2014 (Taxation) Bar Exam Questions: Question 4

[Answer / discuss the question below. Or see 2014 bar exam Taxation Instructions; 2014 Taxation essay and multiple choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29; See also 2014 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

IV.

Gangwam Corporation (GC) filed its quarterly tax returns for the calendar year 2012 as follows:

First quarter Second quarter Third quarter Fourth quarter

– April 25, 2012

– July 23, 2012

– October 25, 2012

– January 27, 2013

On December 22, 2013, GC filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) an administrative claim for refund of its unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) for the calendar year 2012. After several months of inaction by the BIR on its claim for refund, GC decided to elevate its claim directly to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on April 22, 2014.

In due time, the CTA denied the tax refund relative to the input VAT of GC for the first quarter of 2012, reasoning that the claim was filed beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

(A) Is the CTA correct? (3%)

(B) Assuming that GC filed its claim before the CTA on February 22, 2014, would your answer be the same? (3%)

One comment

  1. A. The CTA is correct. The admin claim was filed within the two year period. It shall be infered that the closeof the taxable quarter was in Apri15, 2014 and the law provides that witihn the two year reglementary period, there should be within it the 120 days before filing a judicial claim.
    Considering the facts given, the filing before CA is beyond the 120 day reglementary period which went beyond the two year period.

    B. No.it is then within the 120day reglementary period which is within 2 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *