Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Whether or not the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST from
CBC is already barred by prescription
HELD:
AFFIRMATIVE. The petition is granted on the ground that the right
of the BIR to collect the assessed DST is barred by the statute of limitations.
The BIRs Answer in the case filed before the CTA could not, by any means,
have qualified as a collection case as required by law. Under the rule
prevailing at the time the BIR filed its Answer, the regular courts, and not
the CTA, had jurisdiction over judicial actions for collection of internal
revenue taxes. It was only on 23 April 2004, when Republic Act Number
9282 took effect, that the jurisdiction of the CTA was expanded to include,
among others, original jurisdiction over collection cases in which the
principal amount involved is one million pesos or more.
Furthermore, the fact that the taxpayer in this case may have
requested a reinvestigation did not toll the running of the three-year
prescriptive period.
Under Section 320 of the 1977 Tax Code, a request for reinvestigation
alone will not suspend the statute of limitations. Two things must concur:
there must be a request for reinvestigation and the CIR must have granted
it. Also, in the case of Republic vs. Gancayco, the Court ruled that (t)he act
of requesting a reinvestigation alone does not suspend the period. The
request should first be granted, in order to effect suspension.
There is no showing from the records that the CIR ever granted the
request for reinvestigation filed by CBC. That being the case, it cannot be
said that the running of the three-year prescriptive period was effectively
suspended.
financial assets, i.e., debt instruments and securities are deposit substitutes,
the 20 or more individual or corporate lenders rule must apply. Moreover,
the determination of the phrase at any one time for purposes of
determining the 20 or more lenders is to be determined at the time of the
original issuance. Such being the case, the PEACe Bonds were
not to be treated as deposit substitutes.
Subsequently, the Bureau of Treasury announced that P30.0B worth
of 10-year Zero Coupon Bonds would be auctioned .The notice stated that
the Bonds shall be issued to not more than 19 buyers/lenders hence, the
necessity of a manual auction for this maiden issue. Lastly, it stated that
the issue being limited to 19 lenders and while taxable shall not be subject
to the 20% final withholding tax.
The Bureau of Treasury also released a memo on the Formula for the
Zero-Coupon Bond. The memo stated in part that the formula in
determining the purchase price and settlement amount is only applicable to
the zeroes that are not subject to the 20% final withholding due to the 19
buyer/lender limit.
The Bureau of Treasury held an auction for the 10-year zero-coupon
bonds and issued another memorandum quoting excerpts of the ruling
issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue concerning the Bonds exemption
from 20% final withholding tax and the opinion of the Monetary Board on
reserve eligibility.
After the auction, RCBC which participated on behalf of CODE-NGO
was declared as the winning bidder. The Bureau of Treasury issued P35
billion worth of Bonds at yield-to-maturity of 12.75% to RCBC for
approximately P10.17 billion resulting in a discount of approximately
P24.83
billion.
RCBC Capital entered into an underwriting agreement with CODENGO, whereby RCBC Capital was appointed as the Issue Manager and Lead
Underwriter for the offering of the PEACe Bonds. RCBC Capital agreed to
underwrite on a firm basis the offering, distribution and sale of the P35
billion Bonds at the price of P11,995,513,716.51. In Section 7(r) of the
underwriting agreement, CODE-NGO represented that all income derived
from the Bonds, are exempt from all forms of taxation as confirmed by
Bureau of Internal Revenue letter rulings.
RCBC Capital sold the Government Bonds in the secondary market for
an issue price of P11,995,513,716.51. Petitioners purchased the PEACe
Bonds on different dates.
ISSUE: Whether the PEACe Bonds are deposit substitutes and thus
subject to 20% final withholding tax under the 1997 National Internal
Revenue Code.
HELD: NEGATIVE. Under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, a
final withholding tax at the rate of 20% is imposed on interest on any
currency bank deposit and yield or any other monetary benefit from deposit
substitutes and from trust funds and similar arrangements.
This tax treatment of interest from bank deposits and yield from
deposit substitutes was first introduced in the 1977 National Internal
Revenue Code. The NIRC considered the following borrowings as deposit
substitutes:
(a) All interbank borrowings by or among banks and non-bank
financial institutions authorized to engage in quasi-banking
functions evidenced by deposit substitutes instruments, except
interbank call loans to cover deficiency in reserves against
deposit liabilities as evidenced by interbank loan advice or
repayment transfer tickets.
(b) All borrowings of the national and local government and its
instrumentalities including the Central Bank of the Philippines,
evidenced by debt instruments denoted as treasury bonds, bills,
notes, certificates of indebtedness and similar instruments.
(c) All borrowings of banks, non-bank financial intermediaries,
finance companies, investment companies, trust companies,
including the trust department of banks and investment houses,
evidenced by deposit substitutes instruments.
The definition of deposit substitutes was amended under the 1997
National Internal Revenue Code with the addition of the qualifying phrase
for public borrowing from 20 or more individual or corporate lenders at
any one time. Under the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, Congress
specifically defined public to mean twenty (20) or more individual or
corporate lenders at any one time. Hence, the number of lenders is
determinative of whether a debt instrument should be considered a deposit
substitute and consequently subject to the 20% final withholding tax.
Petitioners contend that there is only one lender (i.e. RCBC) to whom
the BTr issued the Government Bonds. On the other hand, respondents
theorize that the word any indicates that the period contemplated is the
entire term of the bond and not merely the point of origination or issuance
such that if the debt instruments were subsequently sold in secondary
markets and so on, in such a way that twenty (20) or more buyers
eventually own the instruments, then it becomes indubitable that funds
would be obtained from the public as defined in Section 22(Y) of the
NIRC.
The SC explained that the phrase at any one time for purposes of
determining the 20 or more lenders would mean every transaction
executed in the primary or secondary market in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities.
From the factual background, it may seem that there was only one
lender RCBC on behalf of CODE-NGO to whom the PEACe Bonds were
issued at the time of origination. However, a reading of the underwriting
agreement and RCBC term sheet reveals that the settlement dates for the
sale and distribution by RCBC Capital (as underwriter for CODE-NGO) of
the PEACe Bonds to various undisclosed investors at a purchase price of
approximately P11.996 would fall on the same day, October 18, 2001, when
the PEACe Bonds were supposedly issued to CODE-NGO/RCBC. In reality,
therefore, the entire P10.2 billion borrowing received by the Bureau of
Treasury in exchange for the P35 billion worth of PEACe Bonds was sourced
directly from the undisclosed number of investors to whom RCBC
Capital/CODE-NGO distributed the PEACe Bonds all at the time of
origination or issuance.
PEACe Bonds, therefore are not deposit substitutes. Respondent
Bureau of Treasury is hereby ORDERED to immediately release and pay to
the bondholders the amount corresponding to the 20% final withholding tax
that it withheld.
FACTS:
Silicon Philippines Inc. (SPI), formerly known as Intel Philippines
Manufacturing, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and existing under
Philippine laws, and engaged in the business of designing, developing,
manufacturing, and exporting advance and large-scale integrated circuit
components, commonly referred to in the industry as Integrated Circuits or
ICs. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT
taxpayer.
SPI filed on May 6, 1999 with the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax
Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Department of Finance an
1. The taxpayer can file an appeal in one of the two ways: (1) file the
judicial claim within thirty days after the Commissioner denies the claim
within the 120 day period, or; (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days
from the expiration of the 120-day period if the Commissioner does not act
within the 120-day period.
2. The 30-day period always apply, whether there is a denial or
inaction on the part of the CIR.
3. As a general rule, the 30-day period to appeal is both mandatory
and jurisdictional.
4. As an exception to the general rule, premature filing is allowed only
if filed between December 10, 2003 and October 5, 2010 when BIR Ruling
No. DA-489-03 was still in force.
5. Late filing is absolutely prohibited, even during the time when BIR
Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in force.
In the present case, SPI filed on May 6, 1999 its administrative claim
for tax credit/refund of the input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales and
on its purchases of capital goods for the Third Quarter of 1998. The twoyear prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim, reckoned from
the close of the taxable quarter, prescribed on September 30, 2000.
Evidently, SPI belatedly filed its judicial claim. It filed its Petition for
Review with the CTA 391 days after the lapse of the 120-day period without
the CIR acting on its application for tax credit/refund, way beyond the 30day period under Section 112 of the 1997 Tax Code.
Applying the said rules in the case at bar, Because the 30-day period
for filing its judicial claim had already prescribed by the time SPI filed its
Petition for Review with the CTA Division, the CTA Division never acquired
jurisdiction over the said Petition.
The Court stresses that the 120/30-day prescriptive periods are
mandatory and jurisdictional, and are not mere technical requirements.
The Court should not establish the precedent that noncompliance with
mandatory and jurisdictional conditions can be excused if the claim is
otherwise meritorious, particularly in claims for tax refunds or credit. Such
precedent will render meaningless compliance with mandatory and
jurisdictional requirements.
The SC also emphasized that a tax credit or refund, like tax
exemption, is strictly construed against the taxpayer. The taxpayer claiming
the tax credit or refund has the burden of proving that he is entitled to the
refund by showing that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the
grant of the tax refund or credit. Strict compliance with the mandatory and
jurisdictional conditions prescribed by law to claim such tax refund or credit
is essential and necessary for such claim to prosper. Noncompliance with
the mandatory periods, non-observance of the prescriptive periods, and
non-adherence to exhaustion of administrative remedies bar a taxpayers
claim for tax refund or credit, whether or not the CIR questions the
numerical correctness of the claim of the taxpayer. For failure of Silicon to
comply with the provisions of NIRC, its judicial claims for tax refund or
credit should have been dismissed by the CTA for lack of jurisdiction.
EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PHILIPPINES,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
INC.
VS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
supporting the sale of goods and services will result to the disallowance of
the
claim
for
input
tax
by
the
purchaser-claimant.
If the claim for refund/TCC is based on the existence of zero-rated
sales by the taxpayer but it fails to comply with the invoicing requirements
in the issuance of sales invoices (e.g. failure to indicate the TIN), its claim
for tax credit/refund of VAT on its purchases shall be denied considering
that the invoice it is issuing to its customers does not depict its being a VATregistered taxpayer whose sales are classified as zero-rated sales.