20, 2025)

IN ZERO-RATED SALES, NATURE OF SERVICES MUST BE INDICATED; “INWARD” AS DESCRIPTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  Services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons for non-resident foreign corporations (NRFCs) or non-resident clients doing business outside the Philippines, paid in acceptable foreign currency and properly accounted for under Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules, are subject to zero-percent (0%) VAT, provided the taxpayer strictly complies with all invoicing and substantiation requirements, including issuance of VAT official receipts that clearly indicate the nature of the services rendered. Here, although the taxpayer presented bank certifications and credit advices showing remittances, the VAT official receipts failed to indicate the nature of services rendered, listing only “INWARD” payments, which was insufficient to meet legal standards. As compliance with invoicing and substantiation requirements is mandatory and strictly construed in tax exemption claims, the taxpayer failed to establish entitlement to zero-rating or refund of input taxes for the period claimed. Accordingly, the Petition for Review was denied. (Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 11005)

SALE TO BOI-REGISTERED ENTITY MUST BE SUPPORTED BY BOI CERTIFICATION; INVOICE ME BE MARKED “ZERO-RATED”. Zero-rated sales by VAT-registered persons are allowed only if specific statutory and regulatory conditions are strictly complied with, including that the sales are made to BOI-registered exporters whose products are 100% exported, supported by a valid BOI certification, and that each sale is covered by a duly registered VAT invoice clearly indicating the term “zero-rated sale.” In this case, the taxpayer failed to establish that its sales qualified as zero-rated or effectively zero-rated because it did not present BOI certifications for its customers, nor did it issue VAT invoices properly marked as “zero-rated,” with the invoices instead showing the amounts as “VATable Sales.” (Monarch Agricultural Products, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10376)

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 24-2026

Cross-border services are taxable in the Philippines only when the source of income—determined by where the service is performed, completed, or where the benefit is received—is within the country.

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 20-2026

Pursuant to the Ease of Paying Taxes framework, AITRs must be filed electronically, and for offline eBIRForms users, a screenshot of the submission confirmation serves as valid proof of filing when email confirmation is delayed; thus, taxpayers must retain this screenshot as evidence of compliance.

BIR DEADLINES FROM APRIL 06, 2026 TO APRIL 19, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

TAX ORDER PAYMENTS (TOP) ARE NOT CONSIDERED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IF THEY FAIL TO SPECIFY SURCHARGE, INTEREST, PENALTY AND BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT; PAYMENT INCLUDING REFUND WITHIN 2 YEARS UNDER SECTION 196 IS A VALID REMEDY. In questioning local business taxes, the applicable remedy hinges on the existence of a valid assessment: Section 195 governs protests against assessments that must state the nature of the tax, deficiency amount, and applicable surcharges, interests, and penalties, and must be protested within 60 days; while Section 196 applies where taxes are erroneously or illegally collected, even without a prior assessment, provided a written claim is filed within two years from payment. A valid assessment must sufficiently inform the taxpayer of both the factual and legal bases to enable an intelligent protest. Applying these principles, the Court found that the 2022 and TOPs, although indicating the nature and amount of taxes, failed to specify any deficiency assessment, surcharges, interest, penalties, and the factual and legal bases, thus not constituting valid notices of assessment under Section 195. Consequently, the taxpayer correctly availed of Section 196, having paid the local business taxes; it then timely filed its administrative claim for refund, both within the two-year prescriptive period reckoned from such earliest payment. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to protest under Section 195 and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine, based on evidence, whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund or tax credit of the alleged excess local business taxes paid. [Team (Philippines) Energy Corporation v. The Municipality Pagbilao, Quezon, et. al., CTA AC No. 331, August 11, 2025]

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP) IS EXEMPT FROM DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX (DST) ON ACQUISITION OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY. DST is imposed on deeds, conveyances, donations, or other instruments transferring real property, calculated based on the consideration or fair market value, but all contracts, deeds, documents and transactions related to the conduct of business of the BSP are exempt. In this case, BSP extended an emergency loan to the Rural Bank of San Miguel, which was secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon the borrower’s default, the mortgaged properties were foreclosed, and BSP, as the highest bidder, acquired the property. BSP paid the capital gains tax on the foreclosure sale, but the BIR assessed additional DST. BSP paid this DST under protest, asserting that as a government financial institution acting within its statutory mandate to grant loans and acquire foreclosed properties, it is exempt from DST. The Court agreed that the acquisition of foreclosed properties forms part of BSP’s business operations and that the DST assessment was therefore erroneous. Accordingly, the Court ordered the BIR to refund or issue a tax credit certificate representing the erroneously paid DST on the foreclosure transaction. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10106, September 1, 2025; Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. CIR, CTA Case No. 11147, September 29, 2025)

IN ZERO-RATED SALES TO ECOZONES, GOODS AND SERVICES MUST ACTUALLY BE CONSUMED OR RENDERED WITHIN THE ECOZONE, AND THE PLACE OF TRANSACTION MUST BE INDICATED. Zero-rated VAT applies to export sales by VAT-registered persons and to services rendered to entities whose exemption under special laws effectively subjects such services to zero percent VAT. Special laws establish ECOZONES as separate customs territory, allowing sales from the Philippine customs territory to PEZA-registered entities within ECOZONES to be treated as exports for VAT purposes. In the case of Sankyu-Ats Consortium-B, while it is VAT-registered and sold exclusively to a PEZA-registered entity, it failed to establish that the goods and services were actually consumed or rendered within the ECOZONE, a critical element for zero-rating under the Cross-Border Doctrine and Destination Principle. Documents did not indicate the locus of transactions, nor were purchase orders or contracts provided to substantiate consumption within the ECOZONE. Consequently, petitioner did not satisfy the essential requisites for zero-rated sales, and its claim for refund of input taxes was denied. (Sankyu-Ats Consortium-B v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10676, September 2, 2025)  

ZERO-PERCENT VAT APPLIES TO SERVICES RENDERED BY VAT-REGISTERED PERSONS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY (RE) DEVELOPERS IF TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET: (1) THE RE DEVELOPER IS DULY REGISTERED WITH BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) AND THE BOARD OF INVESTMENTS (BOI), AND (2) THE SERVICES OR LOCAL PURCHASES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND INSTALLATION OF PLANT FACILITIES OR FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES UP TO CONVERSION INTO POWER. In this case, Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd., claimed input VAT refund for excess or unutilized VAT arising from services allegedly rendered to EDC and PGPC. The Court denied the refund because Air Drilling failed to prove PGPC’s BOI registration and that not all EDC projects were BOI-registered. Moreover, Air Drilling failed to present admissible evidence that services were actually rendered during the claim period: the original contract had expired in 2017, and the submitted amended contract extending the term to December 31, 2019, was disallowed; and the billing invoices and VAT official receipts were insufficient to establish that services were performed in connection with RE development during the relevant period. (Air Drilling Associates Pte Ltd., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10752, August 13, 2025).

IN INPUT VAT REFUND CASES FILED WITH THE REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICE (RDO), ONLY THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NOT THE RDO, IS APPEALABLE TO THE CTA. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions, rulings, or inactions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) or duly authorized officials, and such appeal must be filed within 30 days from receipt of the decision. Revenue issuances clarify that for VAT refund claims filed with a Revenue District Office (RDO), the Regional Director or higher authorized official has the authority to approve or deny the claim, and only the decision of such official is appealable to the CTA. In this case, Sankyu-ATS Consortium-B filed a VAT refund claim, which was denied by Revenue District Officer. Since the RDO officer lacks authority to issue an appealable denial, the CTA has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and the proper appealable decision would have been that of the Regional Director. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (Sankyu-Ats Consortium-B v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10768, July 11, 2025)

IN CLAIMS FOR INPUT VAT REFUND INVOLVING OFFSETTING, THERE MUST BE A CLEAR AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY ALLOWING ADVANCES TO BE OFFSET AGAINST RECEIVABLES, WITH SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ACTUAL OFFSETTING UNDERTAKEN. Services performed in the Philippines by a VAT-registered person for a foreign corporation or a non-resident person outside the Philippines are subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, provided, among others, the consideration is paid in acceptable foreign currency and duly accounted for in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules. Pursuant to the BIR rules, an offsetting arrangement where receivable from services is offset against advances is allowed as alternative document. In this case, while the taxpayer submitted the Short-Term Credit Facility Agreement (STCFA) and related documents showing loan transactions in foreign currency, these documents failed to prove that such advances could be validly offset against receivables from services provided to other affiliates. The STCFA governs loans, not inter-affiliate offsets, and no separate agreement establishing such offsets between taxpayer and other affiliates was presented. The Schedule of Offsetting of Receivables also did not detail actual offsets corresponding to specific service invoices, showing only movements in the group account balance, which the Court deemed insufficient to establish that the loans served as payments for services. (Avaloq Philippines Operating Headquarters v. CIR,  CTA Case No. 10922, August 29, 2025)

ROYALTY TAXES TWICE PAID CAN BE REFUNDED. A taxpayer is entitled to a refund or tax credit if it can establish that it erroneously paid a tax Taxpayer further established that it erroneously paid both Withholding Value-Added Tax (WVAT) and Final Withholding Tax (FWT) on its 2020 sales. These sales were subjected to a 25% royalty under a first agreement and simultaneously to a 20% royalty the second agreement, resulting in double payment of taxes. Evidence supporting the claim included the Schedule of Net Sales, audited financial statements, the schedule of royalties reported, and permits. Witnesses testified that the double-counting of royalties was unintentional and was discovered, upon which the 20% royalty expense and related taxes were reversed in the books. The Court recognized that the WVAT and FWT corresponding to the 20% royalties were indeed erroneously paid, as the basis for taxation no longer existed due to the reversal and refund of the royalties. Accordingly, the Court ordered the BIR to refund the erroneously paid WVAT and FWT. (Syngena Philippines, Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 11067, August 27, 2025)

IN AN INPUT VAT REFUND CASE, A TAXPAYER’S PETITION FILED WITH THE CTA PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THE CIR’S DECISION OR BEFORE THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD FOR INACTION IS DISMISSIBLE. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions, rulings, or inactions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, tax refunds, fees, or other matters under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), and an appeal must be filed within 30 days from receipt of the decision or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action, with inaction being considered a “deemed denial.” The CIR has 90 days from receipt of a complete administrative claim for VAT refund or tax credit to act on the claim, after which inaction is deemed a denial and appealable to the CTA. Here,  the taxpayer filed its administrative claim for VAT refund on July 30, 2020, well within the two-year prescriptive period from the issuance of its tax clearance, giving the BIR until October 28, 2020, to act. However, taxpayer prematurely filed the judicial Petition for Review on August 3, 2020, before the expiration of the 90-day period and before receipt of the BIR’s denial on October 30, 2020, meaning neither was there a decision nor a deemed denial to appeal. Thus, the petition was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (British American Tobacco (Philippines), Limited v. CIR, CTA Case o. 10322, July 31, 2025)

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 21-2026

Tax exemptions previously granted to a former foreign assistance agency are officially extended to the newly established foreign assistance section of the diplomatic mission. 

Revenue Regulations No. 2-2026

Eligible participants and generation facilities can avail of VAT exemptions and other tax incentives for the trade and utilization of indigenous natural gas. 

BIR DEADLINES FROM MARCH 30, 2026 TO APRIL 5, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

THE CITY OF MANILA’S ASSESSMENT IS VOID FOR ASSESSING TAXPAYER BUSINESS TAX AS HOLDING COMPANY WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING ORDINANCE; ALSO VOID FOR LACK OF NATURE, BASIS, AND RATE OF THE TAX. Under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC), a valid local tax assessment must clearly state the nature of the tax, the amount of deficiency, and the applicable surcharges, interests, and penalties; in addition, LGC requires that the power of local government units to impose taxes must be exercised through a duly enacted ordinance of the Sanggunian. Applying these principles, the Court found that the City of Manila improperly assessed the taxpayer for “business tax as holding co.” despite the absence of any ordinance imposing such tax on holding companies, and without adequately indicating the legal basis or nature of the tax in the assessment notice. The assessment further failed to specify the tax rate and showed inconsistency as to whether the taxpayer was being taxed as a contractor or a financial institution, even leading to figures that could not be independently verified or recomputed. Such omissions prevented the taxpayer from intelligently protesting the assessment and demonstrated arbitrariness in its issuance, thereby violating due process. Consequently, the deficiency local business tax assessments were declared void. (The City of Manila et. al., v. CTF Hotel and Entertainment, Inc., CTA EB No. 2987, CTA AC 276, September 19, 2025)

THE PERIOD TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW OR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RUNS FROM THE DATE THE DECISION OR RESOLUTION IS RECEIVED BY THE PARTY’S COUNSEL OF RECORD, AND WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY MULTIPLE COUNSELS, NOTICE TO ANY ONE OF THEM IS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT AND BINDING. In the present case, the DOJ was the counsel of record for petitioner and was properly furnished a copy of the assailed resolution of May 6, 2024, which triggered the running of the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration, regardless of when the BIR or its deputized special prosecutors received a copy. Likewise, the assailed resolution of July 30, 2024 was received by the DOJ on August 2, 2024, and furnished to the BIR on August 6, 2024, giving the petitioner until August 20, 2024, considering weekends and holidays, to file a petition for review. Because the Petition for Review was filed on August 21, 2024, it was clearly out of time. Petitioner’s reliance on its status as private complainant, the deputization of BIR lawyers, or principles of substantial justice and fair play were legally irrelevant to timeliness, and even if the petition were considered timely, the court dismissed the case. (People v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio, CTA EB Crim No. 160, CTA Crim Case No. O-807, October 30, 2025; see also People v. Juanita L. Ilagan, CTA EB Crim No. 158, CTA Crim Case No. O-987)

CRIMINAL ACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE TAX CODE PRESCRIBE AFTER FIVE YEARS FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, OR FROM ITS DISCOVERY IF UNKNOWN, AND THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD IS INTERRUPTED ONLY BY THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; SEE  DISSENTING OPINION. jurisprudence, including Lim Sr. Case, establishes that the period begins when the taxpayer willfully fails to pay the deficiency taxes after notice or when the assessment becomes final and unappealable. Applying this to the present case, the taxpayer received the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices on April 7, 2010, with payment due on April 26, 2010, and the Information was only filed on January 28, 2020, well beyond the five-year prescriptive period. Although the Supreme Court in Consebido Case clarified that filing before the DOJ tolls prescription, this ruling applies prospectively and does not affect this case. Even if applied, the prescriptive period commenced on April 27, 2010, upon willful non-payment, and the filing of the complaint in 2019 occurred more than five years later, rendering the criminal action time-barred. (People v. Ronie Romano Eustaquio, CTA EB Crim No. 160, CTA Crim Case No. O-807, October 30, 2025; see also People v. Ziegfried Loo Tian, CTA EB Crim No. 143, CTA Crim Case No. O-943, October 10, 2025) Dissenting Opinion: Consebido Case applies retroactively as it is procedural in nature; and Lim Sr. Case is not applicable as it interpreted 1939 Tax Code.

VESSEL MAY BE SEIZED EVEN IF IT IS A COMMON CARRIER IF IT ENTERED INTO A CHARTER PARTY AGREEMENT; LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR PARTICIPATION IS IMMATERIAL; SEE DISSENTING OPINION. Forfeiture proceedings are in rem, directed against the property itself rather than its owner, and the mere presence of smuggled goods in commercial quantities aboard a vessel is sufficient to warrant seizure and forfeiture. The law establishes that exemptions from forfeiture only apply if the vessel is a common carrier, has not been chartered or leased for transporting cargo or persons, and if the owner or agent had no knowledge or participation in the unlawful act; and the burden of proof to establish exemption rests squarely on the claimant. Jurisprudence confirms that the owner’s lack of knowledge or personal involvement does not absolve the vessel of forfeiture liability, as the proceedings focus on the vessel’s use in the illegal act and not on personal culpability. Thus, where the vessel was found loaded with smuggled rice and cigarettes even though the vessel was a common carrier engaged in coastwise trade but had entered into a Charter Party Agreement, the taxpayer is disqualified from claiming exemption, as chartered vessels cannot invoke the protection given to common carriers. The Court emphasized that the forfeiture action being in rem means that the owner’s personal knowledge or intent is irrelevant to the vessel’s liability. (Hai Long Shipbuilding & Lighterage Inc., v Office of the Commissioner, CTA Case No. 10622, August 28, 2025) Dissenting opinion: While the taxpayer entered into a Charter Party Agreement, this only disqualifies it from claiming exemption that the vessel must be a common carrier not chartered or leased. However, forfeiture also allows an independent exemption if the owner or agent had no knowledge or participation in the unlawful act, noting that the disjunctive “or” in the statute means the two conditions are alternative, not cumulative. The petitioner consistently denied any knowledge or involvement in smuggling, and that the respondents failed to provide prima facie evidence showing participation, Lastly, the acts of the vessel’s captain were not properly proven, as the affiants were not presented in court, rendering their affidavits hearsay. Based on these points, the dissent concluded that the forfeiture order lacks sufficient evidence.

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Order No. 006-2026

Amends the procedural framework for consolidating Electronic Letters of Authority (eLAs) and provides transitional rules for VAT refund processing to ensure uniform audit reforms.

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 20-2026

In accordance with the Ease of Paying Taxes Act and its implementing regulations, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued guidelines for the electronic filing and payment of 2025 Annual Income Tax Returns (AITR) due by April 15, 2026.

BIR DEADLINES FROM MARCH 23, 2026 TO MARCH 29, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable: