HOME
ABOUT US
OUR SERVICES
COMPANY PROFILE
OUR LEADERS
PARTNERS & PRINCIPALS
NEWS & PUBLICATIONS
LATEST NEWS
PUBLICATIONS
SUITS THE C-SUITE
SGV TAX BULLETIN
EVENTS & SEMINARS
TAX SEMINAR
IFRS/PFRS AND FINANCIAL REPORTING SEMINAR
FIDS SEMINAR
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
RISK MANAGEMENT SEMINAR
OTHER SEMINARS
PHOTOS & VIDEOS
ALUMNI
REGISTRATION FORM
ALUMNI NEWS
SGV FOUNDATION
SGV MUSEUM
CAREERS
“Clarifying cost allocation rules for finance institutions” by Czarina R. Miranda
(March 28, 2011)
SUITS THE C-SUITE By Czarina R. Miranda
Business World (03/28/2011)

Section 167 of the Income Tax Regulations recognizes that no uniform method of
accounting can be prescribed for all taxpayers, and that taxpayers shall adopt such
forms and systems of accounting as are, in their judgment, best suited to their
purpose.

Having said that, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has held in several rulings
that there is no hard and fast rule that can guide taxpayers in allocating expenses
where the business involves distinct activities (BIR Ruling Nos. 005-06 dated March
8, 2006, DA-621-06 dated Oct. 18, 2006, and DA-667-06 dated Nov. 15, 2006).

However, the BIR does have rule-making power and in the exercise of this power, it
recently issued Revenue Regulations (RR) 4-2011 prescribing the “proper allocation
of costs and expenses amongst income earnings of banks and other financial
institutions for income tax reporting purposes.”

For depository banks, the RR applies to the operations of their regular banking
unit (RBU), foreign currency deposit unit (FCDU)/expanded FCDU (EFCDU) or offshore
banking unit (OBU) that are subject to different income tax regimes. An RBU is
subject to regular corporate income tax of 30%, while an FCDU/EFCDU or OBU is
subject to 10% final tax on its interest income from foreign currency loans granted
to residents other than OBUs and FCDUs/EFCDUs.

Moreover, an FCDU/EFCDU or OBU is exempt from income tax on income derived from
foreign currency transactions with nonresidents, OBUs, and local commercial banks,
including branches of foreign banks authorized to transact business with
FCDUs/EFCDUs.

RR 4-2011 provides that a bank may deduct only those costs and expenses
attributable to the operation of the RBU to arrive at its taxable income. Any cost
or expense related to or incurred in the operation of the FCDU/EFCDU or OBU is not
allowed as deduction from the RBU’s taxable income.

In computing for the amount deductible from RBU operations, all costs and expenses
shall be allocated as follows:

• by Specific Identification — where expenses which can be specifically

identified to a particular unit (RBU, FCDU/EFCDU, or OBU) shall be reported and
declared as the cost or expenses of that unit; or

• by allocation — where common expenses or costs which cannot be specifically

identified to a particular unit will be allocated based on each unit’s percentage
share of gross income earnings to the total gross income subject to regular income
tax and final tax, including those exempt from income tax.

Interestingly, the RR states that this allocation method shall also apply to “other
financial institutions” for allocating costs and expenses among income earnings
derived from active business operations (subject to regular income tax), passive
activities (subject to final tax), and other activities producing tax-exempt
income.

Although the RR intends to formalize the rules on cost allocation of banks and
other financial institutions, the BIR needs to urgently address certain issues.

For one, should these new rules cover OBUs?

Being a branch, subsidiary, or affiliate of a foreign banking corporation

authorized by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to conduct offshore banking in
the Philippines, OBUs do not have a separate RBU.

They are not like depository banks licensed by the BSP to engage in foreign
currency transactions, such as local or foreign banks with both an RBU and an FCDU.

The allocation rule will also apply to “other financial institutions” — a term that
also deserves clarification.

In a broad sense, the term, “financial institution,” has been defined as a private
(shareholder-owned) or public (government-owned) organization that acts as a
channel between savers and borrowers of funds (suppliers and consumers of capital).

Two main types are:

• depository banks and credit unions that pay interest on deposits from the
interest earned on loans, and

• non-depository insurance companies and mutual funds (unit trusts) that

collect funds by selling their policies or shares (units) to the public and provide
returns in the form of periodic benefits and profit payouts
(businessdictionary.com).

Given the above definition, will the regulations apply also to insurance companies
and mutual funds?

Past BIR issuances refer to “financial institutions” as banks, nonbank financial

intermediaries performing quasi-banking functions, and other nonbank financial
intermediaries including finance companies, but excluding insurance companies (RR
9-2004).

These also cover credit-granting institutions such as the BSP, financing companies,
investment houses, government financial institutions, as well as government-owned
or -controlled corporations such as the National Home Mortgage Finance Corp., Home
Guaranty Corp., Home Development Mutual Fund, Social Security System, Government
Service Insurance System, and others (RR 6-2004).

Furthermore, there is also the question of what the term, “gross income,” exactly
means. Does it refer to total revenues/earnings, gross of expenses, or gross
sales/receipts less cost of services, as has been defined in other pertinent BIR
issuances?

RR 4-2011 is also silent on whether the prescribed allocation method will apply to
the different types of income earned within a particular unit, say, the FCDU/EFCDU
which earns different types of income like offshore and onshore income.

With respect to the allocation of costs and expenses among active, passive, and
tax-exempt income, the RR does not provide if this will also apply to banks.

What it does explicitly say is that it applies to “other financial institutions.”

Moreover, the requirement is also open to debate, considering the conflicting

jurisprudence on whether the allocation of costs and expenses should be allocated
to passive income.

In addition, the reduction of deductible interest expense for income tax purposes
by an amount equal to 33% of interest income already subjected to final tax makes
tax-paid or passive income effectively subject to the 30% regular income tax; thus,
expenses that may relate to such income should be allowed as deductions for regular
tax purposes.

Given the foregoing issues, there is a need for the BIR to clarify RR 4-2011 so
that taxpayers can adopt the prescribed method with clarity.

Considering that changes in existing tax rules are implemented to bring about
reform and improvement, issuances should not be open to uncertainty or
misinterpretation. The implementation and adoption of regulations will be more
acceptable and efficient if these are understood easily and issued preferably in
consultation with the concerned industries.

(Czarina R. Miranda is a Tax Partner of SGV & Co.)

This article was originally published in the BusinessWorld newspaper. It is for

general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the
facts and circumstances warrant. The views and opinion expressed above are those of
the author and do not necessarily represent the views of SGV & Co.

RELATED ARTICLES

Significant changes to the BIR assessment process (First of two parts) By Rubina P.
Bundoc-Aquino January 13, 2014

“Voluntary disclosure of offshore financial accounts for US entities” by Josephine
L. Aldalem (May 30, 2011)

A matter of record By Saha P. Adlawan-Bulagsak October 30, 2013

“Filing US income tax returns made more challenging (1st of 2 parts)” by Rogelanne
E. Ofiaza-Villarubia (February 20, 2012)

The Supreme Court has spoken By Jonald R. Vergara March 17, 2014

Significant changes to the BIR assessment process (Second of two parts) By Rubina
P. Bundoc-Aquino January 20, 2014

“Enabling the disabled” by Czarina R. Miranda (February 8, 2010)

“Filing US income tax returns made more challenging (2nd of 2 parts)” by Rogelanne
E. Ofiaza-Villarubia (February 27, 2012)

“Bracing for new filing requirements” by Saha P. Adlawan-Bulagsak (April 2, 2012)

Understanding Bitcoins and other forms of virtual currencies By Ken Meissner
October 13, 2014

“Of tax disclosures and financial standards” by Henry M. Tan (January 3, 2011)

A matter of record By Wilfredo U. Villanueva October 21, 2013
Business World
Suits the C-Suite column
Suits the C-Suite archive 2018
Suits the C-Suite archive 2017
Suits the C-Suite archive 2016
Suits the C-Suite archive 2015
Suits the C-Suite archive 2014
Suits the C-Suite archive 2013
Suits the C-Suite archive 2012
Suits the C-Suite archive 2011
Suits the C-Suite archive 2010
Suits the C-Suite archive 2009
News
MCM appointed as CAPA Governance and Audit Committee Chair
Assurance Partner Marydith Miguel (MCM) was recent…
Happy International Women’s Day!
On 8 March, SGV joined the world in celebrating In…
SGV Cebu holds Annual Corporate ITR Preparation workshop
SGV Cebu held a workshop on the preparation of the…
SGV Cebu conducts TRAIN seminar
SGV Cebu recently held a half-day public tax semin…
FKS leads Executive Briefings in SGV Davao and Gensan
As part of SGV’s goal of delivering exceptional se…
Advisory Senior Director wins Best Green Leader Award
Advisory Senior Director Hemant Nandanpawar was aw…
Philippine Innovation Week opens with Innovation Forum
SGV joined the Benita and Catalino Yap Foundation …
SGV hosts seminar on Rethinking Counter-terrorism Financing
SGV/EY Philippines hosted a seminar on Counter-Ter…
More from “News”
Moments and Milestones
EY expands its global footprint; inaugurates 5th Global Delivery Network location
in the Philippines
Makati City, 15 September 2015. EY, one of the big…
SGV is Number One again!
SGV maintains its lead among auditors in the count…
SGV gives back to the Typhoon Yolanda victims
As part of our efforts to provide relief and aid t…
Kudos to our CISA and CRISC top placers and CIA passers!
Our Information Technology Risk and Assurance (ITR…
New and improved Washington SyCip Development Center unveiled
Run like an educational institution, SGV upholds i…
Meet some of SGV’s sports enthusiasts!
Not only do Maricris See and Emmanuel Ang from ACE…
Meet SGV’s Got Talent Season 2 Vocal Category finalists!
Eight of SGV’s finest singers successfully hurdled…
DDA is UPAA Most Distinguished Alumna for…
SGV senior adviser Amb. Delia Albert (DDA) was sel…
More from “Moments and Milestones”
Copyright 2017 SGV & Co. All Rights Reserved.Web enabled by TechCellar.com