Scribd
Upload
65 views1 page

Bonifacio Water Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R.No.175142 July22,2013

The document discusses a tax case involving Bonifacio Water Corporation claiming a tax refund. It makes three key points: 1) Taxpayers claiming refunds must comply with strict invoicing and accounting requirements under tax law and regulations. Strict adherence to procedures is required. 2) Bonifacio Water Corporation's name change was unauthorized and using receipts under the new name cannot be grounds for a tax refund. 3) Not issuing receipts in the taxpayer's official name is non-compliance with substantiation requirements and is not sufficient grounds for a tax refund. Strict compliance with tax law is required.

Uploaded by

LD
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
65 views1 page

Bonifacio Water Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R.No.175142 July22,2013

The document discusses a tax case involving Bonifacio Water Corporation claiming a tax refund. It makes three key points: 1) Taxpayers claiming refunds must comply with strict invoicing and accounting requirements under tax law and regulations. Strict adherence to procedures is required. 2) Bonifacio Water Corporation's name change was unauthorized and using receipts under the new name cannot be grounds for a tax refund. 3) Not issuing receipts in the taxpayer's official name is non-compliance with substantiation requirements and is not sufficient grounds for a tax refund. Strict compliance with tax law is required.

Uploaded by

LD
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

BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION vs.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


G.R.No.175142 July22,2013

PERALTA, J.:
The requisite that the receipt be issued showing the name, business style, if any, and address of
the purchaser, customer or client is precise so that when the books of accounts are subjected
to a tax audit examination, all entries therein could be shown as adequately supported and
proven as legitimate business transactions. The absence of official receipts issued in the
taxpayer’s name is tantamount to non-compliance with the substantiation requirements
provided by law.
R.Caminade A.Plaza J.Rejuso “May the Lord reward our efforts.” Page 5
TAXATION LAW 2013-2014
Petitioner cannot raise the argument that, "non-compliance with the invoicing requirements
under the 1997 NIRC, as amended, does not automatically result in the denial of a claim for
refund or tax credit when the same is supported by substantial evidence" and that, "In civil
cases, such as claims for refund, strict compliance with technical rules of evidence is not
required. Moreover, a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice to justify the grant of a
claim," in addition to its first ground in the instant petition. Taxpayers claiming for a refund or
tax credit certificate must comply with the strict and mandatory invoicing and accounting
requirements provided under the 1997 NIRC, as amended, and its implementing rules and
regulations. Rules and regulations with regard to procedures are implemented not to be
ignored or to be taken for granted, but are strictly adhered to for they are developed from the
law itself.13
Thus, the change of petitioner’s name to "Bonifacio GDE Water Corporation," being
unauthorized and without approval of the SEC, and the issuance of official receipts under that
name which were presented to support petitioner’s claim for tax refund, cannot be used to
allow the grant of tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in petitioner’s favor. The
absence of official receipts issued in its name is tantamount to noncompliance with the
substantiation requirements provided by law and, hence, the CTA En Banc’s partial grant of its
refund on that ground should be upheld.
"Capital goods or properties" refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater
than one year and which

are treated as depreciable assets under Section 29(f), used directly or indirectly in the
production or sale of taxable goods or services.

You might also like