Evangelista vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 102 Phil. 140, where the three Evangelista sisters bought four pieces of real property which they leased to various tenants and derived rentals therefrom. Clearly, the petitioners in these two cases had formed an unregistered partnership.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9996           October 15, 1957

EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA, MANUELA EVANGELISTA, and FRANCISCA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs.THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Santiago F. Alidio and Angel S. Dakila, Jr., for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Respondents.

CONCEPCION, J.:

This is a petition filed by Eufemia Evangelista, Manuela Evangelista and Francisca Evangelista, for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dispositive part of which reads:

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, we hold that the petitioners are liable for the income tax, real estate dealer's tax and the residence tax for the years 1945 to 1949, inclusive, in accordance with the respondent's assessment for the same in the total amount of P6,878.34, which is hereby affirmed and the petition for review filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed with costs against petitioners.

It appears from the stipulation submitted by the parties:

1. That the petitioners borrowed from their father the sum of P59,1400.00 which amount together with their personwal monies was used by them for the purpose of buying real properties,.

2. That on February 2, 1943, they bought from Mrs. Josefina Florentino a lot with an area of 3,713.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon from the sum of P100,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P57,517.00 as of 1948;

3. That on April 3, 1944 they purchased from Mrs. Josefa Oppus 21 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 3,718.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P130,000.00; this property has an assessed value of P82,255.00 as of 1948;

4. That on April 28, 1944 they purchased from the Insular Investments Inc., a lot of 4,353 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P108,825.00. This property has an assessed value of P4,983.00 as of 1948;

5. That on April 28, 1944 they bought form Mrs. Valentina Afable a lot of 8,371 sq. m. including improvements thereon for P237,234.34. This property has an assessed value of P59,140.00 as of 1948;

6. That in a document dated August 16, 1945, they appointed their brother Simeon Evangelista to 'manage their properties with full power to lease; to collect and receive rents; to issue receipts therefor; in default of such payment, to bring suits against the defaulting tenants; to sign all letters, contracts, etc., for and in their behalf, and to endorse and deposit all notes and checks for them;

7. That after having bought the above-mentioned real properties the petitioners had the same rented or leases to various tenants;

8. That from the month of March, 1945 up to an including December, 1945, the total amount collected as rents on their real properties was P9,599.00 while the expenses amounted to P3,650.00 thereby leaving them a net rental income of P5,948.33;

9. That on 1946, they realized a gross rental income of in the sum of P24,786.30, out of which amount was deducted in the sum of P16,288.27 for expenses thereby leaving them a net rental income of P7,498.13;

10. That in 1948, they realized a gross rental income of P17,453.00 out of the which amount was deducted the sum of P4,837.65 as expenses, thereby leaving them a net rental income of P12,615.35.

It further appears that on September 24, 1954 respondent Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the payment of income tax on corporations, real estate dealer's fixed tax and corporation residence tax for the years 1945-1949, computed, according to assessment made by said officer, as follows:

INCOME TAXES

1945 14.84

1946 1,144.71

1947 10.34

1948 1,912.30

1949 1,575.90

Total including surcharge and compromise

P6,157.09

REAL ESTATE DEALER'S FIXED TAX

1946 P37.50

1947 150.00

1948 150.00

1949 150.00

Total including penalty P527.00

RESIDENCE TAXES OF CORPORATION

1945 P38.75

1946 38.75

1947 38.75

1948 38.75

1949 38.75

Total including surcharge P193.75

TOTAL TAXES DUE P6,878.34.

Said letter of demand and corresponding assessments were delivered to petitioners on December 3, 1954, whereupon they instituted the present case in the Court of Tax Appeals, with a prayer that "the decision of the respondent contained in his letter of demand dated September 24, 1954" be reversed, and that they be absolved from the payment of the taxes in question, with costs against the respondent.

After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Tax Appeals the above-mentioned decision for the respondent, and a petition for reconsideration and new trial having been subsequently denied, the case is now before Us for review at the instance of the petitioners.

The issue in this case whether petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax. With respect to the tax on corporations, the issue hinges on the meaning of the terms "corporation" and "partnership," as used in section 24 and 84 of said Code, the pertinent parts of which read:

SEC. 24. Rate of tax on corporations.—There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or existing under the laws of the Philippines, no matter how created or organized but not including duly registered general co-partnerships (compañias colectivas), a tax upon such income equal to the sum of the following: . . .

SEC. 84 (b). The term 'corporation' includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint-stock companies, joint accounts (cuentas en participacion), associations or insurance companies, but does not include duly registered general copartnerships. (compañias colectivas).

Article 1767 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, properly, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Pursuant to the article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because:

1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence. It was not property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common fund.

2. They invested the same, not merely not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000.00. On April 3, 1944, they purchased 21 lots for P18,000.00. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real estate for P108,825.00. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by the petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in the purpose of gain.

3. The aforesaid lots were not devoted to residential purposes, or to other personal uses, of petitioners herein. The properties were leased separately to several persons, who, from 1945 to 1948 inclusive, paid the total sum of P70,068.30 by way of rentals. Seemingly, the lots are still being so let, for petitioners do not even suggest that there has been any change in the utilization thereof.

4. Since August, 1945, the properties have been under the management of one person, namely Simeon Evangelista, with full power to lease, to collect rents, to issue receipts, to bring suits, to sign letters and contracts, and to indorse and deposit notes and checks. Thus, the affairs relative to said properties have been handled as if the same belonged to a corporation or business and enterprise operated for profit.

5. The foregoing conditions have existed for more than ten (10) years, or, to be exact, over fifteen (15) years, since the first property was acquired, and over twelve (12) years, since Simeon Evangelista became the manager.

6. Petitioners have not testified or introduced any evidence, either on their purpose in creating the set up already adverted to, or on the causes for its continued existence. They did not even try to offer an explanation therefor.

Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances is such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein. Only one or two of the aforementioned circumstances were present in the cases cited by petitioners herein, and, hence, those cases are not in point.

Petitioners insist, however, that they are mere co-owners, not copartners, for, in consequence of the acts performed by them, a legal entity, with a personality independent of that of its members, did not come into existence, and some of the characteristics of partnerships are lacking in the case at bar. This pretense was correctly rejected by the Court of Tax Appeals.

To begin with, the tax in question is one imposed upon "corporations", which, strictly speaking, are distinct and different from "partnerships". When our Internal Revenue Code includes "partnerships" among the entities subject to the tax on "corporations", said Code must allude, therefore, to organizations which are not necessarily "partnerships", in the technical sense of the term. Thus, for instance, section 24 of said Code exempts from the aforementioned tax "duly registered general partnerships which constitute precisely one of the most typical forms of partnerships in this jurisdiction. Likewise, as defined in section 84(b) of said Code, "the term corporation includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized." This qualifying expression clearly indicates that a joint venture need not be undertaken in any of the standard forms, or in conformity with the usual requirements of the law on partnerships, in order that one could be deemed constituted for purposes of the tax on corporations. Again, pursuant to said section 84(b), the term "corporation" includes, among other, joint accounts, (cuentas en participation)" and "associations," none of which has a legal personality of its own, independent of that of its members. Accordingly, the lawmaker could not have regarded that personality as a condition essential to the existence of the partnerships therein referred to. In fact, as above stated, "duly registered general copartnerships" — which are possessed of the aforementioned personality — have been expressly excluded by law (sections 24 and 84 [b] from the connotation of the term "corporation" It may not be amiss to add that petitioners' allegation to the effect that their liability in connection with the leasing of the lots above referred to, under the management of one person — even if true, on which we express no opinion — tends to increase the similarity between the nature of their venture and that corporations, and is, therefore, an additional argument in favor of the imposition of said tax on corporations.

Under the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, "corporations" are taxed differently from "partnerships". By specific provisions of said laws, such "corporations" include "associations, joint-stock companies and insurance companies." However, the term "association" is not used in the aforementioned laws.

. . . in any narrow or technical sense. It includes any organization, created for the transaction of designed affairs, or the attainment of some object, which like a corporation, continues notwithstanding that its members or participants change, and the affairs of which, like corporate affairs, are conducted by a single individual, a committee, a board, or some other group, acting in a representative capacity. It is immaterial whether such organization is created by an agreement, a declaration of trust, a statute, or otherwise. It includes a voluntary association, a joint-stock corporation or company, a 'business' trusts a 'Massachusetts' trust, a 'common law' trust, and 'investment' trust (whether of the fixed or the management type), an interinsuarance exchange operating through an attorney in fact, a partnership association, and any other type of organization (by whatever name known) which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust or an estate, or a partnership. (7A Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 788; emphasis supplied.).

Similarly, the American Law.

. . . provides its own concept of a partnership, under the term 'partnership 'it includes not only a partnership as known at common law but, as well, a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organizations which carries on any business financial operation, or venture, and which is not, within the meaning of the Code, a trust, estate, or a corporation. . . (7A Merten's Law of Federal Income taxation, p. 789; emphasis supplied.)

The term 'partnership' includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, . . .. ( 8 Merten's Law of Federal Income Taxation, p. 562 Note 63; emphasis supplied.) .

For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code, includes these partnerships — with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships — within the purview of the term "corporation." It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned and are subject to the income tax for corporations.

As regards the residence of tax for corporations, section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 465 provides in part:

Entities liable to residence tax.-Every corporation, no matter how created or organized, whether domestic or resident foreign, engaged in or doing business in the Philippines shall pay an annual residence tax of five pesos and an annual additional tax which in no case, shall exceed one thousand pesos, in accordance with the following schedule: . . .

The term 'corporation' as used in this Act includes joint-stock company, partnership, joint account (cuentas en participacion), association or insurance company, no matter how created or organized. (emphasis supplied.)

Considering that the pertinent part of this provision is analogous to that of section 24 and 84 (b) of our National Internal Revenue Code (commonwealth Act No. 466), and that the latter was approved on June 15, 1939, the day immediately after the approval of said Commonwealth Act No. 465 (June 14, 1939), it is apparent that the terms "corporation" and "partnership" are used in both statutes with substantially the same meaning. Consequently, petitioners are subject, also, to the residence tax for corporations.

Lastly, the records show that petitioners have habitually engaged in leasing the properties above mentioned for a period of over twelve years, and that the yearly gross rentals of said properties from June 1945 to 1948 ranged from P9,599 to P17,453. Thus, they are subject to the tax provided in section 193 (q) of our National Internal Revenue Code, for "real estate dealers," inasmuch as, pursuant to section 194 (s) thereof:

'Real estate dealer' includes any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, or renting property or his own account as principal and holding himself out as a full or part time dealer in real estate or as an owner of rental property or properties rented or offered to rent for an aggregate amount of three thousand pesos or more a year. . . (emphasis supplied.)

Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax appeals is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring:

I agree with the opinion that petitioners have actually contributed money to a common fund with express purpose of engaging in real estate business for profit. The series of transactions which they had undertaken attest to this. This appears in the following portion of the decision:

2. They invested the same, not merely in one transaction, but in a series of transactions. On February 2, 1943, they bought a lot for P100,000. On April 3, 1944, they purchase 21 lots for P18,000. This was soon followed on April 23, 1944, by the acquisition of another real state for P108,825. Five (5) days later (April 28, 1944), they got a fourth lot for P237,234.14. The number of lots (24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases, is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was not limited to the conservation and preservation of the aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired by the petitioner in February, 1943, In other words, we cannot but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business transactions engaged in for purposes of gain.

I wish however to make to make the following observation:

Article 1769 of the new Civil Code lays down the rule for determining when a transaction should be deemed a partnership or a co-ownership. Said article paragraphs 2 and 3, provides:

(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;

(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish partnership, whether or not the person sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived;

From the above it appears that the fact that those who agree to form a co-ownership shared or do not share any profits made by the use of property held in common does not convert their venture into a partnership. Or the sharing of the gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership whether or not the persons sharing therein have a joint or common right or interest in the property. This only means that, aside from the circumstance of profit, the presence of other elements constituting partnership is necessary, such as the clear intent to form a partnership, the existence of a judicial personality different from that of the individual partners, and the freedom to transfer or assign any interest in the property by one with the consent of the others (Padilla, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. I, 1953 ed., pp. 635- 636).

It is evident that an isolated transaction whereby two or more persons contribute funds to buy certain real estate for profit in the absence of other circumstances showing a contrary intention cannot be considered a partnership.

Persons who contribute property or funds for a common enterprise and agree to share the gross returns of that enterprise in proportion to their contribution, but who severally retain the title to their respective contribution, are not thereby rendered partners. They have no common stock or capital, and no community of interest as principal proprietors in the business itself which the proceeds derived. (Elements of the law of Partnership by Floyd R. Mechem, 2n Ed., section 83, p. 74.)

A joint venture purchase of land, by two, does not constitute a copartnership in respect thereto; nor does not agreement to share the profits and loses on the sale of land create a partnership; the parties are only tenants in common. (Clark vs. Sideway, 142 U.S. 682, 12 S Ct. 327, 35 L. Ed., 1157.)

Where plaintiff, his brother, and another agreed to become owners of a single tract of reality, holding as tenants in common, and to divide the profits of disposing of it, the brother and the other not being entitled to share in plaintiff's commissions, no partnership existed as between

the parties, whatever relation may have been as to third parties. (Magee vs. Magee, 123 N. E. 6763, 233 Mass. 341.)

In order to constitute a partnership inter sese there must be: (a) An intent to form the same; (b) generally a participating in both profits and losses; (c) and such a community of interest, as far as third persons are concerned as enables each party to make contract, manage the business, and dispose of the whole property. (Municipal Paving Co. vs Herring, 150 P. 1067, 50 Ill. 470.)

The common ownership of property does not itself create a partnership between the owners, though they may use it for purpose of making gains; and they may, without becoming partners, agree among themselves as to the management and use of such property and the application of the proceeds therefrom. (Spurlock vs. Wilson, 142 S. W. 363, 160 No. App. 14.)

This is impliedly recognized in the following portion of the decision: "Although, taken singly, they might not suffice to establish the intent necessary to constitute a partnership, the collective effect of these circumstances (referring to the series of transactions) such as to leave no room for doubt on the existence of said intent in petitioners herein."

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-66838 April 15, 1988

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION & THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,respondents.

 

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 31, 1984 in CTA Case No. 2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue," which declared petitioner therein, Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation to be entitled to the sought refund or tax credit in the amount of P4,832,989.00 representing the alleged overpaid withholding tax at source and ordering payment thereof.

The antecedent facts that precipitated the instant petition are as follows:

Private respondent, Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PMC-Phil.), a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Philippine laws, is engaged in business in the Philippines and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter and Gamble, U.S.A. herein referred to as PMC-USA), a non-resident foreign corporation in the Philippines, not engaged in trade and business therein. As such PMC-U.S.A. is the sole shareholder or stockholder of PMC Phil., as PMC-U.S.A. owns wholly or by 100% the voting stock of PMC Phil.

and is entitled to receive income from PMC-Phil. in the form of dividends, if not rents or royalties. In addition, PMC-Phil has a legal personality separate and distinct from PMC-U.S.A. (Rollo, pp. 122-123).

For the taxable year ending June 30, 1974 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P56,500,332.00 and accordingly paid the corresponding income tax thereon equivalent to P25%-35% or P19,765,116.00 as provided for under Section 24(a) of the Philippine Tax Code, the pertinent portion of which reads:

SEC. 24. Rates of tax on corporation. — a) Tax on domestic corporations. — A tax is hereby imposed upon the taxable net income received during each taxable year from all sources by every corporation organized in, or geting under the laws of the Philippines, and partnerships, no matter how created or organized, but not including general professional partnerships, in accordance with the following:

Twenty-five per cent upon the amount by which the taxable net income does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos; and

Thirty-five per cent upon the amount by which the taxable net income exceeds one hundred thousand pesos.

After taxation its net profit was P36,735,216.00. Out of said amount it declared a dividend in favor of its sole corporate stockholder and parent corporation PMC-U.S.A. in the total sum of P17,707,460.00 which latter amount was subjected to Philippine taxation of 35% or P6,197,611.23 as provided for in Section 24(b) of the Philippine Tax Code which reads in full:

SECTION 1. The first paragraph of subsection (b) of Section 24 of the National Bureau Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

(b) Tax on foreign corporations. — 41) Non-resident corporation. — A foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines, including a foreign life insurance company not engaged in the life insurance business in the Philippines, shall pay a tax equal to 35% of the gross income received during its taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as interest (except interest on foreign loans which shall be subject to 15% tax), dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations for technical services or otherwise, emoluments or other fixed or determinable, annual, periodical or casual gains, profits, and income, and capital gains: Provided, however, That premiums shall not include re-insurance premium Provided, further, That cinematograpy film owners, lessors, or distributors, shall pay a tax of 15% on their gross income from sources within the Philippines: Provided, still further That on dividends received from a domestic corporation hable to tax under this Chapter, the tax shall be 15% of the dividends received, which shall be collected and paid as provided in Section 53(d) of this Code, subject to the condition that the country in which the non-resident foreign corporation is domiciled shall allow a credit against the tax due from the non-resident foreign corporation, taxes deemed to have been paid in the Philippines equivalent to 20% which represents the difference between the regular tax (35%) on

corporations and the tax (15%) on dividends as provided in this section: Provided, finally That regional or area headquarters established in the Philippines by multinational corporations and which headquarters do not earn or derive income from the Philippines and which act as supervisory, communications and coordinating centers for their affiliates, subsidiaries or branches in the Asia-Pacific Region shall not be subject to tax.

For the taxable year ending June 30, 1975 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P8,735,125.00 which was subjected to Philippine taxation at the rate of 25%-35% or P2,952,159.00, thereafter leaving a net profit of P5,782,966.00. As in the 2nd quarter of 1975, PMC-Phil. again declared a dividend in favor of PMC-U.S.A. at the tax rate of 35% or P6,457,485.00.

In July, 1977 PMC-Phil., invoking the tax-sparing credit provision in Section 24(b) as aforequoted, as the withholding agent of the Philippine government, with respect to the dividend taxes paid by PMC-U.S.A., filed a claim with the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the refund of the 20 percentage-point portion of the 35 percentage-point whole tax paid, arising allegedly from the alleged "overpaid withholding tax at source or overpaid withholding tax in the amount of P4,832,989.00," computed as follows:

Dividend Income

Tax withheld

15% tax under

Alleged of

PMC-U.S.A.

at source at

tax sparing

over

  35%

proviso

payment

P17,707,460

P6,196,611

P2,656,119

P3,541,492

6,457,485

2,260,119

968,622

1,291,497

P24,164,946

P8,457,731

P3,624,941

P4,832,989

There being no immediate action by the BIR on PMC-Phils' letter-claim the latter sought the intervention of the CTA when on July 13, 1977 it filed with herein respondent court a petition for review docketed as CTA No. 2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue," praying that it be declared entitled to the refund or tax credit claimed and ordering respondent therein to refund to it the amount of P4,832,989.00, or to issue tax credit in its favor in lieu of tax refund. (Rollo, p. 41)

On the other hand therein respondent, Commissioner of qqqInterlaal Revenue, in his answer, prayed for the dismissal of said Petition and for the denial of the claim for refund. (Rollo, p. 48)

On January 31, 1974 the Court of Tax Appeals in its decision (Rollo, p. 63) ruled in favor of the herein petitioner, the dispositive portion of the same reading as follows:

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to the sought refund or tax credit of the amount representing the overpaid withholding tax at source and the payment therefor by the respondent hereby ordered. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Hence this petition.

The Second Division of the Court without giving due course to said petition resolved to require the respondents to comment (Rollo, p. 74). Said comment was filed on November 8, 1984 (Rollo, pp. 83-90). Thereupon this Court by resolution dated December 17, 1984 resolved to give due course to the petition and to consider respondents' comulent on the petition as Answer. (Rollo, p. 93)

Petitioner was required to file brief on January 21, 1985 (Rollo, p. 96). Petitioner filed his brief on May 13, 1985 (Rollo, p. 107), while private respondent PMC Phil filed its brief on August 22, 1985.

Petitioner raised the following assignments of errors:

I

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW, THAT THE HEREIN RESPONDENT PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PMC-PHIL. FOR SHORT)IS ENTITLED TO THE SOUGHT REFUND OR TAX CREDIT OF P4,832,989.00, REPRESENTING ALLEGEDLY THE DIVIDED TAX OVER WITHHELD BY PMC-PHIL. UPON REMITTANCE OF DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE TOTAL SUM OF P24,164,946.00 TO PROCTER & GAMBLE, USA (PMC-USA FOR SHORT).

II

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW, THAT PMC-USA, A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION UNDER SECTION 24(b) (1) OF THE PHILIPPINE TAX CODE AND A DOMESTIC CORPORATION DOMICILED IN THE UNITED STATES, IS ENTITLED UNDER THE U.S. TAX CODE AGAINST ITS U.S. FEDERAL TAXES TO A UNITED STATES FOREIGN TAX CREDIT EQUIVALENT TO AT LEAST THE 20 PERCENTAGE-POINT PORTION (OF THE 35 PERCENT DIVIDEND TAX) SPARED OR WAIVED OR OTHERWISE CONSIDERED OR DEEMED PAID BY THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT.

The sole issue in this case is whether or not private respondent is entitled to the preferential 15% tax rate on dividends declared and remitted to its parent corporation.

From this issue two questions are posed by the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and they are (1) Whether or not PMC-Phil. is the proper party to claim the refund and (2) Whether or not the U. S. allows as tax credit the "deemed paid" 20% Philippine Tax on such dividends?

The petitioner maintains that it is the PMC-U.S.A., the tax payer and not PMC-Phil. the remitter or payor of the dividend income, and a mere withholding agent for and in behalf of the Philippine Government, which should be legally entitled to receive the refund if any. (Rollo, p. 129)

It will be observed at the outset that petitioner raised this issue for the first time in the Supreme Court. He did not raise it at the administrative level, nor at the Court of Tax Appeals. As clearly ruled by Us "To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenges the position he had accepted at the administrative level," would be to sanction a procedure whereby the Court-which is supposed to review administrative determinations would not review, but determine and decide for the first time, a question not raised at the administrative forum." Thus it is well settled that under the same underlying principle of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, on the judicial level, issues not raised in the lower court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal. (Pampanga Sugar Dev. Co., Inc. v. CIR, 114 SCRA 725 [1982]; Garcia v. C.A., 102 SCRA 597 [1981]; Matialonzo v. Servidad, 107 SCRA 726 [1981]),

Nonetheless it is axiomatic that the State can never be in estoppel, and this is particularly true in matters involving taxation. The errors of certain administrative officers should never be allowed to jeopardize the government's financial position.

The submission of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that PMC-Phil. is but a withholding agent of the government and therefore cannot claim reimbursement of the alleged over paid taxes, is completely meritorious. The real party in interest being the mother corporation in the United States, it follows that American entity is the real party in interest, and should have been the claimant in this case.

Closely intertwined with the first assignment of error is the issue of whether or not PMC-U.S.A. — a non-resident foreign corporation under Section 24(b)(1) of the Tax Code (the subsidiary of an American) a domestic corporation domiciled in the United States, is entitled under the U.S. Tax Code to a United States Foreign Tax Credit equivalent to at least the 20 percentage paid portion (of the 35% dividend tax) spared or waived as otherwise considered or deemed paid by the government. The law pertinent to the issue is Section 902 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Public Law 87-834, the law governing tax credits granted to U.S. corporations on dividends received from foreign corporations, which to the extent applicable reads:

SEC. 902 - CREDIT FOR CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS IN FOREIGN CORPORATION.

(a) Treatment of Taxes Paid by Foreign Corporation - For purposes of this subject, a domestic corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable year shall-

(1) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (a)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is not a less developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of

any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends (determined without regard to Section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated profits in excess of such income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (other than those deemed paid); and

(2) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (b)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is a less-developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends bears to the amount of such accumulated profits.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Applicable Rules

(1) Accumulated profits defined - For purpose of this section, the term 'accumulated profits' means with respect to any foreign corporation.

(A) for purposes of subsections (a) (1) and (b) (1), the amount of its gains, profits, or income computed without reduction by the amount of the income, war profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or income by any foreign country.... ; and

(B) for purposes of subsections (a) (2) and (b) (2), the amount of its gains, profits, or income in excess of the income, was profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or income.

The Secretary or his delegate shall have full power to determine from the accumulated profits of what year or years such dividends were paid, treating dividends paid in the first 20 days of any year as having been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or years (unless to his satisfaction shows otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as having been paid from the most recently accumulated gains, profits, or earnings. .. (Rollo, pp. 55-56)

To Our mind there is nothing in the aforecited provision that would justify tax return of the disputed 15% to the private respondent. Furthermore, as ably argued by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to meet certain conditions necessary in order that the dividends received by the non-resident parent company in the United States may be subject to the preferential 15% tax instead of 35%. Among other things, the private respondent failed: (1) to show the actual amount credited by the U.S. government against the income tax due from PMC-U.S.A. on the dividends received from private respondent; (2) to present the income tax return of its mother company for 1975 when the dividends were received; and (3) to submit any duly authenticated document showing that the U.S. government credited the 20% tax deemed paid in the Philippines.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is GRANTED and the decision appealed from, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

 

EN BANC CHAMBER OF REAL                                       G.R. No. 160756ESTATE AND BUILDERS’ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,                                 Petitioner,                        Present:                                                                  

PUNO, C.J.,                           CARPIO,

                                                                             CORONA,CARPIO MORALES,

                                                                   VELASCO, JR.,                                                                   NACHURA,          -  v e r s u s  -                                    LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

                                                          BRION,                                                          PERALTA,

BERSAMIN,                                                                    DEL CASTILLO,                                                                    ABAD,                                                                             VILLARAMA, JR.,                                                                   PEREZ and                                                                   MENDOZA, JJ. THE HON. EXECUTIVE                       SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO,THE HON. ACTING SECRETARY OFFINANCE JUANITA D. AMATONG,and THE HON. COMMISSIONER OFINTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMOPARAYNO, JR.,

Respondents.                 Promulgated:

 March 9, 2010

                         x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N CORONA, J.:

  

          In this original petition for certiorari and mandamus,[1] petitioner Chamber

of Real Estate and Builders’ Associations, Inc. is questioning the constitutionality

of Section 27 (E) of Republic Act (RA) 8424[2] and the revenue regulations (RRs)

issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to implement said provision and

those involving creditable withholding taxes.[3]

 

          Petitioner is an association of real estate developers and builders in the

Philippines.  It impleaded former Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, then acting

Secretary of Finance Juanita D. Amatong and then Commissioner of Internal

Revenue Guillermo Parayno, Jr. as respondents. 

          Petitioner assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate

income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales

of real properties classified as ordinary assets. 

Section 27(E) of RA 8424 provides for MCIT on domestic corporations and

is implemented by RR 9-98.  Petitioner argues that the MCIT violates the due

process clause because it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain.  

          Petitioner also seeks to nullify Sections 2.57.2(J) (as amended by RR 6-

2001) and 2.58.2 of RR 2-98, and Section 4(a)(ii) and (c)(ii) of RR 7-2003, all of

which prescribe the rules and procedures for the collection of CWT on the sale of

real properties categorized as ordinary assets.  Petitioner contends that these

revenue regulations are contrary to law for two reasons: first, they ignore the

different treatment by RA 8424 of ordinary assets and capital assets and second,

respondent Secretary of Finance has no authority to collect CWT, much less, to

base the CWT on the gross selling price or fair market value of the real properties

classified as ordinary assets. 

          Petitioner also asserts that the enumerated provisions of the subject revenue

regulations violate the due process clause because, like the MCIT, the government

collects income tax even when the net income has not yet been determined. They

contravene the equal protection clause as well because the CWT is being levied

upon real estate enterprises but not on other business enterprises, more particularly

those in the manufacturing sector. 

          The issues to be resolved are as follows: 

(1)   whether or not this Court should take cognizance of the present case;

(2)   whether or not the imposition of the MCIT on domestic corporations is

unconstitutional and

(3)   whether or not the imposition of CWT on income from sales of real

properties classified as ordinary assets under RRs 2-98, 6-2001 and 7-

2003, is unconstitutional. 

 OVERVIEW OF THE ASSAILED PROVISIONS

  

Under the MCIT scheme, a corporation, beginning on its fourth year of

operation, is assessed an MCIT of 2% of its gross income when such MCIT is

greater than the normal corporate income tax imposed under Section 27(A). [4] If the

regular income tax is higher than the MCIT, the corporation does not pay the

MCIT.  Any excess of the MCIT over the normal tax shall be carried forward and

credited against the normal income tax for the three immediately succeeding

taxable years.  Section 27(E) of RA 8424 provides: Section 27 (E).  [MCIT] on Domestic Corporations. - 

(1)      Imposition of Tax. – A [MCIT] of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year, as defined herein, is hereby imposed on a corporation taxable under this Title, beginning on the fourth taxable year immediately following the year in which such corporation commenced its business operations, when the minimum income tax is greater than the tax computed under Subsection (A) of this Section for the taxable year.

 (2)      Carry Forward of Excess Minimum Tax. – Any excess of the

[MCIT] over the normal income tax as computed under Subsection (A) of this Section shall be carried forward and credited against the normal income tax for the three (3) immediately succeeding taxable years.

 (3)      Relief from the [MCIT] under certain conditions. – The

Secretary of Finance is hereby authorized to suspend the imposition of the [MCIT] on any corporation which suffers

losses on account of prolonged labor dispute, or because of force majeure, or because of legitimate business reverses.

 The Secretary of Finance is hereby authorized to

promulgate, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, the necessary rules and regulations that shall define the terms and conditions under which he may suspend the imposition of the [MCIT] in a meritorious case.

 (4)      Gross Income Defined. – For purposes of applying the

[MCIT] provided under Subsection (E) hereof, the term ‘gross income’ shall mean gross sales less sales returns, discounts and allowances and cost of goods sold.  “Cost of goods sold” shall include all business expenses directly incurred to produce the merchandise to bring them to their present location and use.

 For trading or merchandising concern, “cost of goods

sold” shall include the invoice cost of the goods sold, plus import duties, freight in transporting the goods to the place where the goods are actually sold including insurance while the goods are in transit.

 For a manufacturing concern, “cost of goods

manufactured and sold” shall include all costs of production of finished goods, such as raw materials used, direct labor and manufacturing overhead, freight cost, insurance premiums and other costs incurred to bring the raw materials to the factory or warehouse.

 In the case of taxpayers engaged in the sale of service,

“gross income” means gross receipts less sales returns, allowances, discounts and cost of services.  “Cost of services” shall mean all direct costs and expenses necessarily incurred to provide the services required by the customers and clients including (A) salaries and employee benefits of personnel, consultants and specialists directly rendering the service and  (B) cost of facilities directly utilized in providing the service such as depreciation or rental of equipment used and cost of supplies:  Provided, however, that in the case of banks, “cost of services” shall include interest expense.

  

          On August 25, 1998, respondent Secretary of Finance (Secretary), on the

recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), promulgated RR

9-98 implementing Section 27(E).[5] The pertinent portions thereof read: Sec. 2.27(E)  [MCIT] on Domestic Corporations. –  

(1)     Imposition of the Tax. – A [MCIT] of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year (whether calendar or fiscal year, depending on the accounting period employed) is hereby imposed upon any domestic corporation beginning the fourth (4th) taxable year immediately following the taxable year in which such corporation commenced its business operations. The MCIT shall be imposed whenever such corporation has zero or negative taxable income or whenever the amount of minimum corporate income tax is greater than the normal income tax due from such corporation.

  

For purposes of these Regulations, the term, “normal income tax” means the income tax rates prescribed under Sec. 27(A) and Sec. 28(A)(1) of the Code xxx at 32% effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter.                   xxx                              xxx                              xxx 

(2)      Carry forward of excess [MCIT]. – Any excess of the [MCIT] over the normal income tax as computed under Sec. 27(A) of the Code shall be carried forward on an annual basis and credited against the normal income tax for the three (3) immediately succeeding taxable years.

 xxx                              xxx                              xxx

  

          Meanwhile, on April 17, 1998, respondent Secretary, upon recommendation

of respondent CIR, promulgated RR 2-98 implementing certain provisions of RA

8424 involving the withholding of taxes.[6]  Under Section 2.57.2(J) of RR No. 2-

98, income payments from the sale, exchange or transfer of real property, other

than capital assets, by persons residing in the Philippines and habitually engaged in

the real estate business were subjected to CWT: 

Sec. 2.57.2.  Income payment subject to [CWT] and rates prescribed thereon:

             xxx                              xxx                              xxx (J) Gross selling price or total amount of consideration or its

equivalent paid to the seller/owner for the sale, exchange or transfer of. – Real property, other than capital assets, sold by an individual, corporation, estate, trust, trust fund or pension fund and the seller/transferor is habitually engaged in the real estate business in accordance with the following schedule –

                 

        xxx                              xxx                             xxx 

Those which are exempt from a withholding tax at source as prescribed in Sec. 2.57.5 of these regulations.

   

Exempt With a selling price of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) or less.

  

 1.5%

 With a selling price of more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

   

  3.0%

 With selling price of more than two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)                                               

  

 5.0% 

            Gross selling price shall mean the consideration stated in the sales document or the fair market value determined in accordance with Section 6 (E) of the Code, as amended, whichever is higher.  In an exchange, the fair market value of the property received in exchange, as determined in the Income Tax Regulations shall be used.             Where the consideration or part thereof is payable on installment, no withholding tax is required to be made on the periodic installment payments where the buyer is an individual not engaged in trade or business.  In such a case, the applicable rate of tax based on the entire consideration shall be withheld on the last installment or installments to be paid to the seller.             However, if the buyer is engaged in trade or business, whether a corporation or otherwise, the tax shall be deducted and withheld by the buyer on every installment.

            

This provision was amended by RR 6-2001 on July 31, 2001:Sec. 2.57.2.  Income payment subject to [CWT] and rates

prescribed thereon:

                        xxx                              xxx                              xxx(J)      Gross selling price or total amount of consideration or its

equivalent paid to the seller/owner for the sale, exchange or transfer of real property classified as ordinary asset. -  A [CWT] based on the gross selling price/total amount of consideration or the fair market value determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of the Code, whichever is higher, paid to the seller/owner for the sale, transfer or exchange of real property, other than capital asset, shall be imposed upon the withholding agent,/buyer, in accordance with the following schedule:

 Where   the   seller/transferor is exempt from [CWT] in accordance with Sec. 2.57.5 of these regulations.            

  

Exempt Upon the following values of real property, where the seller/transferor is habitually engaged in the real estate business.

 

   

With a selling price of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) or less.                  

 1.5%        

 With a selling price of more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).

    

3.0% With a selling price of more than two Million Pesos  (P2,000,000.00).

  

5.0%                                                           

                        xxx                              xxx                              xxx 

Gross selling price shall remain the consideration stated in the sales document or the fair market value determined in accordance with Section 6 (E) of the Code, as amended, whichever is higher.  In an exchange, the fair market value of the property received in exchange shall be considered as the consideration.

 xxx                           xxx                             xxx

 However, if the buyer is engaged in trade or business, whether a

corporation or otherwise, these rules shall apply: (i)     If the sale is a sale of property on the installment plan (that is, payments in the year of sale do not exceed 25% of the selling price), the tax shall be deducted and withheld by the buyer on every installment. (ii) If, on the other hand, the sale is on a “cash basis” or is a “deferred-payment sale not on the installment plan”     (that is, payments in the year of sale exceed 25% of the selling price), the buyer shall withhold the tax based on the gross selling price or fair market value of the property, whichever is higher, on the first installment.

 In any case, no Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR) shall

be issued to the buyer unless the [CWT] due on the sale, transfer or exchange of real property other than capital asset has been fully paid.  (Underlined amendments in the original)

 

 

Section 2.58.2 of RR 2-98 implementing Section 58(E) of RA 8424 provides

that any sale, barter or exchange subject to the CWT will not be recorded by the

Registry of Deeds until the CIR has certified that such transfers and conveyances

have been reported and the taxes thereof have been duly paid:[7]

             Sec. 2.58.2.  Registration with the Register of Deeds. – Deeds of conveyances of land or land and building/improvement thereon arising from sales, barters, or exchanges subject to the creditable expanded withholding tax shall not be recorded by the Register of Deeds unless the [CIR] or his duly authorized representative has certified that such transfers and conveyances have been reported and the expanded withholding tax, inclusive of the documentary stamp tax, due thereon have been fully paid xxxx. 

 

          On February 11, 2003, RR No. 7-2003[8] was promulgated, providing for the

guidelines in determining whether a particular real property is a capital or an

ordinary asset for purposes of imposing the MCIT, among others.  The pertinent

portions thereof state:  

Section 4.  Applicable taxes on sale, exchange or other disposition of real property. - Gains/Income derived from sale, exchange, or other disposition of real properties shall, unless otherwise exempt, be subject to applicable taxes imposed under the Code, depending on whether the subject properties are classified as capital assets or ordinary assets;

 a.            In the  case of individual citizen (including estates and

trusts), resident aliens, and non-resident aliens engaged in trade or business in the Philippines;

 xxx                  xxx                  xxx

 (ii)               The sale of real property located in the Philippines,

classified as ordinary assets, shall be subject to the [CWT] (expanded) under Sec. 2.57..2(J) of [RR 2-

98], as amended, based on the gross selling price or current fair market value as determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of the Code, whichever is higher, and consequently, to the ordinary income tax imposed under Sec. 24(A)(1)(c) or 25(A)(1) of the Code, as the case may be, based on net taxable income.

 xxx                  xxx                  xxx

 c.       In the case of domestic corporations. –

 xxx                  xxx                  xxx

 (ii)               The sale of land and/or building classified as ordinary

asset and other real property (other than land and/or building treated as capital asset), regardless of the classification thereof, all of which are located in the Philippines, shall be subject to the [CWT] (expanded) under Sec. 2.57.2(J) of [RR 2-98], as amended, and consequently, to the ordinary income tax under Sec. 27(A) of the Code.  In lieu of the ordinary income tax, however, domestic corporations may become subject to the [MCIT] under Sec. 27(E) of the Code, whichever is applicable.

 xxx                  xxx                  xxx

           We shall now tackle the issues raised.    EXISTENCE OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY

 

Courts will not assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question unless the

following requisites are satisfied: (1) there must be an actual case calling for the

exercise of judicial review; (2) the question before the court must be ripe for

adjudication;  (3)  the  person challenging  the  validity  of  the act must have

standing to do so; (4) the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the

earliest opportunity and (5) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis

mota of the case.[9]

 

Respondents aver that the first three requisites are absent in this

case.  According to them, there is no actual case calling for the exercise of judicial

power and it is not yet ripe for adjudication because           [petitioner] did not allege that CREBA, as a corporate entity, or any of its members, has been assessed by the BIR for the payment of [MCIT] or [CWT] on sales of real property.  Neither did petitioner allege that its members have shut down their businesses as a result of the payment of the MCIT or CWT.  Petitioner has raised concerns in mere abstract and hypothetical form without any actual, specific and concrete instances cited that the assailed law and revenue regulations have actually and adversely affected it.  Lacking empirical data on which to base any conclusion, any discussion on the constitutionality of the MCIT or CWT on sales of real property is essentially an academic exercise.             Perceived or alleged hardship to taxpayers alone is not an adequate justification for adjudicating abstract issues. Otherwise, adjudication would be no different from the giving of advisory opinion that does not really settle legal issues.[10]

 

An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights or an

assertion of opposite legal claims which is susceptible of judicial resolution as

distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.[11]  On the other

hand, a question is considered ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged

has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.[12]

 

Contrary to respondents’ assertion, we do not have to wait until petitioner’s

members have shut down their operations as a result of the MCIT or CWT.  The

assailed provisions are already being implemented.  As we stated in Didipio Earth-

Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association, Incorporated (DESAMA) v. Gozun:[13]  

 By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of

the challenged act, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act. Indeed, even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty.[14]

 

If the assailed provisions are indeed unconstitutional, there is no better time than

the present to settle such question once and for all. 

          Respondents next argue that petitioner has no legal standing to sue: Petitioner is an association of some of the real estate developers

and builders in the Philippines.  Petitioners did not allege that [it] itself is in the real estate business.  It did not allege any material interest or any wrong that it may suffer from the enforcement of [the assailed provisions].[15]

 

Legal standing or locus standi is a party’s personal and substantial interest in

a case such that it has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the

governmental act being challenged.[16]  In Holy Spirit Homeowners Association,

Inc. v. Defensor,[17]we held that the association had legal standing because its

members stood to be injured by the enforcement of the assailed provisions: Petitioner association has the legal standing to institute the instant

petition xxx. There is no dispute that the individual members of petitioner association are residents of the NGC. As such they are covered and stand to be either benefited or injured by the enforcement of the IRR, particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries. Thus, petitioner association may assail those provisions in the IRR which it believes to be unfavorable to the rights of its members. xxx Certainly, petitioner and its members have sustained direct injury arising from the enforcement of the IRR in that they have been disqualified and eliminated from the selection process.[18]

  

          In any event, this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which

does not satisfy the requirements of an actual case, ripeness or legal standing when

paramount public interest is involved.[19]  The questioned MCIT and CWT affect

not only petitioners but practically all domestic corporate taxpayers in our country.

The transcendental importance of the issues raised and their overreaching

significance to society make it proper for us to take cognizance of this petition.[20]           CONCEPT AND RATIONALE OF THE MCIT 

 

The MCIT on domestic corporations is a new concept introduced by RA

8424 to the Philippine taxation system.  It came about as a result of the perceived

inadequacy of the self-assessment system in capturing the true income of

corporations.[21] It was devised as a relatively simple and effective revenue-raising

instrument compared to the normal income tax which is more difficult to control

and enforce.  It is a means to ensure that everyone will make some minimum

contribution to the support of the public sector. The congressional deliberations on

this are illuminating: Senator Enrile.  Mr. President, we are not unmindful of the practice of certain corporations of reporting constantly a loss in their operations to avoid the payment of taxes, and thus avoid sharing in the cost of government.  In this regard, the Tax Reform Act introduces for the first time a new concept called the [MCIT] so as to minimize tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax manipulation in the country and for administrative convenience.  … This will go a long way in ensuring that corporations will pay their just share in supporting our public life and our economic advancement.[22]

 

Domestic corporations owe their corporate existence and their privilege to

do business to the government. They also benefit from the efforts of the

government to improve the financial market and to ensure a favorable business

climate. It is therefore fair for the government to require them to make a reasonable

contribution to the public expenses. 

Congress intended to put a stop to the practice of corporations which, while

having large turn-overs, report minimal or negative net income resulting in

minimal or zero income taxes year in and year out, through under-declaration of

income or over-deduction of expenses otherwise called tax shelters.[23]

 Mr. Javier (E.) … [This] is what the Finance Dept. is trying to remedy, that is why they have proposed the [MCIT].  Because from experience too, you have corporations which have been losing year in and year out and paid no tax.  So, if the corporation has been losing for the past five years to ten years, then that corporation has no business to be in business.  It is dead.  Why continue if you are losing year in and year out? So, we have this provision to avoid this type of tax shelters, Your Honor.[24] 

 

The primary purpose of any legitimate business is to earn a

profit.  Continued and repeated losses after operations of a corporation or

consistent reports of minimal net income render its financial statements and its tax

payments suspect.  For sure, certain tax avoidance schemes resorted to by

corporations are allowed in our jurisdiction.  The MCIT serves to put a cap on such

tax shelters.  As a tax on gross income, it prevents tax evasion and minimizes tax

avoidance schemes achieved through sophisticated and artful manipulations of

deductions and other stratagems.  Since the tax base was broader, the tax rate was

lowered.  

          To further emphasize the corrective nature of the MCIT, the following

safeguards were incorporated into the law: 

First, recognizing the birth pangs of businesses and the reality of the need to

recoup initial major capital expenditures, the imposition of the MCIT commences

only on the fourth taxable year immediately following the year in which the

corporation commenced its operations.[25]  This grace period allows a new business

to stabilize first and make its ventures viable before it is subjected to the MCIT.[26]

 

Second, the law allows the carrying forward of any excess of the MCIT paid

over the normal income tax which shall be credited against the normal income tax

for the three immediately succeeding years.[27]          

Third, since certain businesses may be incurring genuine repeated losses, the

law authorizes the Secretary of Finance to suspend the imposition of MCIT if a

corporation suffers losses due to prolonged labor dispute, force majeure and

legitimate business reverses.[28]          

Even before the legislature introduced the MCIT to the Philippine taxation

system, several other countries already had their own system of minimum

corporate income taxation.  Our lawmakers noted that most developing countries,

particularly Latin American and Asian countries, have the same form of safeguards

as we do.  As pointed out during the committee hearings:             [Mr. Medalla:] Note that most developing countries where you have of course quite a bit of room for underdeclaration of gross receipts have this same form of safeguards.             In the case of Thailand, half a percent (0.5%), there’s a minimum of income tax of half a percent (0.5%) of gross assessable income. In Korea a 25% of taxable income before deductions and exemptions.  Of course the different countries have different basis for that minimum income tax. 

            The other thing you’ll notice is the preponderance of Latin American countries that employed this method.  Okay, those are additional Latin American countries.[29]

  

At present, the United States of America, Mexico, Argentina, Tunisia, Panama and

Hungary have their own versions of the MCIT.[30]

 MCIT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS

          

          Petitioner claims that the MCIT under Section 27(E) of RA 8424 is

unconstitutional because it is highly oppressive, arbitrary and confiscatory which

amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law.  It explains that

gross income as defined under said provision only considers the cost of goods sold

and other direct expenses; other major expenditures, such as administrative and

interest expenses which are equally necessary to produce gross income, were not

taken into account.[31]  Thus, pegging the tax base of the MCIT to a corporation’s

gross income is tantamount to a confiscation of capital because gross income,

unlike net income, is not “realized gain.”[32]  

          We disagree. 

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government.  Without taxes, the government

can neither exist nor endure. The exercise of taxing power derives its source from

the very existence of the State whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to

promote public interest and the common good.[33]

 

Taxation is an inherent attribute of sovereignty.[34]  It is a power that is

purely legislative.[35]  Essentially, this means that in the legislature primarily lies

the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate),

coverage (subjects) and situs (place) of taxation.[36]  It has the authority to prescribe

a certain tax at a specific rate for a particular public purpose on persons or things

within its jurisdiction.  In other words, the legislature wields the power to define

what tax shall be imposed, why it should be imposed, how much tax shall be

imposed, against whom (or what) it shall be imposed and where it shall be

imposed. 

          As a general rule, the power to tax is plenary and unlimited in its range,

acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that the principal check against its

abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature (which imposes the

tax) to its constituency who are to pay it.[37]  Nevertheless, it is circumscribed by

constitutional limitations.  At the same time, like any other statute, tax legislation

carries a presumption of constitutionality. 

The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat “[no]

person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of

law.”  In Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, et al.,[38] we held that the due process clause may

properly be invoked to invalidate, in appropriate cases, a revenue measure [39] when

it amounts to a confiscation of property.[40]  But in the same case, we also explained

that we will not strike down a revenue measure as unconstitutional (for being

violative of the due process clause) on the mere allegation of arbitrariness by the

taxpayer.[41] There must be a factual foundation to such an unconstitutional taint.[42] This merely adheres to the authoritative doctrine that, where the due process

clause is invoked, considering that it is not a fixed rule but rather a broad standard,

there is a need for proof of such persuasive character.[43]  

Petitioner is correct in saying that income is distinct from capital. [44]  Income

means all the wealth which flows into the taxpayer other than a mere return on

capital.  Capital is a fund or property existing at one distinct point in time while

income denotes a flow of wealth during a definite period of time.[45]  Income is gain

derived and severed from capital.[46]  For income to be taxable, the following

requisites must exist: 

(1)   there must be gain;

(2)   the gain must be realized or received and

(3)   the gain must not be excluded by law or treaty from   

       taxation.[47]   

Certainly, an income tax is arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes capital because

capital is not income.  In other words, it is income, not capital, which is subject to

income tax.  However, the MCIT is not a tax on capital.         

The MCIT is imposed on gross income which is arrived at by deducting the

capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods[48] and

other direct expenses from gross sales.  Clearly, the capital is not being taxed. 

          Furthermore, the MCIT is not an additional tax imposition. It is imposed in

lieu of the normal net income tax, and only if the normal income tax is

suspiciously low.  The MCIT merely approximates the amount of net income tax

due from a corporation, pegging the rate at a very much reduced 2% and uses as

the base the corporation’s gross income. 

          Besides, there is no legal objection to a broader tax base or taxable income

by eliminating all deductible items and at the same time reducing the applicable tax

rate.[49]

 Statutes taxing the gross "receipts," "earnings," or "income" of

particular corporations are found in many jurisdictions.  Tax thereon is generally held to be within the power of a state to impose; or constitutional, unless it interferes with interstate commerce or violates the requirement as to uniformity of taxation.[50]

  

The United States has a similar alternative minimum tax (AMT) system

which is generally characterized by a lower tax rate but a broader tax base.[51]  Since our income tax laws are of American origin, interpretations by American

courts of our parallel tax laws have persuasive effect on the interpretation of these

laws.[52]  Although our MCIT is not exactly the same as the AMT, the policy

behind them and the procedure of their implementation are comparable.  On the

question of the AMT’s constitutionality, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit stated in Okin v. Commissioner:[53]

 In enacting the minimum tax, Congress attempted to remedy general taxpayer distrust of the system growing from large numbers of taxpayers with large incomes who were yet paying no taxes.             xxx                              xxx                              xxx We thus join a number of other courts in upholding the constitutionality of the [AMT].  xxx [It] is a rational means of obtaining a broad-based tax, and therefore is constitutional.[54]

  

The U.S. Court declared that the congressional intent to ensure that corporate

taxpayers would contribute a minimum amount of taxes was a legitimate

governmental end to which the AMT bore a reasonable relation.[55]

         

          American courts have also emphasized that Congress has the power to

condition, limit or deny deductions from gross income in order to arrive at the net

that it chooses to tax.[56]  This is because deductions are a matter of legislative

grace.[57]

 

Absent any other valid objection, the assignment of gross income, instead of

net income, as the tax base of the MCIT, taken with the reduction of the tax rate

from 32% to 2%, is not constitutionally objectionable.         

Moreover, petitioner does not cite any actual, specific and concrete negative

experiences of its members nor does it present empirical data to show that the

implementation of the MCIT resulted in the confiscation of their property.         

In sum, petitioner failed to support, by any factual or legal basis, its

allegation that the MCIT is arbitrary and confiscatory.  The Court cannot strike

down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.[58] Taxation is

necessarily burdensome because, by its nature, it adversely affects property rights.[59] The party alleging the law’s unconstitutionality has the burden to demonstrate

the supposed violations in understandable terms.[60]    

 RR 9-98 MERELY CLARIFIESSECTION 27(E) OF RA 8424

  

Petitioner alleges that RR 9-98 is a deprivation of property without due

process of law because the MCIT is being imposed and collected even when there

is actually a loss, or a zero or negative taxable income: Sec. 2.27(E)    [MCIT] on Domestic Corporations. — (1)        Imposition of the Tax. — xxx The MCIT shall be imposed whenever such corporation has zero or negative taxable income or whenever the amount of [MCIT] is greater than the normal income tax due from such corporation.  (Emphasis supplied)         

 

RR 9-98, in declaring that MCIT should be imposed whenever such

corporation has zero or negative taxable income, merely defines the coverage of

Section 27(E).  This means that even if a corporation incurs a net loss in its

business operations or reports zero income after deducting its expenses, it is still

subject to an MCIT of 2% of its gross income.  This is consistent with the law

which imposes the MCIT on gross income notwithstanding the amount of the net

income.  But the law also states that the MCIT is to be paid only if it is greater than

the normal net income.  Obviously, it may well be the case that the MCIT would

be less than the net income of the corporation which posts a zero or negative

taxable income.  

We now proceed to the issues involving the CWT.  

The withholding tax system is a procedure through which taxes (including

income taxes) are collected.[61] Under Section 57 of RA 8424, the types of income

subject to withholding tax are divided into three categories: (a) withholding of final

tax on certain incomes; (b) withholding of creditable tax at source and (c) tax-free

covenant bonds.   Petitioner is concerned with the second category (CWT) and

maintains that the revenue regulations on the collection of CWT on sale of real

estate categorized as ordinary assets are unconstitutional. 

Petitioner, after enumerating the distinctions between capital and ordinary

assets under RA 8424, contends that Sections 2.57.2(J) and 2.58.2 of RR 2-98 and

Sections 4(a)(ii) and (c)(ii) of RR 7-2003 were promulgated “with grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction” and “patently in contravention of

law”[62] because they ignore such distinctions.  Petitioner’s conclusion is based on

the following premises:  (a) the revenue regulations use gross selling price (GSP)

or fair market value (FMV) of the real estate as basis for determining the income

tax for the sale of real estate classified as ordinary assets and  (b) they mandate the

collection of income tax on a per transaction basis, i.e., upon consummation of the

sale via the CWT, contrary to RA 8424 which calls for the payment of the net

income at the end of the taxable period.[63]  

Petitioner theorizes that since RA 8424 treats capital assets and ordinary

assets differently, respondents cannot disregard the distinctions set by the

legislators as regards the tax base, modes of collection and payment of taxes on

income from the sale of capital and ordinary assets.         

Petitioner’s arguments have no merit.  AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE TO ORDER THE COLLECTION OF CWT ON SALES OF REAL PROPERTY CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ASSETS

  

The Secretary of Finance is granted, under Section 244 of RA 8424, the

authority to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective

enforcement of the provisions of the law.  Such authority is subject to the

limitation that the rules and regulations must not override, but must remain

consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement.[64] It is

well-settled that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.[65]   

          We have long recognized that the method of withholding tax at source is a

procedure of collecting income tax which is sanctioned by our tax laws.[66]  The

withholding tax system was devised for three primary reasons: first, to provide the

taxpayer a convenient manner to meet his probable income tax liability; second, to

ensure the collection of income tax which can otherwise be lost or substantially

reduced through failure to file the corresponding returns and third, to improve the

government’s cash flow.[67]  This results in administrative savings, prompt and

efficient collection of taxes, prevention of delinquencies and reduction of

governmental effort to collect taxes through more complicated means and

remedies.[68]

         

Respondent Secretary has the authority to require the withholding of a tax on

items of income payable to any person, national or juridical, residing in the

Philippines.  Such authority is derived from Section 57(B) of RA 8424 which

provides: SEC. 57.  Withholding of Tax at Source. –                                     xxx                  xxx                  xxx 

(B)     Withholding of Creditable Tax at Source.  The [Secretary] may, upon the recommendation of the [CIR], require the withholding of a tax on the items of income payable to natural or juridical persons, residing in the Philippines, by payor-corporation/persons as provided for by law, at the rate of not less than one percent (1%) but not more than thirty-

two percent (32%) thereof, which shall be credited against the income tax liability of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

  

The questioned provisions of RR 2-98, as amended, are well within the

authority given by Section 57(B) to the Secretary, i.e., the graduated rate of 1.5%-

5% is between the 1%-32% range; the withholding tax is imposed on the income

payable and the tax is creditable against the income tax liability of the taxpayer for

the taxable year.

 EFFECT OF RRS ON THE TAX BASE FOR THE INCOME TAX OF INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS   

          Petitioner maintains that RR 2-98, as amended, arbitrarily shifted the tax

base of a real estate business’ income tax from net income to GSP or FMV of the

property sold.         

Petitioner is wrong. 

          The taxes withheld are in the nature of advance tax payments by a taxpayer

in order to extinguish its possible tax obligation.  [69] They are installments on the

annual tax which may be due at the end of the taxable year.[70]

         

Under RR 2-98, the tax base of the income tax from the sale of real property

classified as ordinary assets remains to be the entity’s net income imposed under

Section 24 (resident individuals) or Section 27 (domestic corporations) in relation

to Section 31 of RA 8424, i.e. gross income less allowable deductions.  The CWT

is to be deducted from the net income tax payable by the taxpayer at the end of the

taxable year.[71]  Precisely, Section 4(a)(ii) and (c)(ii) of RR 7-2003 reiterate that

the tax base for the sale of real property classified as ordinary assets remains to be

the net taxable income:             Section 4. – Applicable taxes on sale, exchange or other disposition of real property. -  Gains/Income derived from sale, exchange, or other disposition of real properties shall unless otherwise exempt, be subject to applicable taxes imposed under the Code, depending on whether the subject properties are classified as capital assets or ordinary assets;                         xxx                  xxx                  xxx 

a. In the case of individual citizens (including estates and  trusts), resident aliens, and non-resident aliens engaged in trade or business in the Philippines;

 xxx                  xxx                  xxx

             (ii) The sale of real property located in the Philippines, classified as ordinary assets, shall be subject to the [CWT] (expanded) under Sec. 2.57.2(j) of [RR 2-98], as amended, based on the [GSP] or current [FMV] as determined in accordance with Section 6(E) of the Code, whichever is higher, and consequently, to the ordinary income tax imposed under Sec. 24(A)(1)(c) or 25(A)(1) of the Code, as the case may be, based on net taxable income.                         xxx                              xxx                              xxx c. In the case of domestic corporations. The sale of land and/or building classified as ordinary asset and other real property (other than land and/or building treated as capital asset), regardless of the classification thereof, all of which are located in the Philippines, shall be subject to the [CWT] (expanded) under Sec. 2.57.2(J) of [RR 2-98], as amended, and consequently, to the ordinary income tax under Sec. 27(A) of the Code. In lieu of the ordinary income tax, however, domestic corporations may become subject to the [MCIT] under Sec. 27(E) of the same Code, whichever is applicable.  (Emphasis supplied)

 

          Accordingly, at the end of the year, the taxpayer/seller shall file its income

tax return and credit the taxes withheld (by the withholding agent/buyer) against its

tax due.  If the tax due is greater than the tax withheld, then the taxpayer shall pay

the difference.  If, on the other hand, the tax due is less than the tax withheld, the

taxpayer will be entitled to a refund or tax credit.  Undoubtedly, the taxpayer is

taxed on its net income.         

The use of the GSP/FMV as basis to determine the withholding taxes is

evidently for purposes of practicality and convenience. Obviously, the withholding

agent/buyer who is obligated to withhold the tax does not know, nor is he privy to,

how much the taxpayer/seller will have as its net income at the end of the taxable

year.  Instead, said withholding agent’s knowledge and privity are limited only to

the particular transaction in which he is a party.  In such a case, his basis can only

be the GSP or FMV as these are the only factors reasonably known or knowable by

him in connection with the performance of his duties as a withholding agent.  NO BLURRING OF DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN  ORDINARY ASSETS AND CAPITAL ASSETS

  

          RR 2-98 imposes a graduated CWT on income based on the GSP or FMV of

the real property categorized as ordinary assets. On the other hand, Section 27(D)

(5) of RA 8424 imposes a final tax and flat rate of 6% on the gain presumed to be

realized from the sale of a capital asset based on its GSP or FMV.  This final tax is

also withheld at source.[72]          

The differences between the two forms of withholding tax, i.e., creditable

and final, show that ordinary assets are not treated in the same manner as capital

assets. Final withholding tax (FWT) and CWT are distinguished as follows:  

FWT CWTa)  The amount of   income tax withheld by the withholding agent is constituted as a full and final payment of the income tax due from the payee on the said income.

 

a) Taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to equal or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said income.

b)The liability for     payment of the tax rests primarily on the payor as a withholding agent.        

b) Payee of income is required to report the income and/or pay the difference between the tax withheld and the tax due on the income.  The payee also has the right to ask for a refund if the tax withheld is more than the tax due.

 c)  The payee is not required to file an income tax return for the particular income.[73] 

 c) The income recipient is still required to file an income tax return, as prescribed in Sec. 51 and Sec. 52 of the NIRC, as amended.[74]

 

          As previously stated, FWT is imposed on the sale of capital assets. On the

other hand, CWT is imposed on the sale of ordinary assets.  The inherent and

substantial differences between FWT and CWT disprove petitioner’s contention

that ordinary assets are being lumped together with, and treated similarly as,

capital assets in contravention of the pertinent provisions of RA 8424. 

Petitioner insists that the levy, collection and payment of CWT at the time of

transaction are contrary to the provisions of RA 8424 on the manner and time of

filing of the return, payment and assessment of income tax involving ordinary

assets.[75]

         

The fact that the tax is withheld at source does not automatically mean that it

is treated exactly the same way as capital gains.  As aforementioned, the mechanics

of the FWT are distinct from those of the CWT. The withholding agent/buyer’s act

of collecting the tax at the time of the transaction by withholding the tax due from

the income payable is the essence of the withholding tax method of tax collection.

 NO   RULE   THAT   ONLY   PASSIVEINCOMES CAN BE SUBJECT TO CWT

 

Petitioner submits that only passive income can be subjected to withholding

tax, whether final or creditable.  According to petitioner, the whole of Section 57

governs the withholding of income tax on passive income. The enumeration in

Section 57(A) refers to passive income being subjected to FWT.  It follows that

Section 57(B) on CWT should also be limited to passive income:  SEC. 57.          Withholding of Tax at Source. — (A)       Withholding of Final Tax on Certain Incomes. — Subject to rules and regulations, the [Secretary] may promulgate, upon the recommendation of the [CIR], requiring the filing of income tax return by certain income payees, the tax imposed or prescribed by Sections 24(B)(1), 24(B)(2), 24(C), 24(D)(1); 25(A)(2), 25(A)(3), 25(B), 25(C), 25(D), 25(E); 27(D)(1), 27(D)(2), 27(D)(3), 27(D)(5); 28(A)(4), 28(A)(5), 28(A)(7)(a), 28(A)(7)(b), 28(A)(7)(c), 28(B)(1), 28(B)(2), 28(B)(3), 28(B)(4), 28(B)(5)(a), 28(B)(5)(b), 28(B)(5)(c); 33; and 282 of this Code on specified items of income shall be withheld by payor-corporation and/or person and paid in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided in Section 58 of this Code. (B)       Withholding of Creditable Tax at Source. — The [Secretary] may, upon the recommendation of the [CIR], require the withholding of a tax on the items of income payable to natural or juridical persons, residing in the Philippines, by payor-corporation/persons as provided

for by law, at the rate of not less than one percent (1%) but not more than thirty-two percent (32%) thereof, which shall be credited against the income tax liability of the taxpayer for the taxable year.  (Emphasis supplied)

 

This line of reasoning is non sequitur. 

Section 57(A) expressly states that final tax can be imposed on certain kinds

of income and enumerates these as passive income.  The BIR defines passive

income by stating what it is not:  …if the income is generated in the active pursuit and performance

of the corporation’s primary purposes, the same is not passive income…[76]

 

It is income generated by the taxpayer’s assets. These assets can be in the form of

real properties that return rental income, shares of stock in a corporation that earn

dividends or interest income received from savings. 

On the other hand, Section 57(B) provides that the Secretary can require a

CWT on “income payable to natural or juridical persons, residing in the

Philippines.”  There is no requirement that this income be passive income.  If that

were the intent of Congress, it could have easily said so. 

          Indeed, Section 57(A) and (B) are distinct.  Section 57(A) refers to FWT

while Section 57(B) pertains to CWT.  The former covers the kinds of passive

income enumerated therein and the latter encompasses any income other than those

listed in 57(A).  Since the law itself makes distinctions, it is wrong to regard 57(A)

and 57(B) in the same way. 

To repeat, the assailed provisions of RR 2-98, as amended, do not modify or

deviate from the text of Section 57(B).  RR 2-98 merely implements the law by

specifying what income is subject to CWT.  It has been held that, where a statute

does not require any particular procedure to be followed by an administrative

agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.[77]  Similarly, considering that the law uses the general term “income,” the

Secretary and CIR may specify the kinds of income the rules will apply to based on

what is feasible.  In addition, administrative rules and regulations ordinarily

deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts [78] in view of the rule-making

authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in their

respective fields.  

 NO DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTYWITHOUT     DUE     PROCESS          

Petitioner avers that the imposition of CWT on GSP/FMV of real estate

classified as ordinary assets deprives its members of their property without due

process of law because, in their line of business, gain is never assured by mere

receipt of the selling price. As a result, the government is collecting tax from net

income not yet gained or earned.            

          Again, it is stressed that the CWT is creditable against the tax due from the

seller of the property at the end of the taxable year. The seller will be able to claim

a tax refund if its net income is less than the taxes withheld.  Nothing is taken that

is not due so there is no confiscation of property repugnant to the constitutional

guarantee of due process.  More importantly, the due process requirement applies

to the power to tax.[79] The CWT does not impose new taxes nor does it increase

taxes.[80]  It relates entirely to the method and time of payment.  

Petitioner protests that the refund remedy does not make the CWT less

burdensome because taxpayers have to wait years and may even resort to litigation

before they are granted a refund.[81] This argument is misleading. The practical

problems encountered in claiming a tax refund do not affect the constitutionality

and validity of the CWT as a method of collecting the tax.          

Petitioner complains that the amount withheld would have otherwise been

used by the enterprise to pay labor wages, materials, cost of money and other

expenses which can then save the entity from having to obtain loans entailing

considerable interest expense. Petitioner also lists the expenses and pitfalls of the

trade which add to the burden of the realty industry:  huge investments and

borrowings;  long gestation period;  sudden and unpredictable interest rate surges;

continually spiraling development/construction costs; heavy taxes and prohibitive

“up-front” regulatory fees from at least 20 government agencies.[82]

         

Petitioner’s lamentations will not support its attack on the constitutionality

of the CWT.  Petitioner’s complaints are essentially matters of policy best

addressed to the executive and legislative branches of the government.  Besides,

the CWT is applied only on the amounts actually received or receivable by the real

estate entity.  Sales on installment are taxed on a per-installment basis.[83]Petitioner’s desire to utilize for its operational and capital expenses money

earmarked for the payment of taxes may be a practical business option but it is not

a fundamental right which can be demanded from the court or from the

government.  

   NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

  

          Petitioner claims that the revenue regulations are violative of the equal

protection clause because the CWT is being levied only on real estate

enterprises.  Specifically, petitioner points out that manufacturing enterprises are

not similarly imposed a CWT on their sales, even if their manner of doing business

is not much different from that of a real estate enterprise.  Like a manufacturing

concern, a real estate business is involved in a continuous process of production

and it incurs costs and expenditures on a regular basis.  The only difference is that

“goods” produced by the real estate business are house and lot units.[84]

 

Again, we disagree. 

The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that “no person or

class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed

by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like

circumstances.”[85]  Stated differently, all persons belonging to the same class shall

be taxed alike.  It follows that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is

not violated by legislation based on a reasonable classification.  Classification, to

be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purpose of

the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) apply equally to all

members of the same class.[86]

 

          The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for

purposes of taxation.[87]  Inequalities which result from a singling out of one

particular class for taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation.

[88]  The real estate industry is, by itself, a class and can be validly treated

differently from other business enterprises. 

          Petitioner, in insisting that its industry should be treated similarly as

manufacturing enterprises, fails to realize that what distinguishes the real estate

business from other manufacturing enterprises, for purposes of the imposition of

the CWT, is not their production processes but the prices of their goods sold and

the number of transactions involved. The income from the sale of a real property is

bigger and its frequency of transaction limited, making it less cumbersome for the

parties to comply with the withholding tax scheme. 

          On the other hand, each manufacturing enterprise may have tens of

thousands of transactions with several thousand customers every month involving

both minimal and substantial amounts. To require the customers of manufacturing

enterprises, at present, to withhold the taxes on each of their transactions with their

tens or hundreds of suppliers may result in an inefficient and unmanageable system

of taxation and may well defeat the purpose of the withholding tax system.         

          Petitioner counters that there are other businesses wherein expensive items

are also sold infrequently, e.g. heavy equipment, jewelry, furniture, appliance and

other capital goods yet these are not similarly subjected to the CWT.[89]  As already

discussed, the Secretary may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its

functions.[90]  Under Section 57(B), it may choose what to subject to CWT.               

          A reading of Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR 2-98 will also show that petitioner’s

argument is not accurate.  The sales of manufacturers who have clients within the

top 5,000 corporations, as specified by the BIR, are also subject to CWT for their

transactions with said 5,000 corporations.[91]

   SECTION 2.58.2 OF RR NO. 2-98 MERELY IMPLEMENTS SECTION 58 OF RA 8424 

 

Lastly, petitioner assails Section 2.58.2 of RR 2-98, which provides that the

Registry of Deeds should not effect the regisration of any document transferring

real property unless a certification is issued by the CIR that the withholding tax has

been paid.  Petitioner proffers hardly any reason to strike down this rule except to

rely on its contention that the CWT is unconstitutional.  We have ruled that it is

not.  Furthermore, this provision uses almost exactly the same wording as Section

58(E) of RA 8424 and is unquestionably in accordance with it:             Sec. 58.  Returns and Payment of Taxes Withheld at Source. –             (E) Registration with Register of Deeds. -  No registration of any document transferring real property shall be effected by the Register of Deeds unless the [CIR] or his duly authorized representative has certified that such transfer has been reported, and the capital gains or [CWT], if any, has been paid:  xxxx any violation of this provision by the Register of Deeds shall be subject to the penalties imposed under Section 269 of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

    CONCLUSION

  

          The renowned genius Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying “[the]

hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”[92]  When a party

questions the constitutionality of an income tax measure, it has to contend not only

with Einstein’s observation but also with the vast and well-established

jurisprudence in support of the plenary powers of Congress to impose

taxes.  Petitioner has miserably failed to discharge its burden of convincing the

Court that the imposition of MCIT and CWT is unconstitutional.                                

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. 

Costs against petitioner.  

SO ORDERED. 

 RENATO C. CORONA

Associate JusticeWE  CONCUR:

    

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

    

             ANTONIO T. CARPIO

       Associate Justice  

  CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES            Associate Justice

  

         PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.                         Associate Justice

                   ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA             Associate Justice

    

    

           TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO           Associate Justice

            ARTURO D. BRION                Associate Justice

   

                                  

           

   

               DIOSDADO M.

PERALTA                                          Associate Justice

            

             MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO         Associate Justice

  

 

   

       LUCAS P. BERSAMIN              Associate Justice

  

          ROBERTO A. ABAD              Associate Justice

     SECOND  DIVISION 

 

THE   MANILA   BANKING  G.R. No. 168118

CORPORATION,

                                  Petitioner,

 

 

 

 

- versus -

 

 

 

 

COMMISSIONER   OF INTERNAL  REVENUE,

                               Respondent.

 

 

Present:

 

 

PUNO, J., Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

CORONA,

AZCUNA, and

GARCIA, JJ.

 

 

Promulgated:

 

August 28, 2006

   

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

 

   D E C I S I O N

 

 

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

 

 

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals dated May 11, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP       No. 77177, entitled “The  Manila   Banking   Corporation, petitioner,   versus   Commissioner   of   Internal Revenue,respondent.”

          The Manila Banking Corporation, petitioner, was incorporated in 1961 and since then had engaged in the commercial banking industry until 1987.  On May 22,  1987,   the  Monetary  Board  of   the Bangko Sentral  ng  Pilipinas (BSP)   issued Resolution No. 505, pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 265 (the Central Bank Act),[3]  prohibiting petitioner from engaging in business by reason of insolvency.  Thus,   petitioner   ceased   operations   that   year   and   its   assets   and liabilities were placed under the charge of a government-appointed receiver.

 

 

          Meanwhile,  R.A.  No.  8424,[4] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Tax Reform Act of 1997, became effective on January 1, 1998.  One of the changes introduced by this law is the imposition of the minimum corporate income tax on domestic and resident foreign corporations.  Implementing this   law is  Revenue Regulations No. 9-98 stating that the law allows a four (4) year period from the time the corporations were registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) during which the minimum corporate income tax should not be imposed. 

 

 

          On June   23,   1999,   after   12   years   since   petitioner   stopped   its   business operations, the BSP authorized it to operate as a thrift bank.  The following year, specifically on April 7, 2000, it filed with the BIR its annual corporate income tax return and paidP33,816,164.00 for taxable year 1999.

 

 

          Prior   to   the   filing   of   its   income   tax   return,   or   on December   28,   1999, petitioner sent a letter to the BIR requesting a ruling on whether it is entitled to the four (4)-year grace period reckoned from 1999.  In other words, petitioner’s position   is   that   since   it   resumed operations   in  1999,   it  will  pay   its  minimum corporate income tax only after four (4) years thereafter. 

 

 

          On February 22, 2001, the BIR issued BIR Ruling No. 007-2001[5] stating that petitioner is entitled to the four (4)-year grace period.  Since it reopened in 1999, the minimum corporate income tax may be imposed “not earlier than 2002, i.e. the fourth taxable year beginning 1999.”   The relevant portions of the BIR Ruling state:

 

                        In reply, we hereby confirm that the law and regulations allow new corporations  as  well  as  existing corporations  a   leeway  or adjustment   period   of   four   years   counted   from   the   year   of commencement   of   business   operations   (reckoned   at   the   time   of registration by the corporation with the BIR)  during which the  MCIT (minimum corporate income tax)  does not apply.  If new corporations, as well as existing corporations such as those registered with the BIR in 1994 or earlier, are granted a 4-year grace period, we see no reason why TMBC,  a  corporation  that  has  ceased business  activities  due  to involuntary closure for more than a decade and  is now only starting again to place its business back in order, may not be given the same opportunity.  It   should   be   stressed   that   although   TMBC   had   been registered with the BIR before 1994, yet it did not have any business from 1987 to June 1999 due to  its  involuntary closure.  This Office is therefore   of   an   opinion,   that   for   purposes   of   justice,   equity   and consistent with the intent of the law, TMBC's reopening last July 1999 is akin   to   the   commencement   of   business   operations   of   a   new 

corporation, in consideration of which the law allows a 4-year period during which MCIT is not to be applied.  Hence, MCIT may be imposed upon TMBC not earlier than 2002, i.e., the fourth taxable year beginning 1999 which is the year when TMBC reopened.

 

                        Likewise, we find merit in your position that for having just come   out   of   receivership   proceedings,   which   not   only   resulted   in substantial losses but actually brought about a complete cessation of all businesses,   TMBC   may   be   qualified   to   ask   for   suspension   of   the MCIT.  The   law   provides   that   the   Secretary   of   Finance,   upon   the recommendation of the Commissioner, may suspend the imposition of the   MCIT   on   any   corporation   which   suffers   losses   on   account   of prolonged   labor   dispute,   or   because   of force   majeure,   or   because of legitimate   business   reverses.   [NIRC,   Sec.   27(E)(3)] Revenue Regulations  9-98  defines   the   term   “legitimate  business   reverses”   to include   substantial   losses   sustained   due   to   fire,   robbery,   theft   or embezzlement,   or for  other  economic   reasons as  determined  by   the Secretary of Finance.  Cessation of business activities as a result of being placed   under   involuntary   receivership   may   be   one   such   economic reason.  But to be a basis for the recognition of the suspension of MCIT, such   a   situation   should   be   properly   defined   and   included   in   the regulations, which this Office intends to do.  Pending such inclusion, the same   cannot   yet  be   invoked. Nevertheless,   it   is   the  position  of   this Office that the counting of the fourth taxable year, insofar as TMBC is concerned, begins in the year 1999 when TMBC reopened such that it will be only subject to MCIT beginning the year 2002.

         

 

Pursuant   to   the  above  Ruling,  petitioner  filed  with   the  BIR  a   claim   for refund of   the  sum of P33,816,164.00  erroneously  paid  as  minimum corporate income tax for taxable year 1999.

 

 

          Due to the inaction of the BIR on its claim, petitioner filed with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) a petition for review.

 

 

          On April  21,  2003,   the  CTA  denied   the  petition,  finding   that  petitioner’s payment   of   the   amount   of P33,816,164.00   corresponding   to   its   minimum corporate   income   tax  for   taxable   year   1999   is   in   order.  The   CTA   held   that petitioner is not entitled to the four (4)-year grace period because it is not a new corporation.  It  has continued to be the same corporation, registered with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission   (SEC)   and   the  BIR,  despite  being  placed under receivership, thus:

 

Moreover,   it  must be emphasized that when herein petitioner was placed under receivership, there was merely an interruption of its business   operations.  However,   its   corporate   existence   was   never affected.  The general rule is that the appointment of the receiver does not terminate the charter or work a dissolution of the corporation, even though   the   receivership   is   a   permanent   one.  In   other   words,   the corporation   continues   to   exist   as   a   legal   entity,   clothed   with   its franchises (65 Am. Jur. 2d, pp. 973-974).  Petitioner, for all intents and purposes,  remained to be the same corporation,  registered with the SEC and with the BIR.  While it may continue to perform its corporate functions,   all   its   properties   and   assets  were   under   the   control   and custody  of   a   receiver,   and   its   dealings  with   the  public   is   somehow limited, if not momentarily suspended.  x  x  x 

 

 

          On June 11, 2003, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review.  On May 11, 2005, the appellate court rendered a Decision affirming the assailed judgment of the CTA.

 

 

          Thus, this petition for review on certiorari.

 

 

          The  main   issue   for  our   resolution   is  whether  petitioner   is   entitled   to  a refund of   its  minimum corporate  income tax paid to the BIR for   taxable year 1999.

 

 

          Petitioner contends that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding that it is not entitled to the four (4)-year grace period provided by  law suspending the payment of  its minimum corporate  income tax since  it   is  not a newly created corporation, having been registered as early as 1961.

 

 

          For   his   part,   the   Commissioner   of   Internal   Revenue   (CIR),   respondent, maintains   that  pursuant   to  R.A.  No.  8424,  petitioner  should  pay   its  minimum corporate income tax beginning January 1, 1998 as it did not close its business operations   in   1987   but   merely   suspended   the   same.  Even   if   placed   under receivership, its corporate existence was never affected.  Thus, it falls under the category   of   an   existing   corporation   recommencing   its   banking   business operations. 

 

 

          Section 27(E) of the Tax Code provides:

         

Sec. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. – x  x  x

 

            (E) Minimum Corporate Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. -

 

                        (1) Imposition of Tax. - A minimum corporate income tax of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year,  as  defined herein,   is  hereby  imposed on a  corporation taxable under   this   Title,   beginning   on   the   fourth   taxable   year   immediately following the year in which such corporation commenced its business operations, when the minimum corporate income tax is greater than the tax computed under Subsection (A) of this Section for the taxable year.

 

                        (2) Carry Forward of Excess Minimum Tax. - Any excess of the  minimum corporate   income  tax  over   the  normal   income  tax  as computed under Subsection (A) of this Section shall be carried forward and   credited   against   the   normal   income   tax   for   the   three   (3) immediately succeeding taxable years.

                       

x x x   

 

Upon the other hand, Revenue Regulation No. 9-98 specifies the period when a corporation becomes subject to the minimum corporate income tax, thus:

 

(5)   Specific   Rules   for   Determining   the   Period  When   a   Corporation Becomes Subject to the MCIT (minimum corporate income tax) -

 

            For  purposes  of   the  MCIT,   the  taxable  year   in  which  business operations   commenced   shall   be   the   year   in   which   the   domestic corporation registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

 

            Firms which were registered with BIR in 1994 and earlier years shall be covered by the MCIT beginning January 1, 1998.

 

x x x

 

         

         

          The intent of Congress relative to the minimum corporate income tax is to grant   a   four   (4)-year   suspension   of   tax   payment   to   newly   formed corporations.  Corporations   still   starting   their   business   operations   have   to stabilize their venture in order to obtain a stronghold in the industry.  It does not come as a surprise then when many companies reported losses  in their   initial years of operations.  The following are excerpts from the Senate deliberations:

 

Senator Romulo: x x x Let me go now to the minimum corporate income tax, which is on page 45 of the Journal, which is to minimize tax evasion on those corporations which have been declaring   losses  year   in  and year out.  Here, the tax rate is three-fourths, three quarter of a percent or .75% applied to corporations that do not report any taxable income on the fourth year of their business operation.  Therefore, those that do 

not report income on the first, second and third year are not included here.

 

Senator Enrile: We assume that this is the period of stabilization of new company that is starting in business.

 

            Senator Romulo: That is right.

 

 

Thus, in order to allow new corporations to grow and develop at the initial stages of their operations, the lawmaking body saw the need to provide a grace period   of   four   years   from   their   registration   before   they   pay   their  minimum corporate income tax. 

 

 

          Significantly,   on February   23,   1995,   Congress   enacted   R.A.   No.   7906, otherwise known as the “Thrift Banks Act of 1995.”  It took effect on March 18, 1995.  This law provides for the regulation of the organization and operations of thrift banks.  Under Section 3, thrift banks include savings and mortgage banks, private development banks, and stock savings and loans associations organized under existing laws.

