Practice question
An individual final consumer buys household goods in an ordinary taxable sale and bears VAT included in the price. The sale and tax are lawful, and the consumer identifies no statutory refund entitlement or unlawful collection. The consumer demands a BIR refund solely because the economic burden fell on the consumer rather than on the seller. Which conclusion follows?
- Every consumer has a refund right whenever VAT is shifted
- The seller ceased to be legally liable once payment was made
- Bearing the economic burden alone does not establish a tax-refund entitlement
- VAT is invalid whenever statutory liability and economic burden differ
- The purchase automatically becomes an export sale
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8424_1997.html — NIRC, section 105, indirect nature of VAT
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_153866_2005.html — CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines), G.R. No. 153866, February 11, 2005, indirect taxation and distinction between liability and burden
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.