Competence. Integrity. Commitment.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

SERVICE OF NOTICES TO ACCOUNTING STAFF IS VALID IF TAXPAYER DID NOT TIMELY DISPUTE AUTHORITY; SERVICE OF NOTICES TO LAW FIRM/LAWYER IS VALID IF AUTHORIZED BY THE TAXPAYER. Service of assessment notices is governed by the Tax Code and related issuances, which allow service through personal or substituted service and deem service to an authorized representative or tax agent as valid service to the taxpayer. Under these rules, proper receipt is presumed valid when the notice is received by a person authorized by the taxpayer, and admissions made in judicial proceedings bind the party, while the doctrine of apparent authority likewise estops a corporation from denying the authority of its agents who have been clothed with actual or apparent authority to act on its behalf. In this case, the taxpayer’s own witness admitted receipt of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) through its accounting staff, and the taxpayer did not timely dispute her authority, thereby constituting an implied admission that she was authorized to receive notices on its behalf. Similarly, the taxpayer expressly authorized the law office and its lawyer to receive all documents and communications relating to its tax audit, and the taxpayer’s subsequent conduct in allowing the lawyer to file the protest without objection further confirmed his apparent authority, rendering service of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) valid and binding. Moreover, the PAN and FLD/FAN were properly served, with the notices duly received, signed, and dated, and the regulation dispensed with stricter acknowledgment requirements. Accordingly, the Court upheld the validity of service of all assessment notices and rejected the taxpayer’s claims of improper notice for lack of merit (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

TAXPAYER MUST PROVE ACTUAL FILING DATES OF RETURN TO INVOKE PRESCRIPTION. Internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law for filing the return or from the actual date of filing, whichever is later, subject to suspension of the prescriptive period. Jurisprudence further clarifies that the FLD/FAN must be issued within the prescriptive period, and that prescription is a matter of defense which the taxpayer must clearly prove, including competent evidence of the actual filing dates of the relevant tax returns. In this case, the taxpayer’s claim that the BIR’s right to assess has prescribed cannot prosper because it failed to present proof of the actual filing dates of its tax returns, which are necessary to determine the reckoning point of the three-year prescriptive period. Absent such proof, the Court cannot establish that the period had lapsed before the issuance of the FLD/FAN, and thus there is no basis to conclude that prescription has set in. Accordingly, the Court held that the BIR’s right to assess the taxpayer has not yet prescribed. (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

TAXPAYER MUST SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST BETWEEN ITR AND AFS. Interest expense is deductible only to the extent allowed by law. In this case, the BIR disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed interest expense for exceeding the allowable amount by comparing the interest reflected in the audited financial statements against the amount claimed in the income tax return. Because the taxpayer failed to present competent evidence to overturn the factual and legal basis of the disallowance, the Court upheld the BIR’s assessment and disallowance of the claimed interest expense. (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

TO BE DEDUCTIBLE, BAD DEBTS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE SHOWING ACTUAL COLLECTION EFFORT. Losses may be deducted from gross income only if they are duly substantiated and properly charged off within the taxable year. The requirement for bad debts requires proof of worthlessness and reasonable efforts to collect before write-off. Moreover, the taxpayer must be sufficiently informed of the factual and legal bases of the assessment to enable an effective protest, but the burden remains on the taxpayer to overcome the presumption of correctness of tax assessments through competent evidence. In this case, the BIR disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed carried-over losses for being unsupported, which the petitioner recharacterized as validly written-off bad debts allegedly approved by its executive and credit committees upon advice of an external consultant who undertook collection efforts. However, the taxpayer failed to present documentary or other competent evidence showing actual, earnest collection efforts or substantiation of worthlessness of the accounts written off, rendering its claims as bare allegations insufficient to overturn the assessment. Thus, the Court sustained the BIR’s disallowance of the claimed losses for lack of factual support (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

DONATIONS AND CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME ONLY IF PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATED. Under the general rules on evidence and tax assessments, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to deductions. In this case, the BIR disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed donations and charitable contributions for lack of support. The taxpayer contended that it did not actually claim donations as an expense in its income tax return, pointing out that the relevant line item was left blank and arguing that the alleged amount only appeared in a later-provided matching schedule under a “miscellaneous” account. However, the Court found these explanations insufficient as the taxpayer failed to present competent evidence showing that the amounts were not properly classified as donations or that they complied with the requisites for deductibility. Accordingly, the Court upheld the disallowance for lack of substantiation (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

TAXPAYER MUST PROVE WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ITS RECONCILIATION ON THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN FBT EXPENSE PER ITR AND ACTUAL FBT REMITTED. Deductions and claimed tax expenses must be properly substantiated. In this case, the BIR disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed overstatement of fringe benefit tax (FBT) expense upon finding a discrepancy between the FBT expense reported in the taxpayer’s income tax return and the actual FBT withheld and remitted, which the Court found was sufficiently supported. Although the taxpayer alleged that it had submitted documents to the BIR showing no discrepancy and that the amounts matched, it failed to formally offer such supporting documents in evidence before the Court, leaving the assessment unrebutted. Accordingly, the Court upheld the disallowance of the overclaimed FBT expense. (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

AN ASSESSMENT ITEM REFLECTED IN THE FLD/FAN BASED SOLELY ON THE TRIAL BALANCE, WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE SPECIFIC ACCOUNT OR DETAILED COMPUTATION, WITH PARTICULARS REVEALED ONLY LATER IN THE FDDA, IS IMPROPER AND MUST BE DELETED. Due process in tax assessments requires that the taxpayer be informed in writing of the factual and legal bases of the assessment through the FLD/FAN, enabling the taxpayer to properly and intelligently file a protest. Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement renders the assessment void, consistent with jurisprudence emphasizing that mere conclusions or general computations are insufficient. In this case, respondent assessed petitioner for deficiency percentage tax on alleged receipts not subjected to gross receipts tax, presenting in the FLD only a computation of “receipts not subjected to GRT” supposedly derived from petitioner’s trial balance, but without identifying the specific accounts, entries, or detailed breakdown of the adjusting items used in the computation. The taxpayer argued that it was deprived of due process because the FLD contained only a bare computation and the details were disclosed only at the FDDA stage, where the BIR even admitted that the adjustments came from “credit balance and adjustments in the trial balance,” while suggesting that the taxpayer could simply trace the figures from its submitted trial balance. The Court rejected this reasoning, holding that such generalized reference was insufficient and that the BIR had a duty to specifically identify the exact items in the trial balance used as basis for the adjustments. Since the lack of particulars prevented the taxpayer from intelligently contesting the assessment at the administrative stage, the Court ruled that the BIR failed to comply with the requirements of due process, warranting the deletion of the deficiency percentage tax assessment and its corresponding findings in the FDDA. (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

AN EWT ASSESSMENT PREMISED SOLELY ON GENERAL TRIAL BALANCE CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMPARISON WITH THE ALPHALIST IS IMPROPER AND MUST BE DELETED. Tax assessments must clearly state the factual and legal bases thereof in the FLD/FAN to satisfy due process, and failure to provide sufficient particulars deprives the taxpayer of the opportunity to intelligently contest the assessment, rendering it void. In this case, the BIR assessed taxpayer for deficiency expanded withholding tax by merely using generalized classifications such as “Subject to 1% WE” and “Subject to 10% WE” to describe various income payments allegedly derived from the taxpayer’s trial balances, and then comparing these with amounts reflected in the taxpayer’s Alphalist. The Court found that this approach was too vague and failed to identify the specific transactions, payees, or income items subject to withholding, thereby preventing the taxpayer from properly understanding and contesting the basis of the deficiency assessment. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the BIR failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of due process, and the expanded withholding tax assessment was deleted from the FLD/FAN and FDDA. (RCBC Leasing & Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10786, December 9, 2025)

A TAXPAYER MAY CHALLENGE A BIR ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE CTA, WHETHER THROUGH AN APPEAL FROM (1) FLD/FAN OR FDDA OR (2) WDL OR WG, BUT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD DEPRIVES THE CTA OF JURISDICTION. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the court at the earliest opportunity, being indispensable to the validity of all proceedings. The CTA in Division has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds, or other matters arising under the NIRC, and such jurisdiction may only be exercised when the appeal is seasonably filed within the reglementary period. In this case, the taxpayer failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for a valid protest by filing the same beyond the 30-day period from receipt of the FLD/FAN and without properly indicating the nature and basis of the protest, thereby rendering the assessment final, executory, and no longer a disputed assessment cognizable by the CTA. Consequently, there was no valid action or decision of the CIR that could be elevated under the first instance of CTA jurisdiction. Likewise, the taxpayer’s recourse against the WDL and WOGs was likewise filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period counted from receipt of the issuances, thereby failing to perfect an appeal even under the CTA’s “other matters” jurisdiction. Thus, both on the basis of an unappealed final assessment and belated judicial recourse against enforcement issuances, the Court in Division correctly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition (Cap John Hay Trade and Cultural Center, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case EB No. 2923, CTA Case No. 10014, December 4, 2025)

IAET MAY STILL BE VALIDLY IMPOSED FOR TAXABLE YEARS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE CREATE LAW THAT ABOLISHED IT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE FAN/FLD WAS ISSUED ONLY AFTER THE LAW TOOK EFFECT IN 2021. In tax law, repeals or amendments affecting tax impositions are applied only prospectively unless expressly made retroactive. Specifically, the regulations on IAET provide that IAET is no longer imposed upon the effectivity of the CREATE Act and applies prospectively. In this case, the taxpayer’s argument that CREATE Law effectively barred the assessment of IAET is untenable because there is no showing that Congress intended the repeal to operate retroactively; thus, IAET remains imposable for taxable year 2017, which is a period prior to the law’s effectivity (April 2021), notwithstanding that the FLD/FAN were issued in June 2021, after CREATE took effect. Accordingly, since the taxable period involved preceded the CREATE Law, the BIR can assess IAET against the taxpayer (DHL Supply Chain Phils, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10722, December 2, 2025)

THE CTA MAY VALIDLY RULE ON A REFUND CLAIM EVEN WHEN THE CASE FILED PERTAINS TO THE DISPUTE OF AN ASSESSMENT. The CTA has jurisdiction over cases involving decisions of the CIR on disputed tax assessments and claims for refund or issuance of tax credit certificates, and may resolve refund claims in the same proceeding when necessary to determine the correct tax liability and avoid multiplicity of suits. In this case, the taxpayer's claim for refund representing amounts garnished and collected by the BIR was properly entertained by the Court as the refund is directly anchored on the nullification of the IAET assessment. Records show that the BIR enforced collection through garnishment from the petitioner’s bank account and subsequently issued a manager’s check in favor of the BIR, which was duly admitted by the BIR and supported by documentary evidence, while the WDL and WG were issued during the pendency of the case. Thus, since the assessment was found void and the taxpayer was held not liable for IAET, the amounts collected have no legal basis and must be returned. Accordingly, to avoid multiplicity of suits and ensure full adjudication of tax liability in a single proceeding, the Court ordered the refund of the garnished amount (DHL Supply Chain Phils, Inc. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10722, December 2, 2025)

VAT ASSESSMENT BASED ON UNDER-DECLARED EXPENSE SHOULD BE CANCELLED. Tax assessments based on third-party information (TPI) matching must be supported by verified and credible evidence, as the presumption of correctness accorded to tax assessments cannot rest on another presumption. Moreover, VAT is imposed only on actual sales or receipts from the sale of goods or services, not on purchases or disbursements. In this case, the BIR assessed the taxpayer for an alleged unaccounted source of cash after finding discrepancies between the  SLP and third-party sales declarations, where TPI amounts exceeded the taxpayer’s recorded purchases. The Court held that the BIR failed to properly verify the TPI data, rendering the assessment factually deficient. More importantly, the discrepancy merely suggested an alleged under declaration of purchases, which by itself does not establish VAT liability since VAT attaches to sales, not purchases. The Court further noted that even assuming the discrepancy represented unaccounted cash used for purchases, the corresponding transactions would generate input VAT credits that would offset any output VAT. Since the assessment relied solely on layered presumptions unsupported by actual facts, the Court ruled that the deficiency VAT assessment based on the alleged unaccounted source of cash lacked factual basis and must be cancelled. (Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10425, February 13, 2026)

