Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 185 views

    Banco de Oro vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    MJ Bautista
    This case involves the proper tax treatment of discount or interest income from ₱35 billion worth of zero-coupon treasury bonds issued by the Philippine government. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a ruling in 2011 declaring the bonds to be subject to a 20% final withholding tax. Petitioners argued this was ultra vires and could not be applied retroactively. Respondents countered that the Commissioner has the authority to interpret tax laws and prior rulings were not in harmony with the law. The Supreme Court had to determine if the 2011 ruling was valid and could be applied retroactively to the bonds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Banco de Oro vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    MJ Bautista
    185 views2 pages
    This case involves the proper tax treatment of discount or interest income from ₱35 billion worth of zero-coupon treasury bonds issued by the Philippine government. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a ruling in 2011 declaring the bonds to be subject to a 20% final withholding tax. Petitioners argued this was ultra vires and could not be applied retroactively. Respondents countered that the Commissioner has the authority to interpret tax laws and prior rulings were not in harmony with the law. The Supreme Court had to determine if the 2011 ruling was valid and could be applied retroactively to the bonds.

    Original Description:

    Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the proper tax treatment of discount or interest income from ₱35 billion worth of zero-coupon treasury bonds issued by the Philippine government. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a ruling in 2011 declaring the bonds to be subject to a 20% final withholding tax. Petitioners argued this was ultra vires and could not be applied retroactively. Respondents countered that the Commissioner has the authority to interpret tax laws and prior rulings were not in harmony with the law. The Supreme Court had to determine if the 2011 ruling was valid and could be applied retroactively to the bonds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    185 views2 pages

    Banco de Oro vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    MJ Bautista
    This case involves the proper tax treatment of discount or interest income from ₱35 billion worth of zero-coupon treasury bonds issued by the Philippine government. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a ruling in 2011 declaring the bonds to be subject to a 20% final withholding tax. Petitioners argued this was ultra vires and could not be applied retroactively. Respondents countered that the Commissioner has the authority to interpret tax laws and prior rulings were not in harmony with the law. The Supreme Court had to determine if the 2011 ruling was valid and could be applied retroactively to the bonds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    BANCO DE ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE VS.

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Doctrine:

    FACTS: The case involved the proper tax treatment of the discount or interest income
    arising from the ₱35 billion worth of 10-year zero-coupon treasury bonds issued by the
    Bureau of Treasury on October 18, 2001 (denominated as the Poverty Eradication and
    Alleviation Certificates or the PEA Ce Bonds by the Caucus of Development NGO Networks).

    On October 7, 2011, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued BIR Ruling No. 370-
    20111 (2011 BIR Ruling), declaring that the PEACe Bonds being deposit substitutes were
    subject to the 20% final withholding tax. Pursuant to this ruling, the Secretary of Finance
    directed the Bureau of Treasury to withhold a 20% final tax from the face value of the
    PEACe Bonds upon their payment at maturity on October 18, 2011.

    Petitioners and petitioners-intervenors, namely, RCBC, RCBC Capital, and CODE-NGO


    argued that:
    1. The 2011 BIR Ruling was ultra vires because it was contrary to the 1997 National
    Internal Revenue Code when it declared that all government debt instruments were
    deposit substitutes regardless of the 20-lender rule; and
    2. The 2011 BIR Ruling cannot be applied retroactively because:
    a) It would violate the contract clause;
    b) It constituted a unilateral amendment of a material term (tax exempt status) in the
    Bonds, represented by the government was an inducement and important consideration
    for the purchase of the Bonds;
    b) It constituted deprivation of property without due process because there was no prior
    notice to bondholders and hearing and publication;
    c) It violated the rule on non-retroactivity under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code;
    d) It violates the constitutional provision on supporting activities of non-government
    organizations and development of the capital market; and
    e) The assessment had already prescribed.

    Respondents countered that:


    1) Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not act with grave abuse of
    discretion in issuing the challenged 2011 BIR Ruling:
    a. The 2011 BIR Ruling, being an interpretative rule, was issued by virtue of the
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s power to interpret the provisions of the 1997 National
    Internal Revenue Code and other tax laws;
    b. Commissioner of Internal Revenue merely restates and confirms the interpretations
    contained in previously issued BIR Ruling Nos. 007-2004, DA-491-04,and 008-05, which
    have already effectively abandoned or revoked the 2001 BIR Rulings;
    c. Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not bound by his or her predecessor’s rulings
    especially when the latter’s rulings are not in harmony with the law; and
    d. The wrong construction of the law that the 2001 BIR Rulings have perpetrated cannot
    give rise to a vested right. Therefore, the 2011 BIR Ruling can be given retroactive effect.
    2) Rule 65 can be resorted to only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
    remedy in the ordinary course of law:
    a. Petitioners had the basic remedy offiling a claim for refund of the 20% final withholding
    tax they allege to have been wrongfully collected; and
    b. Non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and of
    hierarchy of courts.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy