Cir v Acosta

CIR V. ACOSTA FACTS Rosemarie Acosta Acosta (Acosta) is an employee of Intel Manufacturing Phils., Inc. (Intel). For the period January 1 ! "ecem#er $1, 1%%&, she 'as assigned in a foreign country. "uring that period, Intel 'ithheld the taes due on respondents compensation income and remitted to the *ureau of Internal Re+enue (*IR) the amount ofP$-,-./&. ofP$-,-./&.  Acosta and her hus#and hus#and filed 'ith the *IR *IR their Joint Indi+idual Indi+idual Income a a Return Return for  the year 1%%&. 0ater, on June 1, 1%%, Acosta, through her representati+e, filed an amended return and a 2on3Resident 2on3Resident 4iti5en Income a Return, and paid the *IR P1,&%$.$ plus interests in t he amount of P1,//.&. Acosta Acosta filed another amended return indicating an o+erpayment of P$/-,6.&$.

! the filing of an amended return indicating an o+erpayment constitutes a 'ritten claim for refund pursuant to the clear pro+iso stated in the last sentence of 8ection 6(c) of the 1%% 2IR4 (ne' a 4ode), to 'it7 !2 the amende amended d return filed filed #y Acosta Acosta indicati indicating ng an o+erpayme o+erpayment nt constitutes the 'ritten claim for refund re:uired #y la', there#y +esting the 4A 'ith 9urisdiction o+er this case. (NO)

6.

>!2 the the 1%% 1%% 2IR4 can #e appli applied ed retroacti retroacti+ely +ely.. (NO)

4laiming that the income taes 'ithheld and paid #y Intel and respondent resulted in an o+erpayment, Acosta filed a petition for re+ie' in the 4A. 4IR7 dismissed the petition for Acostas failure to file the mandatory 'ritten claim for refund #efore the 4IR. 4A7 dismissed the petitio n. 4A ruled that7 First, Acosta failed to file a 'ritten claim for refund 'ith the 4IR, a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for re+ie' #efore the 4A. 4A. 8econd, t he 4A noted that respondents omission, inad+ertently or other'ise, to allege in her petition the date of filing the final ad9ustment return, depri+ed the court of its 9urisdiction o+er the su#9ect matter of the case.

HELD 1.

he applica applica#le #le la' on refund refund of taes pertain pertaining ing to the 1%%& compen compensatio sation n income is 8ection 6$ of the old a 4ode, 'hich 'as the la' then in effect, and not 8ection 6(c) of the ne' a a 4ode, 'hich 'as effecti+e starting only on January 1, 1%%-.

2ote'orthy, 2ote'orthy, the re:uirements under 8ection 6$ for refund claims are as follo's7 4A7 re+ersed the 4A and directed the latter to resol+e respondents petition for re+ie'. Applying 8ection 6(c) of the 1%% 2IR4, the 4A ruled that Acostas filing of an amended return indicating an o+erpayment 'as sufficient compliance 'ith the re:uirement of a 'ritten claim for refund. Petitioner sought reconsideration, #ut it 'as denied. ;ence, the instant petition. 4IRs Arguments7  An amended return sho'ing sho'ing an o+erpayment o+erpayment does not constitute the 'ritten claim for refund re:uired under 8ection 6$ of the 1%%$ 2IR4 (old a 4ode). It claims that an actual 'ritten claim for refund is necessary #efore a suit for its reco+ery may proceed in any court.  Acostas Arguments7 Arguments7

1. A written claim for claim for refund or ta credit must #e filed #y the tapayer 'ith the 4ommissioner? 6. he claim for refund must #e a categorical eman eman for  for reim#ursement? $. he claim for refund or ta credit must #e filed, or the suit or proceeding therefor must #e commenced in court wit!in two (") #ear$ %rom ate o% &a#ment o% t!e ta' or &enalt# regarle$$ o% an# $&erening ca$e. ca$e. (@mphasis ours.)

he la' is clear. A claimant must first f ile a 'ritten claim for refund, categorically demanding reco+ery of o+erpaid taes 'ith the 4IR, #efore resorting to an action in court. his o#+iously is intended, first, to afford the 4IR an opportunity to correct the action of su#ordinate officers? and second, to notify the go+ernment that such taes ha+e #een :uestioned, and the notice should then #e #orne in mind in estimating the re+enue a+aila#le for ependiture. Moreo+er, ta refunds are in the nature of ta eemptions 'hich are construed strictissimi juris against the tapayer and li#erally in fa+or of the go+ernment. As ta refunds in+ol+e a return of re+enue from the go+ernment, the claimant must sho' indu#ita#ly the specific pro+ision of la' from 'hich her right arises? it cannot #e allo'ed to eist upon a mere +ague implication or inference nor can it #e etended #eyond the ordinary and reasona#le intendment of the language actually used  #y the legislature in granting the refund. o repeat, strict compliance 'ith the conditions imposed for the return of re+enue collected is a doctrine consistently applied in this 9urisdiction. nder the circumstances of this case, 'e cannot agree that the amended return filed #y respondent constitutes the 'ritten claim for refund re:uired #y the old a 4ode, the la' pre+ailing at that time. 2either can 'e apply the li#eral interpretation of the la'

6. a la's are prospecti+e in operation, unless the language of the statute clearly pro+ides other'ise.  Additionally, it could not escape notice that at the time respondent filed her amended return, the 1%% 2IR4 'as not yet in effect. ;ence, respondent had no reason at that time to thin= that the filing of an amended return 'ould constitute the 'ritten claim for refund re:uired #y applica#le la'. Furthermore, as the 4A stressed, e+en the date of filing of the Final Ad9ustment Return 'as omitted, inad+ertently or other'ise, #y respondent in her petition for re+ie'. his omission 'as fatal to respondents claim, for it depri+ed the 4A of its  9urisdiction o+er the su#9ect matter of the case. Finally, Re+enue statutes are su#stanti+e la's and in no sense must their application #e e:uated 'ith that of remedial la's. As 'ell said in a prior case, re+enue la's are not intended to #e li#erally construed. 4onsidering that taes are the life#lood of the go+ernment and in ;olmess memora#le metaphor, the price 'e pay for ci+ili5ation, ta la's must #e faithfully and strictly implemented.