GR 192024; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192024 July 1, 2015
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Fortune Tobacco Corporation manufactures cigarettes, including brands like Champion M 100, Camel, and Winston. The excise tax system shifted from ad valorem to specific tax under Republic Act No. 8240 , effective January 1, 1997. The law classified cigarettes into tax brackets based on net retail price, with a provision that the excise tax for any brand within three years from the law’s effectivity “shall not be lower than the tax, which is due from each brand on October 1, 1996.” To implement a 12% tax increase by January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Finance issued Revenue Regulations No. 17-99 (RR 17-99), which stated that the new tax rate “shall not be lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000.” On March 31, 2005, petitioner filed a claim for tax credit or refund under Section 229 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, alleging it erroneously paid specific taxes totaling Php219,566,450.00 for the period June 1 to December 31, 2004. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division denied the claim, finding RR 17-99 contrary to law and that petitioner provided insufficient evidence to prove the claim. The CTA En Banc affirmed the denial. Petitioner assails this decision, arguing that since the CTA found RR 17-99 contrary to law, its refund claim should be granted.
ISSUE
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of petitioner’s claim for tax refund.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The sole issue of the sufficiency of petitioner’s evidence to support its claim for tax refund is a question of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law, not re-examining the probative value of evidence, which is the function of the lower courts. The findings of fact by specialized courts like the CTA, which has developed expertise on tax matters, are accorded respect and are not lightly set aside absent an abuse of authority. The determination of the sufficiency of a claimant’s evidence and the amount of refund are questions of fact for the CTA. The CTA committed no reversible error in denying the claim for insufficiency of evidence.