Scribd
Upload
410 views1 page

Caltex Vs Coa

This case involves a dispute between Caltex and the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding Caltex's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and attempts to offset tax remittances owed to the OPSF against reimbursement claims. The COA denied Caltex's claims and prohibited offsetting. The court affirmed the COA's decision, finding that taxes cannot be offset against claims against the government as they are not mutually creditors. The only exception was Caltex's claim for reimbursement of under recovery from sales to the National Power Corporation, which was allowed.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 5MiN6I78I0
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
410 views1 page

Caltex Vs Coa

This case involves a dispute between Caltex and the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding Caltex's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and attempts to offset tax remittances owed to the OPSF against reimbursement claims. The COA denied Caltex's claims and prohibited offsetting. The court affirmed the COA's decision, finding that taxes cannot be offset against claims against the government as they are not mutually creditors. The only exception was Caltex's claim for reimbursement of under recovery from sales to the National Power Corporation, which was allowed.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 5MiN6I78I0
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
You are on page 1/ 1

CALTEX VS COA No.

Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely to raise revenue


to support the existence of government. Taxes may be levied with a
regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization
of a threatened industry which is affected with public interest as to be
FACTS:
within the police power of the State. The oil industry is greatly imbued with
This is a petition erroneously brought under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court public interest as it vitally affects the general welfare.
questioning the authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing
PD 1956, as amended by EO 137, explicitly provides that the source of OPSF
petitioner's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund
is taxation. A taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims he may
(OPSF) and seeking the reversal of said Commission's decision denying its
have against the government. Taxes cannot be subject of compensation
claims for recovery of financing charges from the Fund and reimbursement
because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and
of under recovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation,
debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand,
Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) and
contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off.
Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), preventing it from
exercising the right to offset its remittances against its reimbursement vis-a- Hence, COA decision is affirmed except that Caltex’s claim for
vis the OPSF and disallowing its claims which are still pending resolution reimbursement of under recovery arising from sales to the National Power
before the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) and the Department of Finance Corporation is allowed.
(DOF).

In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex, directing it to remit its collection to the
Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), excluding that unremitted for the years
1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized
under the PD 1956. Pending such remittance, all of its claims for
reimbursement from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance. The grant total of
its unremitted collections of the above tax is P1,287,668,820.

Caltex submitted a proposal to COA for the payment and the recovery of
claims. COA approved the proposal but prohibited Caltex from further
offsetting remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing
years. Caltex moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the amounts due from Caltex to the OPSF may be offsetted against
Caltex’s outstanding claims from said funds ?

RULING: NO

You might also like