G.R. No. 257697
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/apr2023/gr_257697_2023.html
1 Users
0 Comments
5 Highlights
0 Notes
Tags
Top Highlights
Ultimately, the sole issue in this case is whether Filinvest may be applied retroactively.
Accordingly, considering that SMC was not a party in the case of APC, SMC cannot invoke the Court's pronouncement in that case, as the same was merely a Minute Resolution and is thus not binding precedent.
SMC relies heavily on the Supreme Court Resolution in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. APC Group, Inc. (APC), which upheld the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. APC Group, Inc. in CA-G.R. SP-69869, dated November 29, 2002, ruling that memos and vouchers evidencing inter-company advances are exempt from DST
In the case of Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,28 the Court clarified that a Minute Resolution is not binding precedent:
The CTA En Banc is in error.
Ready to highlight and find good content?
Glasp is a social web highlighter that people can highlight and organize quotes and thoughts from the web, and access other like-minded people’s learning.