A VAT ASSESSMENT BASED SOLELY ON A COMPARISON OF THE AFS AND VAT RETURNS, AND ON THE ARBITRARY DIVISION OF ANNUAL FIGURES TO DERIVE A HALF-YEAR ASSESSMENT, LACKS SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS, IS IMPROPER, AND SHOULD BE CANCELLED. The BIR is empowered to examine a taxpayer’s books, records, papers, and other relevant documents in determining tax liabilities, and any resulting assessment must be grounded on actual facts rather than assumptions or arbitrary estimations. In this case, the BIR assessed the taxpayer for alleged overclaimed input VAT after comparing the taxpayer’s AFS with its VAT returns and concluding that the input taxes claimed exceeded those supported by financial records. The Court found merit in taxpayer’s argument that the assessment was arbitrary because the BIR examiners failed to consider its notes to the financial statements and instead relied on incomplete figures. More critically, the BIR failed to determine the actual portion of input taxes attributable to the audit period of July to December 2014, and merely divided annual figures by two under the unsupported assumption that purchases were evenly distributed throughout the year. Since the BIR neglected to examine the taxpayer’s supporting records to establish the actual amounts pertaining to the covered period, the resulting deficiency assessment lacked factual basis and the Court ordered the cancellation of the alleged overclaimed input tax assessment. (Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10425, February 13, 2026)

WDL INITIATES COLLECTION EFFORTS OF THE BIR; PCL IS MERELY A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT AND DOES NOT ITIATE COLLECTION PROCEEDING. The BIR’s right to collect assessed taxes is exercised through administrative remedies of distraint and levy or through judicial proceedings, and collection efforts are deemed properly commenced only upon the issuance and service of a WDL or the filing of a court action, not by mere demand letters. The Court held that a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) merely constitutes a demand for payment and warning of future enforcement, but does not itself initiate collection proceedings or suspend the running of the prescriptive period. In this case, although the CIR argued that collection began upon issuance of the PCL, the Court found that the letter only demanded payment within ten days and warned that administrative remedies may later be pursued. By contrast, only the subsequently issued WDL expressly initiated actual collection by commanding seizure and levy of taxpayer property pursuant to the Tax Code. Accordingly, the Court En Banc ruled that collection efforts legally commenced only upon issuance of the WDL, affirmed the Division’s findings, and denied the CIR’s petition for lack of merit. (CIR v. South Cotabato 1 Electric Cooperative, Inc. CTA EB No. 3001 (CTA Case No. 10937), December 3, 2025.)

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 59-2026 All covered Non-Resident Digital Service Providers (NRDSPs) must register and fulfill tax liabilities in the Philippines, as international income tax treaties do not exempt them from consumer-level Value-Added Tax (VAT). 

Legal Principle (Treaty vs. Consumption Tax)	Income Tax Treaties vs. Business Tax Status: Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) entered into by the Philippines apply exclusively to national Income Taxes. Because VAT is an indirect, consumption-driven business tax on the privilege of transaction, tax treaties provide zero exemption or preferential relief against the 12% Philippine digital VAT framework.
Registration Requirements	Administrative Compliance for NRDSPs: Even if an NRDSP's core digital offerings are legally classified as "VAT-Exempt" under Section 109 of the Tax Code, the platform retains a mandatory obligation to register with the BIR and file periodic VAT returns to properly record and validate its Philippine-sourced VAT-exempt sales.
Cross-Border Cost-Sharing	B2B Transfer & Reverse Charge Control: When a foreign affiliate commands terms, sets pricing, or handles ordering/delivery for an entity in the Philippines, that affiliate is treated as the operational NRDSP. The local Philippine subsidiary must assume tax liability by utilizing the Reverse Charge Mechanism (BIR Form 1600-VT) to withhold and remit the 12% VAT.
Online Booking and Travel Platforms	Taxable Base Determination: For online booking systems, marketplaces, and travel hubs, the 12% VAT is applied only to the subscription fees, service charges, or commissions earned by the NRDSP platform—not to the entire gross room or reservation booking value collected from the user.
Pre-existing/Advance Contracts	Transitional Boundary Rules: For multi-month digital subscriptions or long-term technology contracts fully paid prior to June 2, 2025, buyers must segregate the covered period. Any pro-rated duration extending beyond June 2, 2025, is subject to the 12% VAT, requiring local B2B buyers to compute and remit the tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
Online Ads and Payments	Situs of Consumption – Digital Ads: If a Philippine business purchases digital advertising services, 12% VAT is due because the service is consumed by a local purchaser, regardless of whether the target audience is located abroad.
Online Ads and Payments	Situs of Consumption – Fund Transfers: International financial service NRDSPs are subject to 12% VAT only on the service fees or transaction charges collected from clients residing in the Philippines.

BIR DEADLINES FROM JUNE 15, 2026 TO JUNE 21, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
June 15, 2026	REGISTRATION (Online thru ORUS or Manual) - Permanently Bound Loose-Leaf Books of Accounts/Invoices and Other Accounting Records. Fiscal Year ending May 31, 2026
June 15, 2026	eFILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1702-RT/1702-EX/1702-MX. Fiscal Year ending February 28, 2026
June 15, 2026	eFILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1707-A (Annual Capital Gains Tax Return For Onerous Transfer of Shares of Stock Not Traded Through the Local Stock Exchange) – by Corporate Taxpayers. Fiscal Year ending February 28, 2026
June 15, 2026	e-FILING & e-PAYMENT - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld). eFPS Filers under Group A. Month of May 2026
June 15, 2026	e-PAYMENT - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld) – eFPS Filers under Group E, D, C & B. Month of May 2026
June 16, 2026	SUBMISSION - Consolidated Return of All Transactions based on the Reconciled Data of Stockbrokers. June 1-15, 2026
June 20, 2026	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1600 WP (Remittance Return of Percentage Tax on Winnings and Prizes Withheld by Race Track Operators) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of May 2026
June 20, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld) – eFPS Filers under Group C. Month of May 2026

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC SUSPENDS IMPOSITION OF PER-MONTH DELAY PENALTY. The SEC exercised its regulatory authority to suspend the imposition of the per-month delay penalty on covered corporations while maintaining existing reportorial and monitoring obligations. Suspension applies prospectively and uniformly, excludes retroactive relief for previously settled penalties, preserves filing duties and base penalties, and remains effective only for a limited period after which enforcement automatically resumes. SEC Memorandum Circular No. 16, Series of 2026 (Suspension of the Per-Month Delay Penalty), 2026. 

Title	Context
Temporary Suspension Only	The SEC temporarily suspended the imposition of the per-month delay penalty for covered corporations, while preserving the Commission’s authority to regulate reportorial compliance. The suspension applies prospectively and only removes the monthly penalty component; corporations remain subject to reportorial monitoring and compliance requirements.
Uniform Coverage	The suspension applies equally to all covered domestic and foreign corporations without distinction. Application of facts: eligibility is not dependent on capitalization, retained earnings, or prior offenses, ensuring uniform implementation.
Prospective Effect Only	The suspension has no retroactive application and does not alter obligations already finalized. Pending assessments are adjusted to remove future monthly penalties, while settled assessments remain final and are not refundable.
Filing Duties Remain	The suspension affects only the monthly penalty and does not remove filing obligations. Corporations are still required to comply with reportorial deadlines and remain under a continuing duty to submit required reports.

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
June 15, 2026	REGISTRATION (Online thru ORUS or Manual) - Permanently Bound Loose-Leaf Books of Accounts/Invoices and Other Accounting Records. Fiscal Year ending May 31, 2026
June 15, 2026	eFILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1702-RT/1702-EX/1702-MX. Fiscal Year ending February 28, 2026
June 15, 2026	eFILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1707-A (Annual Capital Gains Tax Return For Onerous Transfer of Shares of Stock Not Traded Through the Local Stock Exchange) – by Corporate Taxpayers. Fiscal Year ending February 28, 2026
June 15, 2026	e-FILING & e-PAYMENT - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld). eFPS Filers under Group A. Month of May 2026
June 15, 2026	e-PAYMENT - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld) – eFPS Filers under Group E, D, C & B. Month of May 2026
June 16, 2026	SUBMISSION - Consolidated Return of All Transactions based on the Reconciled Data of Stockbrokers. June 1-15, 2026
June 20, 2026	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1600 WP (Remittance Return of Percentage Tax on Winnings and Prizes Withheld by Race Track Operators) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of May 2026
June 20, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld) – eFPS Filers under Group C. Month of May 2026

COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

ASSESSMENT IS VOID IF TAXPAYER DENIES RECEIPT OF THE PAN AND BIR FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL RECEIPT THEREOF. A PAN must be actually received by the taxpayer and the taxpayer must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the issuance of FLD/FAN, as part of the constitutional and statutory requirements of due process in tax assessment proceedings. Once the taxpayer categorically denies receipt of the PAN, the burden shifts to the BIR to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the PAN was in fact received by the taxpayer or its authorized representative. In this case, although the BIR presented a photocopy of a registry receipt allegedly showing mailing of the PAN, this evidence was insufficient to establish actual receipt because it lacked material details of the mailing transaction and was unsupported by an authenticated affidavit of the mailer. Thus, the BIR failed to discharge its burden of proving valid service of the PAN, resulting in a violation of the taxpayer’s right to due process and rendering the deficiency tax assessments null and void. The assessments were further rendered void by the participation of revenue officers who were not properly authorized to conduct the audit examination. [(CIR v. Bohol JSL Enterprises, Incorporated, CTA EB No. 2989 (CTA Case No. 10575, March 17, 2026); see also Mac Graphics Carranz International Corporation v. CIR (CTA Case No. 11150) March 18, 2026)

PARTICIPATION OF A GROUP SUPERVISOR IN THE AUDIT WITHOUT LOA RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT VOID. NIRC requires that an RO must first be specifically authorized through a valid LOA issued by the CIR or his duly authorized representative before conducting any audit or examination of a taxpayer’s books of accounts and accounting records. Jurisprudence consistently holds that the absence of a valid LOA, or the participation of an RO not named in the LOA without the issuance of a new or amended LOA, renders the resulting assessment void for violating due process and existing BIR regulations. In this case, while the subject LOA originally authorized RO De Guzman and GS Yahya to conduct the audit, the records showed that GS Glovasa later actively participated in the audit process, supervised the investigation, signed the Post-Reporting Notice, audit reports, and memorandum recommending the issuance of the PAN, despite not being authorized under any new or amended LOA. The BIR’s own witness likewise admitted that no LOA was issued in favor of GS Glovasa. Since her participation formed an essential part of the audit and assessment process, the deficiency income tax, VAT, and EWT assessments were declared null and void for having been conducted by an unauthorized revenue officer. [CIR v. Bohol JSL Enterprises, Inc., CTA EB No. 2989 (CTA Case No. 10575) March 17, 2026]

TAXPAYER HAS NO FRESH 180-DAY PERIOD ON APPEAL TO CIR; REMEDY IS TO WAIT FOR CIR’S DECISION, WHICH IS APPEALABLE TO THE CTA. A taxpayer may appeal a disputed assessment to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the 180-day period within which CIR or his authorized representative must act on the protest. Jurisprudence further clarifies that the taxpayer’s remedies in cases of inaction are mutually exclusive, and there is only one continuous 180-day period reckoned from the submission of supporting documents, with no fresh 180-day period arising from an administrative appeal to the CIR. In this case, the taxpayer erroneously treated its administrative appeal to CIR filed on December 21, 2018 as giving rise to a new 180-day period, despite the original 180-day period from the filing of the protest having already lapsed on May 20, 2018. Consequently, when the FDDA was issued on November 26, 2018, the taxpayer’s remedy was limited to appealing the adverse decision to the CTA within 30 days from receipt thereof. Since the taxpayer instead relied on an invalid assumption of a renewed 180-day period and belatedly filed its Petition for Review, the CTA Division correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case due to the late appeal. [Friendlycare Foundation, Inc. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 3056, (CTA Case No. 10123), March 17, 2026]

SPLASH COLOGNES FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF TOILET WATERS SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAX. NIRC imposes excise tax on perfumes and toilet waters, and jurisprudence has consistently held that the definition of “toilet waters” under Revenue Regulations No. 8-84, which implemented the percentage tax regime under the NIRC of 1977, is no longer applicable following the substantive change introduced by Executive Order No. 273 converting the tax on toilet waters from a percentage tax into an excise tax. Since RR No. 8-84 was issued specifically to implement the old sales or percentage tax system, it was deemed impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the new excise tax framework. Consequently, the Court gave weight to the CIR’s subsequent interpretation classifying colognes, including baby colognes and splash colognes, as “toilet waters” subject to excise tax, consistent with the CIR’s authority to interpret tax laws. Applying these principles, the Court held that the taxpayer Green Cross, Inc.’s splash colognes fall within the ordinary and commercial meaning of “toilet waters” and are therefore subject to excise tax, rejecting the taxpayer’s reliance on the 3% essential oil threshold found in RR No. 8-84 and its argument on legislative reenactment (Green Cross, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 11163, March 17, 2026)

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S LETTER SIGNIFYING INTENT TO PROCEED WITH COLLECTION IS CONSIDERED A FINAL DECISION; SEE DISSENTING OPINION. A taxpayer may appeal a denial or inaction on a protest to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision or lapse of the 180-day period. A final decision for purposes of appeal must be issued by the CIR or a duly authorized representative and must be unequivocal and final in character; however, the Supreme Court clarified that not all BIR communications, particularly collection-related issuances, constitute appealable final decisions. In this case, the taxpayer argued that it timely filed its judicial appeal after receiving the WDL treating it as the CIR’s final decision on its protest. However, the CTA held that the letter issued by a Regional Director, an official equivalent to a division chief, which explicitly signified the BIR’s intent to proceed with collection, already constituted the final decision on the disputed assessment; thus, the taxpayer should have filed its appeal within 30 days from receipt of said letter, not WDL. The Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that it was still awaiting resolution of its protest, emphasizing that the CIR’s delegated authority allows regional officials to issue binding final decisions. The Court further held that a WDL is not the final decision on an assessment but merely a collection remedy. Nonetheless, the CTA ultimately ruled that despite procedural finality, the assessment was void ab initio because it was tainted by due process violations, specifically the participation of a revenue officer who was not properly authorized under a valid LOA but was instead assigned through a mere Memorandum of Assignment. Accordingly, the Court held that an assessment issued in violation of due process cannot attain finality, produces no legal effect, and cannot support any collection action; hence, both the deficiency tax assessment and the resulting WDL were declared void, and the BIR was barred from enforcing collection. (Gensbio Marketing Corp. v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10054, March 18, 2026) Separate opinion: only a valid FDDA containing factual and legal bases and an explicit declaration of finality is appealable, and collection issuances like warrants cannot substitute for such a decision;  the letter cannot be treated as an FDDA because it did not state factual/legal bases or indicate finality and therefore cannot trigger the 30-day appeal period) instead, the case should be treated as one of inaction.

DUE DATES LAPSED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE FLD/FAN RENDER THE ASSESSENT VOID. A valid tax assessment must constitute a definite and unequivocal demand for payment within a specific and future due date, as due process requires that taxpayers be properly informed of their liability and given a genuine opportunity to pay or contest the assessment; failure to state a definite due date or the existence of an actual demand for payment renders the assessment void for violating due process. In this case, the Court found that the FLD/FAN and the FDDA were void because both contained due dates that had already lapsed even before the taxpayer received them, effectively depriving petitioner of any meaningful opportunity to comply or respond, and rendering the supposed demand for payment indefinite and illusory since the amounts were also subject to adjustment depending on the date of payment. The Court held that such assessments failed to meet the substantive requirement of a valid assessment under the NIRC because they did not establish a fixed, demandable tax liability payable within a proper prescribed period, and instead merely imposed retrospective and conditional due dates, violating the taxpayer’s right to due process. As a result, both the FLD/FAN and FDDA were declared void, the deficiency tax assessment was cancelled, and the BIR was permanently enjoined from collecting the assessed taxes and compromise penalties. (Eastern Petroleum Corporation v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10342, March 18, 2026)

 ASSESSMENT IS VOID IF THE BIR ignored the taxpayer’s explanation in the PAN; the item of assessment is final if uncontested by the taxpayer. NIRC requires that taxpayers be informed in writing of the facts and law on which an assessment is based. Jurisprudence consistently holds that due process in tax assessments includes not only the taxpayer’s right to be heard but also the BIR’s duty to meaningfully consider and address the taxpayer’s explanations; failure to do so renders the assessment void. In this case, although the taxpayer submitted a detailed Reply to the PAN disputing the use of unverified third-party RELIEF/AITEID data, alleged undeclared purchases and sales, VAT consequences, and disallowed input taxes, the BIR issued the FLD/FAN and FDDA without addressing these defenses and merely reiterated the PAN computations without explanation or evaluation of the taxpayer’s arguments, thereby showing that the Reply to PAN was ignored. Consequently, the Court held that the BIR violated the petitioner’s right to due process, rendering the deficiency tax assessments void and unenforceable insofar as the disputed items were concerned, while allowing examination of uncontested portions. However, the due process infirmity does not extend to the portions of the assessments that were not specifically refuted by the taxpayer in the Reply to PAN. With respect to those items, the Court proceeds to examine their factual and legal validity based on the evidence on record. (Sarcaoga v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10850, March 19, 2026)

TAXPAYER MUST SUBMIT RECEIPTS AND ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT EXPENSES. Deductions from gross income are not allowed unless the taxpayer substantiates such expenses with sufficient evidence such as official receipts or other adequate records, and jurisprudence consistently places the burden on the taxpayer to prove entitlement to deductions once properly disallowed by the BIR. In this case, the BIR disallowed the taxpayer’s claimed purchases on the ground that they were unsupported by official receipts and adequate documentation, and while the taxpayer questioned the basis of the computation, it failed to present competent evidence to substantiate the alleged expenses or refute the BIR’s findings. Thus, applying the rule on burden of proof and the statutory requirement of substantiation, the CTA upheld the disallowance of the unsupported purchases and sustained the resulting deficiency income tax assessment (Sarcaoga v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10850, March 19, 2026)

SEPARATE NOTICE AS TOP WITHHOLDING AGENT (TWA) IS NOT REQUIRED; PUBLICATION ON BIR WEBSITE AND NEWSPAPER IS SUFFICIENT. Certain taxpayers designated as TWA are required to withhold creditable withholding tax at specified rates. Inclusion in the TWA list is effective upon publication in a newspaper of general circulation or posting on the BIR website, which constitutes sufficient notice and triggers the withholding obligation beginning on the first day of the month following publication. In this case, although the taxpayer argues that it was not served a separate written notice of its classification as a TWA, the Court held that such individual notice is not required because publication of the official TWA list in Malaya Business Insight and its availability on the BIR website constituted valid constructive notice, and the petitioner’s obligation to withhold EWT commenced; thus, its failure to withhold the required taxes on purchases of goods and services justified the deficiency EWT assessment. (Sarcaoga v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10850, March 19, 2026)

A TAXPAYER WHO FAILS TO TIMELY AND VALIDLY PROTEST AN FLD/FAN WITHIN 30 DAYS IS BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE ASSESSMENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE ITS PRIOR ACTS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ESTABLISH IMPLIED RECEIPT AND AUTHORITY, CAUSING THE ASSESSMENT TO BECOME FINAL, EXECUTORY, AND DEMANDABLE. A taxpayer must file a valid administrative protest within 30 days from receipt of the FLD/FAN; otherwise, the assessment becomes final, executory, and demandable, precluding further inquiry into its merits. In this case, although the taxpayer alleged lack of receipt of the FLD/FAN and questioned the authority of the person who received it, the CTA held that the taxpayer is estopped from denying receipt because it previously recognized and acted on notices served through the same recipient, thereby implying authority under the doctrine of implied authorization. The records further showed that the taxpayer participated in the assessment process through the informal conference and filed a protest without disputing receipt of the FLD/FAN, constituting admission by silence. Moreover, the taxpayer’s acceptance of the FLD/FAN gives rise to a disputable presumption that a complete assessment (including both FLD and FAN) was duly served, which the taxpayer failed to rebut. Having failed to timely and properly protest within the reglementary period, the assessment became final and incontestable, thereby rendering taxpayer liable for the deficiency taxes assessed. (Sirawai Plywood and Lumber Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10810, March 31, 2026)

REVENUE ISSUANCES

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 042-2026

Mandatory Requirement	The Certificate of Entitlement to Tax Incentives (CETI) remains a mandatory attachment to the Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) for RBEs availing of income tax incentives.
Clarifications of Recent Rules	The non-inclusion of the CETI in the illustrative list of attachments in RMC No. 20-2026 does not constitute a waiver or removal of the requirement.
Scope of Application	This applies to all Registered Business Enterprises (RBEs) duly registered with Investment Promotion Agencies (IPAs).
Enforceability	The requirement remains enforceable regardless of whether it is expressly listed in subsequent circulars providing general lists of AITR attachments.

Registered Business Enterprises (RBEs) must continue to attach the Certificate of Entitlement to Tax Incentives (CETI) to their Annual Income Tax Returns (AITR) under the mandates of the CREATE and CREATE MORE Acts.

Mandatory Requirement	The Certificate of Entitlement to Tax Incentives (CETI) remains a mandatory attachment to the Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) for RBEs availing of income tax incentives.
Clarifications of Recent Rules	The non-inclusion of the CETI in the illustrative list of attachments in RMC No. 20-2026 does not constitute a waiver or removal of the requirement.
Scope of Application	This applies to all Registered Business Enterprises (RBEs) duly registered with Investment Promotion Agencies (IPAs).
Enforceability	The requirement remains enforceable regardless of whether it is expressly listed in subsequent circulars providing general lists of AITR attachments.

BIR DEADLINES FROM MAY 18, 2026 TO MAY 24, 2026. A gentle reminder on the following deadlines, as may be applicable:

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
May 20, 2026	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1600 WP (Remittance Return of Percentage Tax on Winnings and Prizes Withheld by Race Track Operators) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of April 2026

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.

Coverage	Applies to individual taxpayers classified under a specific category (e.g., micro and small taxpayers)
Forms Covered	BIR Forms 1701-MS, 1701, and 1701A
Manner of Filing	1701-MS: Manual or Electronic (Offline eBIRForms); 1701 & 1701A: Electronic via eBIRForms or eFPS
Mode of Payment	Manual: Authorized Agent Banks or Revenue Collection Officers; Online: ePayment gateways or eFPS
Application of Facts	A taxpayer under the covered classification may validly file electronically using the offline system and pay through authorized or online channels, ensuring compliance with updated 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.

System Update	Release of Offline eBIRForms Package Version 7.9.6.0 with enhanced security and bug fixes
New Form Included	Annual income tax return for micro/small individual taxpayers
Deadline Adjustment	Filing deadline for annual income tax returns extended to May 15 (for applicable year)
Tax Code Updates	Additional Alphanumeric Tax Codes (ATCs) for specific income payments
Other Enhancements	Increased TIN branch code field length and updated tax rates for certain returns
Application to Taxpayer	Taxpayer must adopt the updated system, use revised forms and ATCs, and follow extended deadlines for proper compliance

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

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
May 5, 2026	SUBMISSION - Summary Report of Certification issued by the President of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2000 (Monthly Documentary Stamp Tax Declaration/Return). Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2000-OT (Documentary Stamp Tax Declaration/Return One-Time Transactions). Month of April 2026
May 8, 2026	SUBMISSION – All Transcript Sheets of Official Register Books (ORBs) used by Dealers/Manufacturers/Toll Manufacturers/Assemblers/Importers of Alcohol Products, Tobacco Products, Petroleum Products, Non-Essential Goods, Sweetened Beverage Products, Mineral Products & Automobiles. Month of April 2026
	e-SUBMISSION - Monthly e-Sales Report for All Taxpayers using CRM/POS and/or Other Similar Business Machines whose last digit of 9-digit TIN is Even Number. Month of April 2026
May 10, 2026	SUBMISSION – List of Buyers of Sugar Together with a Copy of Certificate of Advance Payment of VAT made by each buyer appearing in the List by a Sugar Cooperative. Month of April 2026
	SUBMISSION – Information Return on Releases of Refined Sugar by the Proprietor or Operator of a Sugar Refinery or Mill. Month of April 2026
	e-SUBMISSION – Monthly e-Sales Report for All Taxpayers using CRM/POS and/or Other Similar Business Machines whose last digit of 9-digit TIN is Odd Number. Month of April 2026
	eFILING & PAYMENT/REMITTANCE (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 2200-M Excise Tax Return for the Amount of Excise Taxes Collected from Payment Made to Sellers of Metallic Minerals. Month of April 2026
	eFILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Forms 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) and/or 0619-E (Monthly Remittance Form of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and/or 0619-F (Monthly Remittance Form of Final Income Taxes Withheld). Non-eFPS Filers. Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 2200-C (Excise Tax Return for Cosmetic Procedures) with Monthly Summary of Cosmetic Procedures Performed. Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1600-VT (Monthly Remittance Return of Value-Added Tax) and/or 1600-PT (Other Percentage Taxes Withheld) and Monthly Alphalist of Payees (MAP). eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1606 (Withholding Tax Remittance Return for Onerous Transfer of Real Property Other Than Capital Asset Including Taxable and Exempt). Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 0620 (Monthly Remittance Form of Tax Withheld on the Amount Withdrawn from the Decedent’s Deposit Account) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of April 2026
	e-FILING & e-PAYMENT/REMITTANCE – BIR Form 1600-VT (Monthly Remittance Return of Value-Added Tax) and/or 1600-PT (Other Percentage Taxes Withheld) and BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation). National Government Agencies (NGAs). Month of April 2026

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:

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
April 25, 2026	SUBMISSION - Quarterly Summary List of Sales/Purchases/Importations by a VAT Registered Taxpayers - Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	SUBMISSION - Sworn Statement of Manufacturer’s or Importer’s Volume of Sales of each particular Brand of Alcohol Products, Tobacco Products and Sweetened Beverage Products. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2550Q (Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return) - eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2551Q (Quarterly Percentage Tax Return) - eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2550-DS (Value-Added Tax (VAT) Return for Nonresident Digital Service Provider) - For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
April 29, 2026	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1702Q (Quarterly Income Tax Return For Corporations, Partnerships and Other Non-Individual Taxpayers) and Summary Alphalist of Withholding Taxes (SAWT). Fiscal Quarter ending February 28, 2026
April 30, 2026	SUBMISSION – Attachments to e-Filed BIR Forms 1700, 1701, 1701-MS and 1701A. Calendar Year 2025
	SUBMISSION – Proof of eFiled BIR Form 1702 – RT/EX/MX with Audited Financial Statements (AFS), 1709 (if applicable), and Other Attachments through Electronic Audited Financial Statements (eAFS) or Manually. Calendar Year 2025
	SUBMISSION – Soft copies of Inventory List and Schedules stored and saved in DVD-R/USB properly labeled together with Notarized Sworn Declaration. Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2026
	e-SUBMISSION – Quarterly Summary List of Sales/Purchases/Importations by a VAT Registered Taxpayers - eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1601-EQ (Quarterly Remittance Return of Creditable Income Taxes Withheld-Expanded) and Quarterly Alphalist of Payees (QAP) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1601-FQ (Quarterly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld) and Quarterly Alphalist of Payees (QAP) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1602Q (Quarterly Remittance Return of Final Taxes Withheld on Interest Paid on Deposits and Yield on Deposit Substitutes/Trusts/Etc.) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1603Q (Quarterly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld on Fringe Benefits Paid to Employees Other Than Rank and File) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) – BIR Form 1621 (Quarterly Remittance Return of Tax Withheld on the Amount Withdrawn from Decedent’s Deposit Account) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	ONLINE REGISTRATION (thru ORUS) – Computerized Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records. Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2026
May 1, 2026	SUBMISSION – Consolidated Returns of All Transactions based on the Reconciled Data of the Stockbrokers. April 16–30, 2026
	SUBMISSION – Engagement Letters and Renewals or Subsequent Agreements for Financial Audit by Independent CPAs. Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2026

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.

Extended Deadline	The official deadline is moved from April 15, 2026 to May 15, 2026.
Filing & Payment	Taxpayers are permitted to file and pay manually at the nearest Authorized Agent Banks (AABs), regardless of the specific jurisdiction of their assigned Revenue District Office (RDO). Taxpayers are encouraged to utilize available Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) electronic filing and payment platforms to settle their dues.

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.

Covered Entities	New Deadline
All domestic and foreign corporations (AFS)	15 June 2026
Brokers and dealers - SEC Form 52-AR (with AFS)	15 May 2026
Listed issuers, public companies, and other covered entities under the SRC - Annual Reports (SEC Form 17-A with AFS)	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.

Purpose	Clarifies taxation of cross-border services
General Rule	Not all cross-border services are taxable
Source of Income	Taxable only if source is within the Philippines
Determination of Source	Based on income-producing activity, service completion, or benefit received
Assessment Approach	Holistic evaluation of the entire transaction
Basis for Taxability	Service delivered, completed, or utilized in PH
Burden of Proof	Taxpayer must prove income is from outside PH
Proof/Documents	Contracts, sworn statements, tax residency, proof of payment

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.

Legal Basis	The Circular implements the Ease of Paying Taxes framework requiring electronic filing of AITR through BIR platforms.
Filing Requirement	Taxpayers must file AITR electronically, with non-eFPS users utilizing the offline eBIRForms package.
Proof of Filing (eBIRForms)	A screenshot of the system-generated pop-up confirming successful submission serves as proof of filing, especially if email confirmation is delayed.
Practical Application	Taxpayers using offline eBIRForms should capture and retain the screenshot as evidence when filing and paying taxes.

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

DATE	FILING/SUBMISSION
April 08, 2026	SUBMISSION - All Transcript Sheets of Official Register Books (ORBs) used by Dealers/Manufacturers/Toll Manufacturers/Assemblers/Importers of Alcohol Products, Tobacco Products, Petroleum Products, Non-Essential Goods, Sweetened Beverage Products, Mineral Products & Automobiles. Month of March 2026
	e-SUBMISSION - Monthly e-Sales Report for All Taxpayers using CRM/POS and/or Other Similar Business Machines whose last digit of 9-digit TIN is Even Number. Month of March 2026
April 10, 2026	SUBMISSION - List of Buyers of Sugar Together with a Copy of Certificate of Advance Payment of VAT made by each buyer appearing in the List by a Sugar Cooperative. Month of March 2026
	SUBMISSION - Information Return on Releases of Refined Sugar by the Proprietor or Operator of a Sugar Refinery or Mill. Month of March 2026
	e-SUBMISSION - Monthly e-Sales Report for All Taxpayers using CRM/POS and/or Other Similar Business Machines whose last digit of 9-digit TIN is Odd Number. Month of March 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT/REMITTANCE (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2200-M Excise Tax Return for the Amount of Excise Taxes Collected from Payment Made to Sellers of Metallic Minerals. Month of March 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) - Non-eFPS Filers. Month of March 2026 BIR Form 2200-C (Excise Tax Return for Cosmetic Procedures) with Monthly Summary of Cosmetic Procedures Performed. Month of March 2026 BIR Form 1600-VT (Monthly Remittance Return of Value-Added Tax) and or 1600-PT (Other Percentage Taxes Withheld) and Monthly Alphalist of Payees (MAP) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of March 2026 BIR Form 1606 – (Withholding Tax Remittance Return for Onerous Transfer of Real Property Other Than Capital Asset Including Taxable and Exempt). Month of March 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT/REMITTANCE - BIR Form 1600-VT (Monthly Remittance Return of Value-Added Tax) and/or 1600-PT (Other Percentage Taxes Withheld) and BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) - National Government Agencies (NGAs). Month of March 2026
April 11, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) – eFPS Filers under Group E. Month of March 2026
April 12, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) – eFPS Filers under Group D. Month of March 2026
April 13, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) – eFPS Filers under Group C. Month of March 2026
April 14, 2026	e-FILING - BIR Form 1601-C (Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation) – eFPS Filers under Group B. Month of March 2026
April 15, 2026	REGISTRATION (Online Thru ORUS or Manual) - Permanently Bound Loose-Leaf Books of Accounts/Invoices and Other Accounting Records. Fiscal Year ending March 31, 2026
	SUBMISSION - Updated Master List of newly registered taxpayers & taxpayers whose business permits were renewed from LGUs thru its Local Treasurer. Calendar Year ending December 31, 2025 and 2026 Renewals
	SUBMISSION - Master List of Retired Businesses from LGU thru its Local Treasurer. Calendar Year ending December 31, 2025
	SUBMISSION - List of Medical Practitioners. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	SUBMISSION - Quarterly List (with Monthly Breakdown) of Contractors of Gov’t. Contracts entered into by the Provinces/Cities/Municipalities/Barangays. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1702 – RT/1702-EX/1702-MX. Calendar Year ending December 31, 2025
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1707-A (Annual Capital Gains Tax Return For Onerous Transfer of Shares of Stock Not Traded Through the Local Stock Exchange) – by Individual & Corporate Taxpayers. Calendar Year ending December 31, 2025
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 2200-M (Excise Tax Return for Mineral Products). For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Forms 1700, 1701, 1701-MS & 1701A - Calendar Year ending December 31, 2025
	e-FILING & e-PAYMENT - BIR Form 1601-C - eFPS Filers under Group A. Month of March 2026
	e-PAYMENT - BIR Form 1601-C – eFPS Filers under Group E, D, C & B. Month of March 2026
April 16, 2026	SUBMISSION - Consolidated Return of All Transactions based on the Reconciled Data of Stockbrokers. April 1-15, 2026
April 20, 2026	SUBMISSION - Quarterly Information on OCWs or OFWs Remittances Exempt from DST furnished by the Local Banks & Non-Bank Money Transfer Agents. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	SUBMISSION - Quarterly Report of Printer. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	e-FILING & PAYMENT (Online/Manual) - BIR Form 1600 WP (Remittance Return of Percentage Tax on Winnings and Prizes Withheld by Race Track Operators) – eFPS & Non-eFPS Filers. Month of March 2026
April 25, 2026	SUBMISSION - Quarterly Summary List of Sales/Purchases/Importations by a VAT Registered Taxpayers - Non-eFPS Filers. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026
	SUBMISSION - Sworn Statement of Manufacturer’s or Importer’s Volume of Sales of each particular Brand of Alcohol Products, Tobacco Products and Sweetened Beverage Products. For the Quarter ending March 31, 2026