A 45 ad valorem taxes were imposed on these brands

This preview shows page 17 - 18 out of 18 pages.

'Premium More,' thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand category. A 45% Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands. Then Republic Act ("RA") No. 7654 was enacted 55% for locally manufactured foreign brand while 45% for locally manufactured brands. 2 days before the effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued by the BIR saying since there is no showing who the real owner/s are of Champion, Hope and More, it follows that the same shall be considered locally manufactured foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad valorem tax - 55%. BIR sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco addressed to no one in particular. CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to P9,598,334.00. Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA. CTA upheld the position of Fortune. CA affirmed. Issue: WON it was necessary for BIR to follow the legal requirements when it issued its RMC Held. YES. CIR may not disregard legal requirements in the exercise of its quasi-legislative powers which publication, filing, and prior hearing. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. BUT when, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, the agency must accord, at least to those directly affected, a chance to be heard, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. RMC 37-93 cannot be viewed simply as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in fact and most importantly, been made in order to place "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654 which subjects mentioned brands to 55% the BIR not simply interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then ignored. CIR VS. BURROUGHS LTD. [G.R. NO. L-66653. JUNE 19, 1986.] SECOND DIVISION, PARAS (J): 4 CONCURRING Facts: Burroughs Limited is a foreign corporation authorized to engage in trade or business in the Philippines through a branch office located at De la Rosa corner Esteban Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Sometime in March 1979, said branch office applied with the Central Bank for authority to remit to its parent company abroad, branch profit amounting to P7,647,058.00. Thus, on 14 March 1979, it paid the 15% branch profit remittance tax, pursuant to Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) and remitted to its head office the amount of P6,499,999.30. Claiming that the 15% profit remittance tax should have been computed on the basis of the amount actually remitted (P6,499,999.30) and not on the amount before profit remittance tax (P7,647,058.00), Burroughs Ltd. filed on 24 December 1980, a written claim for the refund or tax credit of the amount of P172,058.90 representing alleged overpaid branch profit remittance tax. On 24 February 1981, Burroughs Ltd. filed with the Court of Tax Appeals, a petition for review (CTA Case) 3204

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture