Scribd
Upload
124 views1 page

Tax Refund Claims: Quarterly ITRs Not Required

1) Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance filed a claim for tax refund with the BIR after submitting its annual income tax return for 2003, which the BIR did not act upon, prompting Winebrenner to file a petition with the CTA. 2) The CTA partially granted the claim but the CTA En Banc reversed, agreeing with the CIR that quarterly income tax returns must be presented to prove excess creditable withholding taxes were not carried over to succeeding quarters. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it is not necessary to submit quarterly returns, as nowhere in tax laws or rules is this absolutely required, and any competent evidence may be used to prove excess taxes were not carried over

Uploaded by

Rodney Santiago
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
124 views1 page

Tax Refund Claims: Quarterly ITRs Not Required

1) Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance filed a claim for tax refund with the BIR after submitting its annual income tax return for 2003, which the BIR did not act upon, prompting Winebrenner to file a petition with the CTA. 2) The CTA partially granted the claim but the CTA En Banc reversed, agreeing with the CIR that quarterly income tax returns must be presented to prove excess creditable withholding taxes were not carried over to succeeding quarters. 3) The Supreme Court ruled it is not necessary to submit quarterly returns, as nowhere in tax laws or rules is this absolutely required, and any competent evidence may be used to prove excess taxes were not carried over

Uploaded by

Rodney Santiago
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance vs.

CIR
GR No. 206526, January 28, 2015
Facts:
Petitioner filed its annual income tax return for the year 2003. Thereafter, it
applied for a claim for tax refund with the BIR. The BIR did not act upon on the said
claim which prompted the petitioner to file a petition for review with the CTA. The CTA
partially granted its claim. When the case was appealed to the CTA En Banc, it
reversed the division’s ruling. It agreed with the CIR that in order that claim for refund be
made, the taxpayer must prove that it did not carryover the excess creditable
withholding tax to the succeeding quarters. And to do so, the taxpayer must present the
quarterly income tax return.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. It contends that the
presentation of quarterly returns in not necessary.
Issue:
Whether the submission and presentation of the quarterly ITRs of the succeeding
quarters of a taxable year is indispensable in a claim for refund.
Ruling:
No. It is not necessary.
Nowhere in the provisions of NIRC or any implementing rule provides for the
absolute necessity of the presentation of the quarterly ITRs.
Any document, other than quarterly ITRs may be used to establish that indeed
the non-carry over clause has been complied with, provided that such is competent,
relevant and part of the records. The Court is thus not prepared to make a
pronouncement as to the indispensability of the quarterly ITRs in a claim for refund for
no court can limit a party to the means of proving a fact for as long as they are
consistent with the rules of evidence and fair play. The means of ascertainment of a fact
is best left to the party that alleges the same. The Court’s power is limited only to the
appreciation of that means pursuant to the prevailing rules of evidence. To stress, what
the NIRC merely requires is to sufficiently prove the existence of the non-carryover of
excess CWT in a claim for refund.

You might also like