 

 

On June   15,   1999,   the   BIR   issued   Revenue   Regulation   No.   4-95 implementing certain provisions of the said R.A. No. 7906. Section 6 provides:

 

Sec.   6.  Period   of   exemption.   –   All   thrift   banks   created   and organized under the provisions of   the Act shall  be exempt from the payment   of   all   taxes,   fees,   and   charges   of   whatever   nature   and description, except the corporate income tax imposed under Title II of the NIRC and as specified  in Section 2(A) of   these regulations,   for  a period of five (5) years from the date of commencement of operations; while for thrift banks which are already existing and operating as of the date of effectivity of the Act (March 18, 1995), the tax exemption shall be   for   a   period   of   five   (5)   years   reckoned   from   the   date   of   such effectivity.

 

For purposes of these regulations, “date of commencement of operations” shall be understood to mean the date when the thrift bank was   registered  with   the  Securities  and Exchange Commission  or   the date when the Certificate of Authority to Operate was issued by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, whichever comes later.     

 

x  x  x

 

         

 

As  mentioned   earlier,   petitioner   bank   was   registered  with   the   BIR   in 1961.  However, in 1987, it was found insolvent by the Monetary Board of the BSP and was placed under receivership.  After twelve (12) years, or on June 23, 1999,   the   BSP   issued   to   it   a   Certificate   of   Authority   to   Operate   as   a thrift bank.  Earlier, or on January 21, 1999, it registered with the BIR.  Then it filed with the SEC its Articles of Incorporation which was approved on June 22, 1999. 

 

 

It is clear from the above-quoted provision of Revenue Regulations No. 4-95 that the date of commencement of operations of a thrift bank is the date it was  registered  with  the  SEC or   the date  when the  Certificate  of  Authority   to Operate was issued to it by the Monetary Board of the BSP, whichever comes later.

 

          Let   it   be   stressed   that   because   under   Revenue   Regulations   No.   9-98, implementing  R.A.  No.  8424   imposing   the  minimum corporate   income  tax  on corporations,  provides   that   for  purposes  of   this   tax,   the  date  when  business operations commence is the year in which the domestic corporation registered with   the   BIR.  However,   under   Revenue   Regulations   No.   4-95,   the   date   of commencement  of  operations  ofthrift banks,   such as herein  petitioner,   is   the date the particular thrift bank was registered with the SEC or the date when the Certificate of Authority to Operate was issued to it by the Monetary Board of the BSP, whichever comes later.

 

 

Clearly then, Revenue Regulations No. 4-95, not Revenue Regulations No. 9-98, applies to petitioner, being a thrift bank.  It is, therefore, entitled to a grace period of four (4) years counted from June 23, 1999 when it was authorized by the BSP to operate as athrift bank.  Consequently, it should only pay its minimum corporate income tax after four (4) years from 1999.

  

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.  The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77177 is herebyREVERSED.  Respondent Commissioner of   Internal   Revenue   is   directed   to   refund   to   petitioner   bank   the   sum of  P33,816,164.00 prematurely paid as minimum corporate income tax. 

 

          SO ORDERED. 

 THIRD DIVISION

  

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                           Petitioner,                            

    

- versus - 

 

 

 

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,

                           Respondent.                                              

G.R. No. 180066

 

Present:

 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,       Chairperson,CHICO-NAZARIO,

VELASCO, JR.,

NACHURA, and

PERALTA, JJ.

 

Promulgated:

 

_____________________

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

 

 

D E C I S I O N 

 

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

 

 

          Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised   Rules   of   Court,   seeking   the   reversal   and   setting   aside   of   the Decision[1] dated 9  August   2007 and  Resolution[2] dated 11  October   2007 of   the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in CTA E.B. No. 246.  The CTA en banc affirmed the Decision[3] dated 31 July 2006 of the CTA Second Division in C.T.A. Case No. 7010, ordering the cancellation and withdrawal of Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 dated3 September 2003 and Formal Letter of Demand dated 12 January 2004, issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), for the payment of Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT) in the amount ofP272,421,886.58. 

 

          There is no dispute as to the antecedent facts of this case.

 

          PAL is a domestic corporation organized under the corporate  laws of the Republic of the Philippines; declared the national flag carrier of the country; and the   grantee   under   Presidential   Decree  No.   1590[4] of a   franchise   to   establish, operate, and maintain transport services for the carriage of passengers, mail, and property by air,   in and between any and all  points and places throughout the Philippines, and between the Philippines and other countries.[5] 

 

          For   its   fiscal   year   ending   31  March   2001   (FY   2000-2001),   PAL   allegedly incurred   zero   taxable   income,[6] which   left   it   with   unapplied   creditable withholding tax[7] in the amount of P2,334,377.95.  PAL did not pay any MCIT for the period.

 

          In  a   letter  dated 12   July  2002,   addressed   to  petitioner  Commissioner  of Internal Revenue (CIR), PAL requested for the refund of its unapplied creditable withholding tax for  FY 2000-2001.  PAL attached to  its   letter the following:   (1) Schedule of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source for FY 2000-2001; (2) Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld; and (3) Audited Financial Statements. 

 

Acting on the aforementioned letter of PAL, the Large Taxpayers Audit and Investigation Division 1 (LTAID 1) of the BIR Large Taxpayers Service (LTS), issued on 16 August 2002, Tax Verification Notice No. 00201448, authorizing Revenue Officer   Jacinto   Cueto,   Jr.   (Cueto)   to   verify   the   supporting   documents   and pertinent   records   relative   to   the   claim   of   PAL   for   refund   of   its   unapplied creditable withholding tax for FY 2000-20001.  In a letter dated 19 August 2003, LTAID 1 Chief Armit S. Linsangan invited PAL to an informal conference at the BIR National  Office   in  Diliman, Quezon  City,   on 27  August  2003,   at 10:00  a.m.,   to discuss   the   results   of   the   investigation   conducted  by  Revenue  Officer  Cueto, supervised by Revenue Officer Madelyn T. Sacluti.

 

BIR   officers   and   PAL   representatives   attended   the   scheduled   informal conference,   during  which   the   former   relayed   to   the   latter   that   the   BIR  was denying the claim for refund of PAL and, instead, was assessing PAL for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001.  The PAL representatives argued that PAL was not liable for   MCIT   under   its   franchise.  The   BIR   officers   then   informed   the   PAL representatives that the matter would be referred to the BIR Legal Service for opinion.  

 

The LTAID 1 issued, on 3 September 2003, PAN No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094, which   was   received   by   PAL   on 23   October   2003.  LTAID   1   assessed   PAL for P262,474,732.54, representing deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001, plus interest and compromise penalty, computed as follows:

 

Sales/Revenues from Operation P  38,798,721,685.00  

Less:  Cost of Services 30,316,679,013.00  

Gross Income from Operation 8,482,042,672.00  

Add:  Non-operating income 465,111,368.00  

Total Gross Income for MCIT purposes 9,947,154,040.00[8]  

Rate of Tax 2%  

Tax Due 178,943,080.80  

Add:  20% interest (8-16-00 to 10-31-03) 83,506,651.74  

         Compromise Penalty 25,000.00  

Total Amount Due P       262,474,732.54[9]  

 

 

          PAL  protested  PAN  No.   INC   FY-3-31-01-000094   through   a   letter  dated 4 November 2003 to the BIR LTS. 

 

          On 12 January 2004, the LTAID 1 sent PAL a Formal Letter of Demand for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001 in the amount of P271,421,88658, based on the following calculation:

 

Sales/Revenues from Operation   P   38,798,721,685.00  

Less: Cost of Services      

          Direct Costs - P   30,749,761,017.00    

          Less: Non-deductible      

                    interest expense 433,082,004.00 30,316,679,013.00  

Gross Income from Operation P     8,482,042,672.00  

Add: Non-operating Income 465,111,368.00  

Total Gross Income for MCIT purposes P     9,947,154,040.00  

MCIT tax due   P        178,943,080.80  

Interest – 20% per annum – 7/16/01 to 02/15/04 92,453,805.78  

Compromise Penalty   25,000.00  

Total MCIT due and demandable          P       271,421,886.58[10]  

 

 

PAL received the foregoing Formal Letter of Demand on 12 February 2004, prompting it to file with the BIR LTS a formal written protest dated 13 February 2004.

 

The   BIR   LTS   rendered   on 7   May   2004 its   Final   Decision   on   Disputed Assessment,  which  was   received   by   PAL   on 26  May   2004.  Invoking   Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 66-2003, the BIR LTS denied with finality the protest of PAL and reiterated the request that PAL immediately pay its deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency.

 

          PAL filed a Petition for Review with the CTA, which was docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 7010 and raffled to the CTA Second Division.  The CTA Second Division promulgated its Decision on 31 July 2006, ruling in favor of PAL.  The dispositive portion of the judgment of the CTA Second Division reads:

 

WHEREFORE,   premises   considered,   the   instant   Petition   for Review  is  hereby GRANTED.  Accordingly,  Assessment  Notice  No.   INC FY-3-31-01-000094 and Formal Letter of Demand for the payment of deficiency   Minimum   Corporate   Income   Tax   in   the   amount of P272,421,886.58 are hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN.[11] 

 

 

In a Resolution dated 2 January 2007, the CTA Second Division denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR.

         

          It was then the turn of the CIR to file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, docketed as C.T.A. E.B. No. 246.  The CTAen banc found that “the cited legal provisions and jurisprudence are teeming with life with respect to the grant of tax exemption too vivid to pass unnoticed,” and that “the Court in Division correctly ruled in favor of the respondent [PAL] granting its petition for the cancellation of Assessment Notice No. INC FY-3-31-01-000094 and Formal Letter of Demand for the   deficiency  MCIT   in   the   amount  of P272,421,886.58.”[12]  Consequently,   the CTA en   banc denied   the   Petition   of   the   CIR   for   lack   of   merit.  The   CTA en banclikewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the CIR in a Resolution dated 11 October 2007.

 

          Hence, the CIR comes before this Court via the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, based on the grounds stated hereunder:

 

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN ITS ASSAILED DECISION BECAUSE:

 

(1)        [PAL]   CLEARLY  OPTED  TO  BE  COVERED  BY   THE   INCOME  TAX PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997 (NIRC OF  1997).   (sic)  AS  AMENDED;  HENCE,   IT   IS   COVERED  BY   THE  MCIT PROVISION OF THE SAME CODE.

 

(2)        THE MCIT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF “OTHER TAXES” WHICH WOULD ENABLE RESPONDENT TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE 

“IN LIEU” (sic) OF ALL OTHER TAXES” CLAUSE UNDER SECTION 13 OF P.D. NO. 1590 (“CHARTER”).

 

(3)        THE   MCIT   PROVISION   OF   THE   NIRC   OF   1997   IS   NOT   AN AMENDMENT OF [PAL’S] CHARTER.

 

(4)        PAL IS NOT ONLY GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WHAT WILL  GIVE   IT  THE BENEFIT  OF A LOWER TAX,  BUT ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY  OF   PAYING   ITS   SHARE  OF   THE   TAX   BURDEN,   AS   IS EVIDENT IN SECTION 22 OF RA NO. 9337.

 

(5)        A   CLAIM   FOR   EXEMPTION   FROM   TAXATION   IS   NEVER PRESUMED; [PAL] IS LIABLE FOR THE DEFICIENCY MCIT.[13]

 

 

          There is only one vital issue that the Court must resolve in the Petition at bar, i.e., whether PAL is liable for deficiency MCIT for FY 2000-2001.

 

          The Court answers in the negative.

 

          Presidential   Decree  No.   1590,   the   franchise   of   PAL,   contains   provisions specifically governing the taxation of said corporation, to wit:

 

Section 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax:

(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or

(b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the grantee from all sources, without distinction as to transport or nontransport operations; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only the gross passenger, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax.

The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following:

1. All taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on local purchases by the grantee of aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form, and whether such taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees are directly due from or imposable upon the purchaser or the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of said petroleum products but are billed or passed on to the grantee either as part of the price or cost thereof or by mutual agreement or other arrangement; provided, that all such purchases by, sales or deliveries of aviation gas, fuel, and oil to the grantee shall be for exclusive use in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto;

2. All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and nontransport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price;

3. All taxes on lease rentals, interest, fees, and other charges payable to lessors, whether foreign or domestic, of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, and other property rented, leased, or chartered by the grantee where the payment of such taxes is assumed by the grantee;

4. All taxes on interest, fees, and other charges on foreign loans obtained and other obligations incurred by the grantee where the payment of such taxes is assumed by the grantee;

5. All taxes, fees, and other charges on the registration, licensing, acquisition, and transfer of aircraft, equipment, motor vehicles, and all other personal and real property of the grantee; and

6. The corporate development tax under Presidential Decree No. 1158-A.

The grantee, shall, however, pay the tax on its real property in conformity with existing law.

For purposes of computing the basic corporate income tax as provided herein, the grantee is authorized:

 (a) To depreciate its assets to the extent of not more than twice as

fast the normal rate of depreciation; and (b) To carry over as a deduction from taxable income any net

loss incurred in any year up to five years following the year of such loss. Section 14. The grantee shall pay either the franchise tax or the

basic corporate income tax on quarterly basis to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Within sixty (60) days after the end of each of the first three quarters of the taxable calendar or fiscal year, the quarterly franchise or income-tax return shall be filed and payment of either the franchise or income tax shall be made by the grantee.

 A final or an adjustment return covering the operation of the

grantee for the preceding calendar or fiscal year shall be filed on or before the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year. The amount of the final franchise or income tax to be paid by the grantee shall be the balance of the total franchise or income tax shown in the final or adjustment return after deducting therefrom the total quarterly franchise or income taxes already paid during the preceding first three quarters of the same taxable year.

 Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual annual

franchise of income tax due as shown in the final or adjustment franchise or income-tax return shall either be refunded to the grantee or credited against the grantee's quarterly franchise or income-tax liability for the succeeding taxable year or years at the option of the grantee.

 The term "gross revenues" is herein defined as the total gross

income earned by the grantee from; (a) transport, nontransport, and other services; (b) earnings realized from investments in money-market

placements, bank deposits, investments in shares of stock and other securities, and other investments; (c) total gains net of total losses realized from the disposition of assets and foreign-exchange transactions; and (d) gross income from other sources. (Emphases ours.)

  

          According to the afore-quoted provisions, the taxation of PAL, during the lifetime of its franchise, shall be governed by two fundamental rules, particularly: (1) PAL shall pay the Government either basic corporate income tax or franchise tax,  whichever   is   lower;   and   (2)   the   tax   paid   by   PAL,   under   either   of   these alternatives,   shall   be   in   lieu   of   all   other   taxes,   duties,   royalties,   registration, license, and other fees and charges, except only real property tax.

 

The basic corporate income tax of PAL shall be based on its annual net taxable income, computed in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Presidential Decree No. 1590 also explicitly authorizes PAL, in the computation of its basic corporate income tax, to (1) depreciate its assets twice as fast the normal rate of depreciation;[14] and (2) carry over as a deduction from taxable income any net loss incurred in any year up to five years following the year of such loss.[15]

           Franchise tax, on the other hand, shall be two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues  derived  by  PAL   from all   sources,  whether   transport  or  nontransport operations.  However,   with   respect   to   international   air-transport   service,   the franchise   tax  shall  only  be   imposed on the  gross  passenger,  mail,  and   freight revenues of PAL from its outgoing flights.

 

          In its income tax return for FY 2000-2001, filed with the BIR, PAL reported no net taxable income for the period, resulting in zero basic corporate income tax, which would necessarily be lower than any franchise tax due from PAL for the same period. 

 

          The CIR, though, assessed PAL for MCIT for FY 2000-2001.  It is the position of the CIR that the MCIT is income tax for which PAL is liable.  The CIR reasons that Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 provides that the corporate income tax of PAL shall be computed in accordance with the NIRC.  And, since the NIRC of 1997 imposes MCIT, and PAL has not applied for relief from the said tax, then PAL is subject to the same.           

         

          The Court is not persuaded.  The arguments of the CIR are contrary to the plain meaning and obvious intent of Presidential Decree No. 1590, the franchise of PAL.

         

          Income tax on domestic corporations is covered by Section 27 of the NIRC of 1997,[16] pertinent provisions of which are reproduced below for easy reference:

 

SEC. 27.  Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. –

 

(A)  In General – Except as otherwise provided in this Code, an income   tax   of thirty-five percent (35%) is   hereby   imposed   upon thetaxable income derived during each taxable year from all  sources within and without the Philippines by every corporation, as defined in Section 22(B) of this Code and taxable under this Title as a corporation, organized  in,  or  existing under   the   laws of   the  Philippines: Provided, That effective January 1, 1998, the rate of income tax shall be thirty-four percent (34%); effective January 1, 1999, the rate shall be thirty-three percent (33%); and effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, the rate shall be thirty-two percent (32%).

 

x x x x

 

(E)  Minimum Corporate Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. –

 

(1)  Imposition of Tax. – A minimum corporate income tax of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year, as defined herein, is hereby imposed on a corporation taxable under this Title, beginning on the fourth taxable year immediately following the year   in  which   such  corporation  commenced   its  business  operations, when the minimum income tax is greater than the tax computed under Subsection (A) of this Section for the taxable year.

 

 

            Hence,  a domestic corporation must pay whichever  is  higher of:   (1)  the income tax under Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, computed by applying the tax rate therein to the taxable income of the corporation; or (2) the MCIT under Section 27(E), also of the NIRC of 1997, equivalent to 2% of the gross income of the corporation.  Although this may be the general rule in determining the income tax  due  from a domestic  corporation under   the  NIRC of  1997,   it  can only  be applied to PAL to the extent allowed by the provisions in the franchise of PAL specifically governing its taxation.

 

          After a conscientious study of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, in relation to Sections 27(A) and 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997, the Court, like the CTA en banc and Second Division, concludes that PAL cannot be subjected to MCIT for FY 2000-2001.

 

          First,   Section   13(a)   of   Presidential   Decree   No.   1590   refers   to “basic corporate income tax.” In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[17] the Court  already settled that   the “basic  corporate   income tax,”  under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, relates to the general rate of 35% 

(reduced to 32% by the year 2000) as stipulated in Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997. 

 

          Section   13(a)   of   Presidential   Decree   No.   1590   requires   that   the   basic corporate income tax be computed in accordance with the NIRC.  This means that PAL   shall   compute   its   basic   corporate   income   tax   using   the   rate   and   basis prescribed by the NIRC of 1997 for the said tax.  There is nothing in Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 to support the contention of the CIR that PAL is subject to the entire Title II of the NIRC of 1997, entitled “Tax on Income.”     

 

          Second, Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 further provides that the basic corporate income tax of PAL shall be based on its annual net taxable income.  This is consistent with Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, which provides that the rate of basic corporate  income tax,  which is 32% beginning 1 January 2000, shall be imposed on the taxable income of the domestic corporation. 

 

          Taxable   income   is   defined   under   Section   31   of   the   NIRC   of   1997   as the pertinent items of gross income specified in the said Code, less the deductions and/or personal and additional exemptions, if any, authorized for such types of income by the same Code or other special laws.  The gross income, referred to in Section 31, is described in Section 32 of the NIRC of 1997 as income from whatever source, including compensation for services; the conduct of trade or business or the exercise of profession; dealings in property; interests; rents; royalties;  dividends;   annuities;  prizes  and  winnings;  pensions;  and  a  partner’s distributive share in the net income of a general professional partnership.

 

          Pursuant to the NIRC of 1997, the taxable income of a domestic corporation may be arrived at by subtracting from gross income deductions authorized, not just by the NIRC of 1997,[18] but also by special laws.  Presidential Decree No. 1590 may be considered as one of such special laws authorizing PAL, in computing its annual  net   taxable   income,  on  which   its  basic   corporate   income  tax   shall  be 

based, to deduct from its gross income the following: (1) depreciation of assets at twice the normal rate; and (2) net loss carry-over up to five years following the year of such loss. 

 

          In comparison, the 2% MCIT under Section 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997 shall be based on the gross income of   the domestic corporation.  The Court  notes  that gross income, as the basis for MCIT, is given a special definition under Section 27(E)(4) of the NIRC of 1997, different from the general one under Section 34 of the same Code. 

 

          According to the  last  paragraph of  Section 27(E)(4)  of  the NIRC of  1997, gross   income   of   a   domestic   corporation   engaged   in   the   sale   of   service means gross receipts, less sales returns, allowances, discounts and cost of services.  “Cost  of   services”   refers   to   all direct costs and expenses necessarily incurred to provide the services required by the customers and clients including (a)   salaries   and   employee   benefits   of   personnel,   consultants,   and   specialists directly rendering the service; and (b) cost of facilities directly utilized in providing the service, such as depreciation or rental of equipment used and cost of supplies.[19]  Noticeably,   inclusions   in   and  exclusions/deductions   from gross   income   for MCIT  purposes   are   limited   to   those  directly   arising   from   the   conduct  of   the taxpayer’s business.  It is, thus, more limited than the gross income used in the computation of basic corporate income tax.   

 

          In light of the foregoing, there is an apparent distinction under the NIRC of 1997 between taxable income, which is the basis for basic corporate income tax under Section 27(A);  and gross  income, which  is the basis for the MCIT under Section   27(E).  The   two   terms   have   their   respective   technical  meanings,   and cannot   be   used   interchangeably.  The   same   reasons   prevent   this   Court   from declaring   that   the   basic   corporate   income   tax,   for  which  PAL   is   liable   under Section 13(a) of Presidential  Decree No. 1590, also covers MCIT under Section 27(E) of the NIRC of 1997, since the basis for the first is the annual net taxable income, while the basis forL the second is gross income.

   

          Third, even if the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT are both income taxes under Section 27 of the NIRC of 1997, and one is paid in place of the other, the two are distinct and sepa rate taxes. 

         

          The Court again cites Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[20] wherein  it  held that  income tax on the passive  income[21] of  a domestic corporation, under Section 27(D) of the NIRC of 1997, is different from the basic corporate income tax on theQ 2   taxable   income   of   a   domestic   corporation, imposed by Section 27(A), also of the NIRC of 1997.  Section 13 of Presidential Decree  No.  1590  gives  PAL   the  option   to  pay  basic   corporate   income   tax  or franchise tax, whichever is lower; and the tax so paid shall be in lieu of all other taxes, except real property tax.  The income tax on the passive income of PAL falls within the category of “all other taxes” from which PAL is exempted, and which, if already collected, should be refunded to PAL.

           

          The Court herein treats MCIT in much the same way.  Although both are income taxes, the MCIT is different from the basic corporate income tax, not just in the rates, but also in the bases for their computation.  Not being covered by Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, which makes PAL liable only for basic corporate income tax, then MCIT is included in “all other taxes” from which PAL is exempted.     

 

          That, under general circumstances, the MCIT is paid in place of the basic corporate income tax, when the former is higher than the latter, does not mean that these two income taxes are one and the same.  The said taxes are merely paid   in   the  alternative,  giving   the  Government   the  opportunity   to  collect   the higher amount between the two.  The situation is not much different from Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, which reversely allows PAL to pay, whichever is lower of the basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax.  It does not make the basic corporate income tax indistinguishable from the franchise tax. 

 

          Given the fundamental differences between the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT, presented in the preceding discussion, it  is not baseless for this Court to rule that, pursuant to the franchise of PAL, said corporation is subject to the first tax, yet exempted from the second. 

 

          Fourth, the evident intent of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520 is to extend   to   PAL   tax   concessions   not   ordinarily   available   to   other   domestic corporations.  Section   13   of   Presidential   Decree   No.   1520   permits   PAL   to pay whichever is lower of the basic corporate income tax or the franchise tax; and the tax so paid shall be in lieu of all other taxes, except only real property tax. Hence, under its franchise, PAL is to pay the least amount of tax possible. 

 

          Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520 is not unusual.  A public utility is granted   special   tax   treatment   (including   tax  exceptions/exemptions)  under   its franchise, as an inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the said public utility.[22]  In this case, in addition to being a public utility providing air-transport service, PAL is also the official flag carrier of the country.

         

          The imposition of MCIT on PAL, as the CIR insists, would result in a situation that contravenes the objective of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590.  In effect, PAL would not just have two, but three tax alternatives, namely, the basic corporate income tax, MCIT, or franchise tax.  More troublesome is the fact that, as between the basic corporate income tax and the MCIT, PAL shall be made to pay whichever is higher,   irrefragably,   in   violation  of   the  avowed   intention  of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 to make PAL pay for the lower amount of tax.

           

            Fifth, the CIR posits that PAL may not invoke in the instant case the “in lieu of all other taxes” clause in Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1520, if it did 

not pay anything at all as basic corporate income tax or franchise tax.  As a result, PAL should be made liable for “other taxes” such as MCIT.  This line of reasoning has been dubbed as the Substitution Theory, and this is not the first time the CIR raised   the   same.  The   Court   already   rejected   the   Substitution   Theory in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[23] to wit:

 

“Substitution Theory”

of the CIR Untenable

 

A careful reading of Section 13 rebuts the argument of the CIR that the “in lieu of all other taxes” proviso is a mere incentive that applies only when PAL actually pays something.  It   is   clear   that  PD 1590   intended   to   give   respondent   the   option   to   avail   itself   of Subsection (a)  or   (b)  as  consideration for   its   franchise.  Either  option excludes the payment of other taxes and dues imposed or collected by the national or the local government.  PAL has the option to choose the alternative that results in lower taxes.  It is not the fact of tax payment that exempts it, but the exercise of its option.

 

Under Subsection (a), the basis for the tax rate is respondent’s annual net taxable income, which (as earlier discussed) is computed by subtracting   allowable   deductions   and   exemptions   from   gross income.  By basing the tax rate on the annual net taxable income, PD 1590 necessarily recognized the situation in which taxable income may result in a negative amount and thus translate into a zero tax liability.

 

Notably, PAL was owned and operated by the government at the time   the   franchise   was   last   amended.  It   can   reasonably   be contemplated   that   PD   1590   sought   to   assist   the   finances   of   the 

government corporation in the form of lower taxes.  When respondent operates  at  a   loss   (as   in  the  instant  case),  no taxes  are due;   in  this instances, it has a lower tax liability than that provided by Subsection (b).

 

The fallacy of the CIR’s argument is evident from the fact that the payment of a measly sum of one peso would suffice to exempt PAL from other taxes, whereas a zero liability arising from its losses would not. There is no substantial distinction between a zero tax and a one-peso tax liability.  (Emphasis ours.)

 

 

Based on the same ratiocination, the Court finds the Substitution Theory unacceptable in the present Petition. 

 

          The CIR alludes as well to Republic Act No. 9337, for reasons similar to those behind   the   Substitution   Theory.  Section   22   of   Republic   Act   No.   9337,  more popularly known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (E-VAT) Law, abolished the franchise   tax   imposed by   the charters  of  particularly   identified public  utilities, including Presidential  Decree No. 1590 of PAL.  PAL may no  longer exercise  its options or alternatives under Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1590, and is now   liable   for   both   corporate   income   tax   and   the   12%   VAT   on   its   sale   of services.  The CIR alleges that Republic Act No. 9337 reveals the intention of the Legislature to make PAL share the tax burden of other domestic corporations.

 

          The CIR seems to lose sight of the fact that the Petition at bar involves the liability of PAL for MCIT for the fiscal year ending31 March 2001.  Republic Act No. 9337, which took effect on 1 July 2005, cannot be applied retroactively[24] and any amendment introduced by said statute affecting the taxation of PAL is immaterial in the present case.      

 

          And sixth, Presidential Decree No. 1590 explicitly allows PAL, in computing its basic corporate income tax, to carry over as deduction any net loss incurred in any year, up to five years following the year of such loss.  Therefore, Presidential Decree  No.  1590  does  not  only  consider   the  possibility   that,  at   the  end  of  a taxable period, PAL shall end up with zero annual net taxable income(when its deductions exactly equal its gross income), as what happened in the case at bar, but also the likelihood that PAL shall incurnet loss (when its deductions exceed its gross income).  If PAL is subjected to MCIT, the provision in Presidential Decree No. 1590 on net loss carry-over will be rendered nugatory.  Net loss carry-over is material only in computing the annual net taxable income to be used as basis for the basic corporate income tax of PAL; but PAL will never be able to avail itself of the basic corporate income tax option when it is in a net loss position, because it will always then be compelled to pay the necessarily higher MCIT. 

         

          Consequently, the insistence of the CIR to subject PAL to MCIT cannot be done without contravening Presidential Decree No. 1520. 

 

           Between Presidential Decree No. 1520, on one hand, which is a special law specifically governing the franchise of PAL, issued on 11 June 1978; and the NIRC of 1997, on the other, which is a general law on national internal revenue taxes, that  took effect  on 1 January 1998,   the former prevails.  The rule   is   that  on a specific matter, the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former.  In addition, where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general – the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special – the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land,   the   other   as   the   law   of   a   particular   case.   It   is   a   canon   of   statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.[25]

 

          Neither   can   it   be   said   that   the   NIRC   of   1997   repealed   or   amended Presidential Decree No. 1590. 

 

          While Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1590 provides that the franchise is granted to PAL with the understanding that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by competent authority when the public interest so requires, Section  24  of   the   same  Decree  also   states   that   the   franchise  or  any  portion thereof may only be modified, amended, or repealed expressly by a special law or decree that   shall   specifically  modify,   amend,   or   repeal   said   franchise   or   any portion thereof.  No such special law or decree exists herein. 

           

          The   CIR   cannot   rely   on   Section   7(B)   of   Republic   Act   No.   8424,   which amended the NIRC in 1997 and reads as follows:

 

Section 7.  Repealing Clauses. –

 

x x x x

 

(B)   The  provisions  of   the  National   Internal   Revenue  Code,   as amended, and all other laws, including charters of government-owned or controlled corporations,   decrees,   orders,   or   regulations   or   parts thereof,   that   are   inconsistent  with   this  Act   are   hereby   repealed  or amended accordingly.

 

 

The CIR reasons that PAL was a government-owned and controlled corporation when   Presidential   Decree   No.   1590,   its   franchise   or   charter,   was   issued   in 1978.  Since PAL was still operating under the very same charter when Republic Act No. 8424 took effect in 1998, then the latter can repeal or amend the former by virtue of Section 7(B).

 

          The Court disagrees. 

 

          A brief recount of the history of PAL is in order.  PAL was established as a private corporation under the general   law of the Republic  of the Philippines in February  1941.  In November 1977,   the  government,   through   the  Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),  acquired the majority shares  in PAL.  PAL was privatized in January 1992 when the local consortium PR Holdings acquired a 67% stake therein.[26]  

 

          It   is  true that when Presidential  Decree No. 1590 was  issued on 11 June 1978, PAL was then a government-owned and controlled corporation; but when Republic Act No. 8424, amending the NIRC, took effect on 1 January 1998, PAL was   already   a   private   corporation   for   six   years.  The   repealing   clause   under Section 7(B) of Republic Act No. 8424 simply refers to charters of government-owned   and   controlled   corporations,   which   would   simply   and   plainly   mean corporations under the ownership and control of the government at the time of effectivity of said statute.  It is already a stretch for the Court to read into said provision charters, issued to what were then government-owned and controlled corporations that are now private, but still operating under the same charters. 

 

          That the Legislature chose not to amend or repeal Presidential Decree No. 1590, even after PAL was privatized, reveals the intent of the Legislature to let PAL   continue   enjoying,   as   a   private   corporation,   the   very   same   rights   and privileges   under   the   terms   and   conditions   stated   in   said   charter.  From   the moment PAL was privatized, it had to be treated as a private corporation, and its 

charter became that of a private corporation.  It would be completely illogical to say   that   PAL   is   a   private   corporation   still   operating   under   a   charter   of   a government-owned and controlled corporation.                   

 

          The alternative argument of the CIR – that the imposition of the MCIT is pursuant to the amendment of the NIRC, and not of Presidential Decree No. 1590 –   is   just   as   specious.  As   has   already   been   settled   by   this   Court,   the   basic corporate income tax under Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590 relates to the general tax rate under Section 27(A) of the NIRC of 1997, which is 32% by the year 2000, imposed on taxable income.  Thus, only provisions of the NIRC of 1997 necessary for the computation of the basic corporate income tax apply to PAL.  And even though Republic Act No. 8424 amended the NIRC by introducing the  MCIT,   in  what   is  now Section 27(E)  of   the  said  Code,   this  amendment   is actually irrelevant and should not affect the taxation of PAL, since the MCIT is clearly distinct from the basic corporate income tax referred to in Section 13(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1590, and from which PAL is consequently exempt under the “in lieu of all other taxes” clause of its charter.                

 

          The CIR calls the attention of the Court to RMC No. 66-2003, on “Clarifying the Taxability  of  Philippine Airlines   (PAL)   for   Income Tax Purposes As Well  As Other Franchise Grantees Similarly Situated.”  According to RMC No. 66-2003:

 

Section   27(E)   of   the   Code,   as   implemented   by   Revenue Regulations No. 9-98, provides that MCIT of two percent (2%) of the gross income as of the end of the taxable year (whether calendar or fiscal year, depending on the accounting period employed) is imposed upon   any   domestic   corporation   beginning   the   4th taxable   year immediately   following   the   taxable   year   in   which   such   corporation commenced   its   business   operations.   The   MCIT   shall   be   imposed whenever   such   corporation  has   zero  or  negative   taxable   income  or whenever the amount of MCIT is greater than the normal income tax due from such corporation.

 

With the advent of such provision beginning January 1, 1998, it is certain that domestic corporations subject to normal income tax as well as those choose to be subject thereto, such as PAL, are bound to pay income tax regardless of whether they are operating at a profit or loss.

 

Thus, in case of operating loss, PAL may either opt to subject itself to minimum corporate income tax or to the 2% franchise tax, whichever is lower. On the other hand, if PAL is operating at a profit, the income tax liability shall be the lower amount between:

 

(1) normal income tax or MCIT whichever is higher; and

 

(2) 2% franchise tax.

 

 

          The CIR attempts to sway this Court to adopt RMC No. 66-2003 since the “[c]onstruction by an executive branch of government of a particular law although not binding upon the courts must be given weight as the construction comes from the branch of the government called upon to implement the law.”[27]

 

          But the Court is unconvinced. 

 

          It is significant to note that RMC No. 66-2003 was issued only on 14 October 2003,  more   than   two   years   after   FY   2000-2001   of   PAL   ended   on 31  March 2001.  This   violates   the   well-entrenched   principle   that   statutes,   including administrative   rules   and   regulations,   operate   prospectively   only,   unless   the 

legislative intent to the contrary  is  manifest  by express terms or by necessary implication.[28]   

         

          Moreover,  despite  the claims of   the CIR that  RMC No.  66-2003  is   just  a clarificatory and internal issuance, the Court observes that RMC No. 66-2003 does more   than   just   clarify   a   previous   regulation   and   goes   beyond  mere   internal administration.  It effectively increases the tax burden of PAL and other taxpayers who are similarly situated, making them liable for a tax for which they were not liable   before.  Therefore,   RMC   No.   66-2003   cannot   be   given   effect   without previous   notice   or   publication   to   those   who   will   be   affected thereby.  In Commissioner  of   Internal  Revenue v.  Court  of  Appeals,[29] the Court ratiocinated that:

 

It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.

 

A   reading   of   RMC   37-93,   particularly   considering   the circumstances under which it  has been issued, convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a corrective measure (revoking in the process the previous holdings of past Commissioners) or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended, but has, in fact and  most   importantly,  been made  in  order   to  place  "Hope Luxury," "Premium More"  and  "Champion"  within   the  classification  of   locally 

manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered  by  RA 7654.  Specifically,   the  new  law would  have   its amendatory provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as bearing foreign brands. Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, "Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of locally  manufactured cigarettes  not  bearing   foreign brand subject   to 45% ad valorem tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654,   would   have   had   no   new   tax   rate   consequence   on   private respondent's   products.   Evidently,   in   order   to   place   "Hope   Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate, the now disputed RMC 37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not simply interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then ignored.

 

Indeed,   the   BIR   itself,   in   its RMC 10-86,   has   observed   and provided:

 

"RMC NO. 10-86

 

Effectivity   of   Internal   Revenue   Rules   and Regulations "It has been observed that one of the problem areas  bearing  on  compliance  with   Internal  Revenue  Tax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional  provision on  'due process  of   law'  and the 

essence of the Civil Code provision concerning effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution; Art. 2, New Civil Code).

 

"In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules   and   regulations, in conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are hereby prescribed for   the   drafting,   issuance   and implementation of the said Revenue Tax Issuances:

"(1). This   Circular   shall   apply   only      to     (a)      Revenue Regulations;   (b)   Revenue   Audit   Memorandum   Orders; and   (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and   Revenue Memorandum   Orders   bearing   on   internal   revenue   tax rules and regulations.

 

"(2).   Except   when   the   law   otherwise   expressly provides,   the   aforesaid   internal   revenue   tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof may be fairly presumed.

 

"Due   notice   of   the   said   issuances  may   be   fairly presumed only after the following procedures have been taken:

 

"xxx   xxx   xxx   "(5).   Strict   compliance   with   the foregoing procedures is enjoined.13

 

Nothing on record could tell us that it was either impossible or impracticable   for   the   BIR   to   observe   and   comply   with   the   above requirements before giving effect to its questioned circular. (Emphases ours.)

 

 

          The Court,  however,  stops short of ruling on the validity of RMC No. 66-2003, for it is not among the issues raised in the instant Petition.  It only wishes to stress the requirement of prior notice to PAL before RMC No. 66-2003 could have become   effective.  Only   after   RMC   No.   66-2003   was   issued   on 14   October 2003 could PAL have been given notice of said circular, and only following such notice to PAL would RMC No. 66-2003 have taken effect.  Given this sequence, it is not possible to say that RMC No. 66-2003 was already in effect and should have been strictly complied with by PAL for its fiscal year which ended on 31 March 2001.          

         

          Even conceding that the construction of a statute by the CIR is to be given great weight, the courts, which include the CTA, are not bound thereby if such construction is erroneous or is clearly shown to be in conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution or other laws.  "It is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary, correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in the context of the interactions of the three branches of the government."[30]     It is furthermore the rule of long standing that this Court will not set aside lightly the conclusions   reached by  the  CTA which,  by   the very  nature  of   its   functions,   is dedicated  exclusively   to   the   resolution  of   tax  problems  and  has,   accordingly, developed   an   expertise   on   the   subject,   unless   there   has   been   an   abuse   or improvident exercise of authority.[31]  In the Petition at bar, the CTA en banc and in division both adjudged that PAL is not liable for MCIT under Presidential Decree No. 1590, and this Court has no sufficient basis to reverse them.

 

          As to the assertions of the CIR that exemption from tax is not presumed, and the one claiming  it  must be able to show that  it   indubitably  exists,   the Court recalls   its   pronouncements   in Commissioner   of   Internal   Revenue   v.   Court   of Appeals[32]:

         

          We disagree.  Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue erred in applying the principles of tax exemption without first applying the well-settled doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes.  It is obviously both illogical and impractical to determine who are exempted without first determining who are covered by the aforesaid provision. The Commissioner should have determined first if private respondent was covered by Section 205, applying the rule of strict interpretation of laws imposing taxes and other burdens on the populace, before asking Ateneo to prove its exemption therefrom.  The Court   takes   this  occasion   to   reiterate   the  hornbook  doctrine   in   the interpretation  of   tax   laws   that  “(a)   statute  will  not  be  construed  as imposing   a   tax   unless   it   does   so   clearly,   expressly,   and unambiguously.  x   x   x   (A)   tax   cannot  be   imposed  without   clear   and express   words   for   that   purpose.  Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication.”  Parenthetically, in answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it is basic that  “in case of doubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor presumed to be imposed beyond what statutes expressly and clearly import.” (Emphases ours.)

 

 

          For two decades following the grant of its franchise by Presidential Decree No. 1590 in 1978, PAL was only being held liable for the basic corporate income 

tax or franchise tax, whichever was lower; and its payment of either tax was in lieu  of  all  other   taxes,  except   real  property   tax,   in  accordance  with   the  plain language of Section 13 of the charter of PAL.  Therefore, the exemption of PAL from “all other taxes” was not just a presumption, but a previously established, accepted, and respected fact, even for the BIR.

 

          The MCIT was a new tax introduced by Republic Act No. 8424.   Under the doctrine of strict  interpretation, the burden is upon the CIR to primarily prove that   the   new  MCIT   provisions   of   the   NIRC   of   1997,   clearly,   expressly,   and unambiguously   extend   and   apply   to   PAL,   despite   the   latter’s   existing   tax exemption.  To do this, the CIR must convince the Court that the MCIT is a basic corporate  income tax,[33] and  is  not  covered by the “in  lieu of  all  other  taxes” clause of Presidential Decree No. 1590.  Since the CIR failed in this regard, the Court is left with no choice but to consider the MCIT as one of “all other taxes,” from which PAL is exempt under the explicit provisions of its charter. 

 

          Not being liable for MCIT in FY 2000-2001, it necessarily follows that PAL need not apply for relief from said tax as the CIR maintains.

 

            WHEREFORE,   premises   considered,   the   instant   Petition   for   Review   is hereby DENIED, and the Decision dated 9 August  2007 and Resolution dated 11 October   2007 of   the   Court   of   Tax   Appeals en   banc in   CTA   E.B.   No.   246 is hereby AFFIRMED.  No costs.

 

          SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 108067           January 20, 2000

CYANAMID PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,respondent.

QUISUMBING, J.:

Petitioner disputes the decision1 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals, ordering petitioner to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the amount of three million, seven hundred seventy-four thousand, eight hundred sixty seven pesos and fifty centavos (P3,774,867.50) as 25% surtax on improper accumulation of profits for 1981, plus 10% surcharge and 20% annual interest from January 30, 1985 to January 30, 1987, under Sec. 25 of the National Internal Revenue Code.1âwphi1.nêt

The Court of Tax Appeals made the following factual findings:

Petitioner, Cyanamid Philippines, Inc., a corporation organized under Philippine laws, is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Cyanamid Co. based in Maine, USA. It is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and chemicals, a wholesaler of imported finished goods, and an importer/indentor.

On February 7, 1985, the CIR sent an assessment letter to petitioner and demanded the payment of deficiency income tax of one hundred nineteen thousand eight hundred seventeen (P119,817.00) pesos for taxable year 1981, as follows:

Net income disclosed by the return as audited 14,575,210.00

Add: Discrepancies:

      Professional fees/yr.     17018 261,877.00

      per investigation 110,399.37

Total Adjustment 152,477.00

Net income per Investigation 14,727,687.00

Less: Personal and additional exemptions

Amount subject to tax 14,727,687.00

Income tax due thereon . . . 25% Surtax 2,385,231.50 3,237,495.00

Less: Amount already assessed 5,161,788.00

BALANCE 75,709.00

        monthly interest from 1,389,639.00 44,108.00

Compromise penalties

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 3,774,867.50 119,817.003

On March 4, 1985, petitioner protested the assessments particularly, (1) the 25% Surtax Assessment of P3,774,867.50; (2) 1981 Deficiency Income Assessment of P119,817.00; and 1981 Deficiency Percentage Assessment of P8,846.72.4 Petitioner, through its external accountant, Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co., claimed, among others, that the surtax for the undue accumulation of earnings was not proper because the said profits were retained to increase petitioner's working capital and it would be used for reasonable business needs of the company. Petitioner contended that it availed of the tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41, hence enjoyed amnesty from civil and criminal prosecution granted by the law.

On October 20, 1987, the CIR in a letter addressed to SGV & Co., refused to allow the cancellation of the assessment notices and rendered its resolution, as follows:

It appears that your client availed of Executive Order No. 41 under File No. 32A-F-000455-41B as certified and confirmed by our Tax Amnesty Implementation Office on October 6, 1987.

In reply thereto, I have the honor to inform you that the availment of the tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41, as amended is sufficient basis, in appropriate cases, for the cancellation of the assessment issued after August 21, 1986. (Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87) Said availment does not, therefore, result in cancellation of assessments issued before August 21, 1986. as in the instant case. In other words, the assessments in this case issued on January 30, 1985 despite your client's availment of the tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41, as amended still subsist.

Such being the case, you are therefore, requested to urge your client to pay this Office the aforementioned deficiency income tax and surtax on undue accumulation of surplus in the respective amounts of P119,817.00 and P3,774,867.50 inclusive of interest thereon for the year 1981, within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise this office will be constrained to enforce collection thereof thru summary remedies prescribed by law.

This constitutes the final decision of this Office on this matter.5

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. During the pendency of the case, however, both parties agreed to compromise the 1981 deficiency income tax assessment of P119,817.00. Petitioner paid a reduced amount — twenty-six thousand, five hundred seventy-seven pesos (P26,577.00) — as compromise settlement. However, the surtax on improperly accumulated profits remained unresolved.

Petitioner claimed that CIR's assessment representing the 25% surtax on its accumulated earnings for the year 1981 had no legal basis for the following reasons: (a) petitioner accumulated its earnings and profits for reasonable business requirements to meet working capital needs and retirement of indebtedness; (b) petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Cyanamid Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maine, in the United States of America, whose shares of stock are listed and traded in New York Stock Exchange. This being the case, no individual shareholder income taxes by petitioner's accumulation of earnings and profits, instead of distribution of the same.

In denying the petition, the Court of Tax Appeals made the following pronouncements:

Petitioner contends that it did not declare dividends for the year 1981 in order to use the accumulated earnings as working capital reserve to meet its "reasonable business needs". The law permits a stock corporation to set aside a portion of its retained earnings for

specified purposes (citing Section 43, paragraph 2 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines). In the case at bar, however, petitioner's purpose for accumulating its earnings does not fall within the ambit of any of these specified purposes.

More compelling is the finding that there was no need for petitioner to set aside a portion of its retained earnings as working capital reserve as it claims since it had considerable liquid funds. A thorough review of petitioner's financial statement (particularly the Balance Sheet, p. 127, BIR Records) reveals that the corporation had considerable liquid funds consisting of cash accounts receivable, inventory and even its sales for the period is adequate to meet the normal needs of the business. This can be determined by computing the current asset to liability ratio of the company:

current ratio     = current assets/ current liabilities

= P 47,052,535.00 / P21,275,544.00

= 2.21: 1========

The significance of this ratio is to serve as a primary test of a company's solvency to meet current obligations from current assets as a going concern or a measure of adequacy of working capital.

x x x           x x x           x x x

We further reject petitioner's argument that "the accumulated earnings tax does not apply to a publicly-held corporation" citing American jurisprudence to support its position. The reference finds no application in the case at bar because under Section 25 of the NIRC as amended by Section 5 of P.D. No. 1379 [1739] (dated September 17, 1980), the exceptions to the accumulated earnings tax are expressly enumerated, to wit: Bank, non-bank financial intermediaries, corporations organized primarily, and authorized by the Central Bank of the Philippines to hold shares of stock of banks, insurance companies, or personal holding companies, whether domestic or foreign. The law on the matter is clear and specific. Hence, there is no need to resort to applicable cases decided by the American Federal Courts for guidance and enlightenment as to whether the provision of Section 25 of the NIRC should apply to petitioner.

Equally clear and specific are the provisions of E.O. 41 particularly with respect to its effectivity and coverage . . .

. . . Said availment does not result in cancellation of assessments issued before August 21, 1986 as petitioner seeks to do in the case at bar. Therefore, the assessments in this case, issued on January 30, 1985 despite petitioner's availment of the tax amnesty under E.O. 41 as amended, still subsist.

x x x           x x x           x x x

WHEREFORE, petitioner Cyanamid Philippines, Inc., is ordered to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the sum of P3,774,867.50 representing 25% surtax on improper accumulation of profits for 1981, plus 10% surcharge and 20% annual interest from January 30, 1985 to January 30, 1987.6

Petitioner appealed the Court of Tax Appeal's decision to the Court of Appeals. Affirming the CTA decision, the appellate court said:

In reviewing the instant petition and the arguments raised herein, We find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the respondent Court. The respondent Court's decision is supported by evidence, such as petitioner corporation's financial statement and balance sheets (p. 127, BIR Records). On the other hand the petitioner corporation could only come up with an alternative formula lifted from a decision rendered by a foreign court (Bardahl Mfg. Corp. vs. Commissioner, 24 T.C.M. [CCH] 1030). Applying said formula to its particular financial position, the petitioner corporation attempts to justify its accumulated surplus earnings. To Our mind, the petitioner corporation's alternative formula cannot overturn the persuasive findings and conclusion of the respondent Court based, as it is, on the applicable laws and jurisprudence, as well as standards in the computation of taxes and penalties practiced in this jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated August 6, 1992 in C.T.A. Case No. 4250 is AFFIRMED in toto.7

Hence, petitioner now comes before us and assigns as sole issue:

WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS TAX FOR THE YEAR 1981.8

Sec. 259 of the old National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 states:

Sec. 25. Additional tax on corporation improperly accumulating profits or surplus —

(a) Imposition of tax. — If any corporation is formed or availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the tax upon its shareholders or members or the shareholders or members of another corporation, through the medium of permitting its gains and profits to accumulate instead of being divided or distributed, there is levied and assessed against such corporation, for each taxable year, a tax equal to twenty-five per-centum of the undistributed portion of its accumulated profits or surplus which shall be in addition to the tax imposed by section twenty-four, and shall be computed, collected and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions of law, including penalties, as that tax.

(b) Prima facie evidence. — The fact that any corporation is mere holding company shall be prima facieevidence of a purpose to avoid the tax upon its shareholders or members. Similar presumption will lie in the case of an investment company where at any time during the taxable year more than fifty per centum in value of its outstanding stock is owned, directly or indirectly, by one person.

(c) Evidence determinative of purpose. — The fact that the earnings or profits of a corporation are permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business shall be determinative of the purpose to avoid the tax upon its shareholders or members unless the corporation, by clear preponderance of evidence, shall prove the contrary.

(d) Exception. — The provisions of this sections shall not apply to banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, corporation organized primarily, and authorized by the Central Bank of the

Philippines to hold shares of stock of banks, insurance companies, whether domestic or foreign.

The provision discouraged tax avoidance through corporate surplus accumulation. When corporations do not declare dividends, income taxes are not paid on the undeclared dividends received by the shareholders. The tax on improper accumulation of surplus is essentially a penalty tax designed to compel corporations to distribute earnings so that the said earnings by shareholders could, in turn, be taxed.

Relying on decisions of the American Federal Courts, petitioner stresses that the accumulated earnings tax does not apply to Cyanamid, a wholly owned subsidiary of a publicly owned company.10 Specifically, petitioner citesGolconda Mining Corp. vs. Commissioner, 507 F.2d 594, whereby the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had taken the position that the accumulated earnings tax could only apply to a closely held corporation.

A review of American taxation history on accumulated earnings tax will show that the application of the accumulated earnings tax to publicly held corporations has been problematic. Initially, the Tax Court and the Court of Claims held that the accumulated earnings tax applies to publicly held corporations. Then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Golconda that the accumulated earnings tax could only apply to closely held corporations. Despite Golconda, the Internal Revenue Service asserted that the tax could be imposed on widely held corporations including those not controlled by a few shareholders or groups of shareholders. The Service indicated it would not follow the Ninth Circuit regarding publicly held corporations.11 In 1984, American legislation nullified the Ninth Circuit's Golconda ruling and made it clear that the accumulated earnings tax is not limited to closely held corporations.12 Clearly, Golconda is no longer a reliable precedent.

The amendatory provision of Section 25 of the 1977 NIRC, which was PD 1739, enumerated the corporations exempt from the imposition of improperly accumulated tax: (a) banks; (b) non-bank financial intermediaries; (c) insurance companies; and (d) corporations organized primarily and authorized by the Central Bank of the Philippines to hold shares of stocks of banks. Petitioner does not fall among those exempt classes. Besides, the rule on enumeration is that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence is construed to exclude all others.13 Laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power.14 Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.15 The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed,16 a burden which petitioner here has failed to discharge.

Another point raised by the petitioner in objecting to the assessment, is that increase of working capital by a corporation justifies accumulating income. Petitioner asserts that respondent court erred in concluding that Cyanamid need not infuse additional working capital reserve because it had considerable liquid funds based on the 2.21:1 ratio of current assets to current liabilities. Petitioner relies on the so-called "Bardahl" formula, which allowed retention, as working capital reserve, sufficient amounts of liquid assets to carry the company through one operating cycle. The "Bardahl"17 formula was developed to measure corporate liquidity. The formula requires an examination of whether the taxpayer has sufficient liquid assets to pay all of its current liabilities and any extraordinary expenses reasonably anticipated, plus enough to operate the business during one operating cycle. Operating cycle is the period of time it takes to convert cash into raw materials, raw materials into inventory, and inventory into sales, including the time it takes to collect payment for thesales.18

Using this formula, petitioner contends, Cyanamid needed at least P33,763,624.00 pesos as working capital. As of 1981, its liquid asset was only P25,776,991.00. Thus, petitioner asserts that Cyanamid had a working capital deficit of P7,986,633.00.19 Therefore, the P9,540,926.00 accumulated income as of 1981 may be validly accumulated to increase the petitioner's working capital for the succeeding year.

We note, however, that the companies where the "Bardahl" formula was applied, had operating cycles much shorter than that of petitioner. In Atlas Tool Co., Inc, vs. CIR,20 the company's operating cycle was only 3.33 months or 27.75% of the year. In Cataphote Corp. of Mississippi vs. United States,21 the corporation's operating cycle was only 56.87 days, or 15.58% of the year. In the case of Cyanamid, the operating cycle was 288.35 days, or 78.55% of a year, reflecting that petitioner will need sufficient liquid funds, of at least three quarters of the year, to cover the operating costs of the business. There are variations in the application of the "Bardahl" formula, such as average operating cycle or peak operating cycle. In times when there is no recurrence of a business cycle, the working capital needs cannot be predicted with accuracy. As stressed by American authorities, although the "Bardahl" formula is well-established and routinely applied by the courts, it is not a precise rule. It is used only for administrative convenience.22 Petitioner's application of the "Bardahl" formula merely creates a false illusion of exactitude.

Other formulas are also used, e.g. the ratio of current assets to current liabilities and the adoption of the industry standard.23 The ratio of current assets to current liabilities is used to determine the sufficiency of working capital. Ideally, the working capital should equal the current liabilities and there must be 2 units of current assets for every unit of current liability, hence the so-called "2 to 1" rule.24

As of 1981 the working capital of Cyanamid was P25,776,991.00, or more than twice its current liabilities. That current ratio of Cyanamid, therefore, projects adequacy in working capital. Said working capital was expected to increase further when more funds were generated from the succeeding year's sales. Available income covered expenses or indebtedness for that year, and there appeared no reason to expect an impending "working capital deficit" which could have necessitated an increase in working capital, as rationalized by petitioner.

In Basilan Estates, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,25 we held that:

. . . [T]here is no need to have such a large amount at the beginning of the following year because during the year, current assets are converted into cash and with the income realized from the business as the year goes, these expenses may well be taken care of. [citation omitted]. Thus, it is erroneous to say that the taxpayer is entitled to retain enough liquid net assets in amounts approximately equal to current operating needs for the year to cover "cost of goods sold and operating expenses:" for "it excludes proper consideration of funds generated by the collection of notes receivable as trade accounts during the course of the year."26

If the CIR determined that the corporation avoided the tax on shareholders by permitting earnings or profits to accumulate, and the taxpayer contested such a determination, the burden of proving the determination wrong, together with the corresponding burden of first going forward with evidence, is on the taxpayer. This applies even if the corporation is not a mere holding or investment company and does not have an unreasonable accumulation of earnings or profits.27

In order to determine whether profits are accumulated for the reasonable needs to avoid the surtax upon shareholders, it must be shown that the controlling intention of the taxpayer is manifest at the time of accumulation, not intentions declared subsequently, which are mere afterthoughts.28 Furthermore, the accumulated profits must be used within a reasonable time after

the close of the taxable year. In the instant case, petitioner did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that such accumulation of profit was for the immediate needs of the business.

In Manila Wine Merchants, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,29 we ruled:

To determine the "reasonable needs" of the business in order to justify an accumulation of earnings, the Courts of the United States have invented the so-called "Immediacy Test" which construed the words "reasonable needs of the business" to mean the immediate needs of the business, and it was generally held that if the corporation did not prove an immediate need for the accumulation of the earnings and profits, the accumulation was not for the reasonable needs of the business, and the penalty tax would apply. (Mertens. Law of Federal Income Taxation, Vol. 7, Chapter 39, p, 103).30

In the present case,The Tax Court opted to determine the working capital sufficiency by using the ratio between current assets to current liabilities. The working capital needs of a business depend upon nature of the business, its credit policies, the amount of inventories, the rate of the turnover, the amount of accounts receivable, the collection rate, the availability of credit to the business, and similar factors. Petitioner, by adhering to the "Bardahl" formula, failed to impress the tax court with theA required definiteness envisioned by the statute. We agree with the tax court that the burden of proof to establish that the profits accumulated were not beyond the reasonable needs of the company, remained on the taxpayer. This Court will not set aside lightly the conclusion reached by the Court of Tax Appeals which, by the very nature of its function, is dedicated exclusively to the consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.31 Unless rebutted, all presumptions generally are indulged in favor of the correctness of the CIR's assessment against the taxpayer. With petitioner's failure to prove the CIR incorrect, clearly and conclusively, this Court is constrained to uphold the correctness of tax court's ruling as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining that of the Court of Tax Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. 1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-65773-74 April 30, 1987

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Peña, Valmonte & Marcos for respondent British Airways.

 

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) seeks a review on certiorari of the joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, which set aside petitioner's assessment of deficiency income taxes against respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) for the fiscal years 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71, respectively, as well as its Resolution of 18 November, 1983 denying reconsideration.

BOAC is a 100% British Government-owned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom It is engaged in the international airline business and is a member-signatory of the Interline Air Transport Association (IATA). As such it operates air transportation service and sells transportation tickets over the routes of the other airline members. During the periods covered by the disputed assessments, it is admitted that BOAC had no landing rights for traffic purposes in the Philippines, and was not granted a Certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate in the Philippines by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), except for a nine-month period, partly in 1961 and partly in 1962, when it was granted a temporary landing permit by the CAB. Consequently, it did not carry passengers and/or cargo to or from the Philippines, although during the period covered by the assessments, it maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines — Wamer Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later Qantas Airways — which was responsible for selling BOAC tickets covering passengers and cargoes. 1

G.R. No. 65773 (CTA Case No. 2373, the First Case)

On 7 May 1968, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR, for brevity) assessed BOAC the aggregate amount of P2,498,358.56 for deficiency income taxes covering the years 1959 to 1963. This was protested by BOAC. Subsequent investigation resulted in the issuance of a new assessment, dated 16 January 1970 for the years 1959 to 1967 in the amount of P858,307.79. BOAC paid this new assessment under protest.

On 7 October 1970, BOAC filed a claim for refund of the amount of P858,307.79, which claim was denied by the CIR on 16 February 1972. But before said denial, BOAC had already filed a petition for review with the Tax Court on 27 January 1972, assailing the assessment and praying for the refund of the amount paid.

G.R. No. 65774 (CTA Case No. 2561, the Second Case)

On 17 November 1971, BOAC was assessed deficiency income taxes, interests, and penalty for the fiscal years 1968-1969 to 1970-1971 in the aggregate amount of P549,327.43, and the additional amounts of P1,000.00 and P1,800.00 as compromise penalties for violation of Section 46 (requiring the filing of corporation returns) penalized under Section 74 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

On 25 November 1971, BOAC requested that the assessment be countermanded and set aside. In a letter, dated 16 February 1972, however, the CIR not only denied the BOAC request for refund in the First Case but also re-issued in the Second Case the deficiency income tax assessment for P534,132.08 for the years 1969 to 1970-71 plus P1,000.00 as compromise penalty under Section 74 of the Tax Code. BOAC's request for reconsideration was denied by the CIR on 24 August 1973. This prompted BOAC to file the Second Case before the Tax Court praying that it be absolved of liability for deficiency income tax for the years 1969 to 1971.

This case was subsequently tried jointly with the First Case.

On 26 January 1983, The Tax Court rendered the assailed joint Decision reversing the CIR. The Tax Court held that the proceeds of sales of BOAC passage tickets in the Philippines by Warner Barnes and Company, Ltd., and later by Qantas Airways, during the period in question, do not constitute BOAC income from Philippine sources "since no service of carriage of passengers or freight was performed by BOAC within the Philippines" and, therefore, said income is not subject to Philippine income tax. The CTA position was that income from transportation is income from services so that the place where services are rendered determines the source. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its Decision, the Tax Court ordered petitioner to credit BOAC with the sum of P858,307.79, and to cancel the deficiency income tax assessments against BOAC in the amount of P534,132.08 for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71.

Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Tax Court.

The Solicitor General, in representation of the CIR, has aptly defined the issues, thus:

1. Whether or not the revenue derived by private respondent British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) from sales of tickets in the Philippines for air transportation, while having no landing rights here, constitute income of BOAC from Philippine sources, and, accordingly, taxable.

2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question BOAC s a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines or has an office or place of business in the Philippines.

3. In the alternative that private respondent may not be considered a resident foreign corporation but a non-resident foreign corporation, then it is liable to Philippine income tax at the rate of thirty-five per cent (35%) of its gross income received from all sources within the Philippines.

Under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code:

(h) the term resident foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein.

(i) The term "non-resident foreign corporation" applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines and not having any office or place of business therein

It is our considered opinion that BOAC is a resident foreign corporation. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. 2 "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character. 3

BOAC, during the periods covered by the subject - assessments, maintained a general sales agent in the Philippines, That general sales agent, from 1959 to 1971, "was engaged in (1) selling and issuing tickets; (2) breaking down the whole trip into series of trips — each trip in the series

corresponding to a different airline company; (3) receiving the fare from the whole trip; and (4) consequently allocating to the various airline companies on the basis of their participation in the services rendered through the mode of interline settlement as prescribed by Article VI of the Resolution No. 850 of the IATA Agreement." 4 Those activities were in exercise of the functions which are normally incident to, and are in progressive pursuit of, the purpose and object of its organization as an international air carrier. In fact, the regular sale of tickets, its main activity, is the very lifeblood of the airline business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective. There should be no doubt then that BOAC was "engaged in" business in the Philippines through a local agent during the period covered by the assessments. Accordingly, it is a resident foreign corporation subject to tax upon its total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. 5

Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations. — ...

(b) Tax on foreign corporations. — ...

(2) Resident corporations. — A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, except a foreign fife insurance company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Next, we address ourselves to the issue of whether or not the revenue from sales of tickets by BOAC in the Philippines constitutes income from Philippine sources and, accordingly, taxable under our income tax laws.

The Tax Code defines "gross income" thus:

"Gross income" includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from profession, vocations, trades,business, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interests, rents, dividends, securities, or the transactions of any business carried on for gain or profile, or gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever (Sec. 29[3]; Emphasis supplied)

The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. "The words 'income from any source whatever' disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws." Income means "cash received or its equivalent"; it is the amount of money coming to a person within a specific time ...; it means something distinct from principal or capital. For, while capital is a fund, income is a flow. As used in our income tax law, "income" refers to the flow of wealth. 6

The records show that the Philippine gross income of BOAC for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 amounted to P10,428,368 .00. 7

Did such "flow of wealth" come from "sources within the Philippines",

The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. 8 For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is

the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The site of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government.

A transportation ticket is not a mere piece of paper. When issued by a common carrier, it constitutes the contract between the ticket-holder and the carrier. It gives rise to the obligation of the purchaser of the ticket to pay the fare and the corresponding obligation of the carrier to transport the passenger upon the terms and conditions set forth thereon. The ordinary ticket issued to members of the traveling public in general embraces within its terms all the elements to constitute it a valid contract, binding upon the parties entering into the relationship. 9

True, Section 37(a) of the Tax Code, which enumerates items of gross income from sources within the Philippines, namely: (1) interest, (21) dividends, (3) service, (4) rentals and royalties, (5) sale of real property, and (6) sale of personal property, does not mention income from the sale of tickets for international transportation. However, that does not render it less an income from sources within the Philippines. Section 37, by its language, does not intend the enumeration to be exclusive. It merely directs that the types of income listed therein be treated as income from sources within the Philippines. A cursory reading of the section will show that it does not state that it is an all-inclusive enumeration, and that no other kind of income may be so considered. " 10

BOAC, however, would impress upon this Court that income derived from transportation is income for services, with the result that the place where the services are rendered determines the source; and since BOAC's service of transportation is performed outside the Philippines, the income derived is from sources without the Philippines and, therefore, not taxable under our income tax laws. The Tax Court upholds that stand in the joint Decision under review.

The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the site of income taxation. Admittedly, BOAC was an off-line international airline at the time pertinent to this case. The test of taxability is the "source"; and the source of an income is that activity ... which produced the income. 11Unquestionably, the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. business a And even if the BOAC tickets sold covered the "transport of passengers and cargo to and from foreign cities", 12 it cannot alter the fact that income from the sale of tickets was derived from the Philippines. The word "source" conveys one essential idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines. 13

It should be pointed out, however, that the assessments upheld herein apply only to the fiscal years covered by the questioned deficiency income tax assessments in these cases, or, from 1959 to 1967, 1968-69 to 1970-71. For, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November, 1972, international carriers are now taxed as follows:

... Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of 2-½ per cent on their cross Philippine billings. (Sec. 24[b] [21, Tax Code).

Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April, 1978, provided a statutory definition of the term "gross Philippine billings," thus:

... "Gross Philippine billings" includes gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage

documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggage or mail provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. ...

The foregoing provision ensures that international airlines are taxed on their income from Philippine sources. The 2-½ % tax on gross Philippine billings is an income tax. If it had been intended as an excise or percentage tax it would have been place under Title V of the Tax Code covering Taxes on Business.

Lastly, we find as untenable the BOAC argument that the dismissal for lack of merit by this Court of the appeal inJAL vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. L-30041) on February 3, 1969, is res judicata to the present case. The ruling by the Tax Court in that case was to the effect that the mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, does not render the taxpayer therein subject to the common carrier's tax. As elucidated by the Tax Court, however, the common carrier's tax is an excise tax, being a tax on the activity of transporting, conveying or removing passengers and cargo from one place to another. It purports to tax the business of transportation. 14 Being an excise tax, the same can be levied by the State only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The subject matter of the case under consideration is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in one cannot be res judicata to the other.

WHEREFORE, the appealed joint Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Private respondent, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P534,132.08 as deficiency income tax for the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1970-71 plus 5% surcharge, and 1% monthly interest from April 16, 1972 for a period not to exceed three (3) years in accordance with the Tax Code. The BOAC claim for refund in the amount of P858,307.79 is hereby denied. Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Fernan, J., took no part.

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

TEEHANKEE, C.J., concurring:

I concur with the Court's majority judgment upholding the assessments of deficiency income taxes against respondent BOAC for the fiscal years 1959-1969 to 1970-1971 and therefore setting aside the appealed joint decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals. I just wish to point out that the conflict between the majority opinion penned by Mr. Justice Feliciano as to the proper characterization of the taxable income derived by respondent BOAC from the sales in the Philippines of tickets foe BOAC form the issued by its general sales agent in the Philippines gas become moot

after November 24, 1972. Booth opinions state that by amendment through P.D. No.69, promulgated on November 24, 1972, of section 24(b) (2) of the Tax Code providing dor the rate of income tax on foreign corporations, international carriers such as respondent BOAC, have since then been taxed at a reduced rate of 2-½% on their gross Philippine billings. There is, therefore, no longer ant source of substantial conflict between the two opinions as to the present 2-½% tax on their gross Philippine billings charged against such international carriers as herein respondent foreign corporation.

FELICIANO, J., dissenting:

With great respect and reluctance, i record my dissent from the opinion of Mme. Justice A.A. Melencio-Herrera speaking for the majority . In my opinion, the joint decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Cases Nos. 2373 and 2561, dated 26 January 1983, is correct and should be affirmed.

The fundamental issue raised in this petition for review is whether the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC), a foreign airline company which does not maintain any flight operations to and from the Philippines, is liable for Philippine income taxation in respect of "sales of air tickets" in the Philippines through a general sales agent, relating to the carriage of passengers and cargo between two points both outside the Philippines.

1. The Solicitor General has defined as one of the issue in this case the question of:

2. Whether or not during the fiscal years in question 1 BOAC [was] a resident foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines or [had] an office or place of business in the Philippines.

It is important to note at the outset that the answer to the above-quoted issue is not determinative of the lialibity of the BOAC to Philippine income taxation in respect of the income here involved. The liability of BOAC to Philippine income taxation in respect of such income depends, not on BOAC's status as a "resident foreign corporation" or alternatively, as a "non-resident foreign corporation," but rather on whether or not such income is derived from "source within the Philippines."

A "resident foreign corporation" or foreign corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines or having an office or place of business in the Philippines is subject to Philippine income taxation only in respect of income derived from sources within the Philippines. Section 24 (b) (2) of the National Internal Revenue CODE ("Tax Code"), as amended by Republic Act No. 2343, approved 20 June 1959, as it existed up to 3 August 1969, read as follows:

(2) Resident corporations. — A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business with in the Philippines (expect foreign life insurance companies) shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

Section 24 (a) of the Tax Code in turn provides:

Rate of tax on corporations. — (a) Tax on domestic corporations. — ... and a like tax shall be livied, collected, and paid annually upon the total net income received in the preceeding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines by every corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country: ... . (Emphasis supplied)

Republic Act No. 6110, which took effect on 4 August 1969, made this even clearer when it amended once more Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code so as to read as follows:

(2) Resident Corporations. — A corporation, organized, authorized or existing under the laws of any foreign counrty, except foreign life insurance company, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Exactly the same rule is provided by Section 24 (b) (1) of the Tax Code upon non-resident foreign corporations. Section 24 (b) (1) as amended by Republic Act No. 3825 approved 22 June 1963, read as follows:

(b) Tax on foreign corporations. — (1) Non-resident corporations. — There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premium, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinative annual or periodical gains, profits and income a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount: provided, however, that premiums shall not include reinsurance premiums. 2

Clearly, whether the foreign corporate taxpayer is doing business in the Philippines and therefore a resident foreign corporation, or not doing business in the Philippines and therefore a non-resident foreign corporation, it is liable to income tax only to the extent that it derives income from sources within the Philippines. The circumtances that a foreign corporation is resident in the Philippines yields no inference that all or any part of its income is Philippine source income. Similarly, the non-resident status of a foreign corporation does not imply that it has no Philippine source income. Conversely, the receipt of Philippine source income creates no presumption that the recipient foreign corporation is a resident of the Philippines. The critical issue, for present purposes, is thereforewhether of not BOAC is deriving income from sources within the Philippines.

2. For purposes of income taxation, it is well to bear in mind that the "source of income" relates not to the physical sourcing of a flow of money or the physical situs of payment but rather to the "property, activity or service which produced the income." In Howden and Co., Ltd. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 3 the court dealt with the issue of the applicable source rule relating to reinsurance premiums paid by a local insurance company to a foreign reinsurance company in respect of risks located in the Philippines. The Court said:

The source of an income is the property, activity or services that produced the income. The reinsurance premiums remitted to appellants by virtue of the reinsurance contract, accordingly, had for their source the undertaking to indemnify Commonwealth Insurance Co. against liability. Said undertaking is the activity that produced the reinsurance premiums, and the same took place in the Philippines. — [T]he reinsurance, the liabilities insured and the risk originally underwritten by Commonwealth Insurance Co., upon which the reinsurance premiums and indemnity were based, were all situated in the Philippines. — 4

The Court may be seen to be saying that it is the underlying prestation which is properly regarded as the activity giving rise to the income that is sought to be taxed. In the Howden case, that underlying prestation was theindemnification of the local insurance company. Such indemnification could take place only in the Philippines where the risks were located and where payment from the foreign reinsurance (in case the casualty insured against occurs) would be received in Philippine pesos

under the reinsurance premiums paid by the local insurance companies constituted Philippine source income of the foreign reinsurances.

The concept of "source of income" for purposes of income taxation originated in the United States income tax system. The phrase "sources within the United States" was first introduced into the U.S. tax system in 1916, and was subsequently embodied in the 1939 U.S. Tax Code. As is commonly known, our Tax Code (Commonwealth Act 466, as amended) was patterned after the 1939 U.S. Tax Code. It therefore seems useful to refer to a standard U.S. text on federal income taxation:

The Supreme Court has said, in a definition much quoted but often debated, that income may be derived from three possible sources only: (1) capital and/or (2) labor and/or (3) the sale of capital assets. While the three elements of this attempt at definition need not be accepted as all-inclusive, they serve as useful guides in any inquiry into whether a particular item is from "source within the United States" and suggest an investigation into the nature and location of the activities or property which produce the income. If the income is from labor (services) the place where the labor is done should be decisive; if it is done in this counrty, the income should be from "source within the United States." If the income is from capital, the place where the capital is employedshould be decisive; if it is employed in this country, the income should be from "source within the United States". If the income is from the sale of capital assets, the place where the sale is made should be likewise decisive. Much confusion will be avoided by regarding the term "source" in this fundamental light. It is not a place; it is an activity or property. As such, it has a situs or location; and if that situs or location is within the United States the resulting income is taxable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. The intention of Congress in the 1916 and subsequent statutes was to discard the 1909 and 1913 basis of taxing nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and to make the test of taxability the "source", or situs of the activities or property which produce the income . . . . Thus, if income is to taxed, the recipient thereof must be resident within the jurisdiction, or the property or activities out of which the income issue or is derived must be situated within the jurisdiction so that the source of the income may be said to have a situs in this country. The underlying theory is that the consideration for taxation is protection of life and property and that the income rightly to be levied upon to defray the burdens of the United States Government is that income which is created by activities and property protected by this Government or obtained by persons enjoying that protection. 5

3. We turn now to the question what is the source of income rule applicable in the instant case. There are two possibly relevant source of income rules that must be confronted; (a) the source rule applicable in respect ofcontracts of service; and (b) the source rule applicable in respect of sales of personal property.

Where a contract for the rendition of service is involved, the applicable source rule may be simply stated as follows: the income is sourced in the place where the service contracted for is rendered. Section 37 (a) (3) of our Tax Code reads as follows:

Section 37. Income for sources within the Philippines.

(a) Gross income from sources within the Philippines. — The following items of gross income shall be treated as gross income from sources within the Philippines:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Services. — Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the Philippines;... (Emphasis supplied)

Section 37 (c) (3) of the Tax Code, on the other hand, deals with income from sources without the Philippines in the following manner:

(c) Gross income from sources without the Philippines. — The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the Philippines:

(3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed without the Philippines; ... (Emphasis supplied)

It should not be supposed that Section 37 (a) (3) and (c) (3) of the Tax Code apply only in respect of services rendered by individual natural persons; they also apply to services rendered by or through the medium of a juridical person. 6 Further, a contract of carriage or of transportation is assimilated in our Tax Code and Revenue Regulations to a contract for services. Thus, Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code provides as follows:

(e) Income form sources partly within and partly without the Philippines. — Items of gross income, expenses, losses and deductions, other than those specified in subsections (a) and (c) of this section shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the Philippines, under the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance. ... Gains, profits, and income from (1)transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines, or (2) from the sale of personnel property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines, or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the Philippines. ... (Emphasis supplied)

It should be noted that the above underscored portion of Section 37 (e) was derived from the 1939 U.S. Tax Code which "was based upon a recognition that transportation was a service and that the source of the income derived therefrom was to be treated as being the place where the service of transportation was rendered. 7

Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code quoted above carries a strong well-nigh irresistible, implication that income derived from transportation or other services rendered entirely outside the Philippines must be treated as derived entirely from sources without the Philippines. This implication is reinforced by a consideration of certain provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 2 entitled "Income Tax Regulations" as amended, first promulgated by the Department of Finance on 10 February 1940. Section 155 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (implementing Section 37 of the Tax Code) provides in part as follows:

Section 155. Compensation for labor or personnel services. — Gross income from sources within the Philippines includes compensation for labor or personal services within the Philippines regardless of the residence of the payer, of the place in which the contract for services was made, or of the place of payment — (Emphasis supplied)

Section 163 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (still relating to Section 37 of the Tax Code) deals with a particular species of foreign transportation companies — i.e., foreign steamship companies deriving income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines:

Section 163 Foreign steamship companies. — The return of foreign steamship companies whose vessels touch parts of the Philippines should include as gross income, the total receipts of all out-going business whether freight or passengers. With the gross income thus ascertained, the ratio existing between it and the gross

income from all ports, both within and without the Philippines of all vessels, whether touching of the Philippines or not, should be determined as the basis upon which allowable deductions may be computed, — . (Emphasis supplied)

Another type of utility or service enterprise is dealt with in Section 164 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 (again implementing Section 37 of the Tax Code) with provides as follows:

Section 164. Telegraph and cable services. — A foreign corporation carrying on the business of transmission of telegraph or cable messages between points in the Philippines and points outside the Philippines derives income partly form source within and partly from sources without the Philippines.

... (Emphasis supplied)

Once more, a very strong inference arises under Sections 163 and 164 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 that steamship and telegraph and cable services rendered between points both outside the Philippines give rise to income wholly from sources outside the Philippines, and therefore not subject to Philippine income taxation.

We turn to the "source of income" rules relating to the sale of personal property, upon the one hand, and to the purchase and sale of personal property, upon the other hand.

We consider first sales of personal property. Income from the sale of personal property by the producer or manufacturer of such personal property will be regarded as sourced entirely within or entirely without the Philippines or as sourced partly within and partly without the Philippines, depending upon two factors: (a) the place where the sale of such personal property occurs; and (b) the place where such personal property was produced or manufactured. If the personal property involved was both produced or manufactured and sold outside the Philippines, the income derived therefrom will be regarded as sourced entirely outside the Philippines, although the personal property had been produced outside the Philippines, or if the sale of the property takes place outside the Philippines and the personal was produced in the Philippines, then, the income derived from the sale will be deemed partly as income sourced without the Philippines. In other words, the income (and the related expenses, losses and deductions) will be allocated between sources within and sources without the Philippines. Thus, Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code, although already quoted above, may be usefully quoted again:

(e) Income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines. ... Gains, profits and income from (1) transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines; or (2) from the sale of personal property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines, or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the Philippines. ... (Emphasis supplied)

In contrast, income derived from the purchase and sale of personal property — i. e., trading — is, under the Tax Code, regarded as sourced wholly in the place where the personal property is sold. Section 37 (e) of the Tax Code provides in part as follows:

(e) Income from sources partly within and partly without the Philippines ... Gains, profits and income derived from the purchase of personal property within and its sale without the Philippines or from the purchase of personal property without and its sale

within the Philippines, shall be treated as derived entirely from sources within the country in which sold. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 159 of Revenue Regulations No. 2 puts the applicable rule succinctly:

Section 159. Sale of personal property. Income derived from the purchase and sale of personal property shall be treated as derived entirely from the country in which sold. The word "sold" includes "exchange." The "country" in which "sold" ordinarily means the place where the property is marketed. This Section does not apply to income from the sale personal property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the Philippines or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the Philippines. (See Section 162 of these regulations). (Emphasis supplied)

4. It will be seen that the basic problem is one of characterization of the transactions entered into by BOAC in the Philippines. Those transactions may be characterized either as sales of personal property (i. e., "sales of airline tickets") or as entering into a lease of services or a contract of service or carriage. The applicable "source of income" rules differ depending upon which characterization is given to the BOAC transactions.

The appropriate characterization, in my opinion, of the BOAC transactions is that of entering into contracts of service, i.e., carriage of passengers or cargo between points located outside the Philippines.

The phrase "sale of airline tickets," while widely used in popular parlance, does not appear to be correct as a matter of tax law. The airline ticket in and of itself has no monetary value, even as scrap paper. The value of the ticket lies wholly in the right acquired by the "purchaser" — the passenger — to demand a prestation from BOAC, which prestation consists of the carriage of the "purchaser" or passenger from the one point to another outside the Philippines. The ticket is really the evidence of the contract of carriage entered into between BOAC and the passenger. The money paid by the passenger changes hands in the Philippines. But the passenger does not receive undertaken to be delivered by BOAC. The "purchase price of the airline ticket" is quite different from the purchase price of a physical good or commodity such as a pair of shoes of a refrigerator or an automobile; it is really the compensation paid for the undertaking of BOAC to transport the passenger or cargo outside the Philippines.

The characterization of the BOAC transactions either as sales of personal property or as purchases and sales of personal property, appear entirely inappropriate from other viewpoint. Consider first purchases and sales: is BOAC properly regarded as engaged in trading — in the purchase and sale of personal property? Certainly, BOAC was not purchasing tickets outside the Philippines and selling them in the Philippines. Consider next sales: can BOAC be regarded as "selling" personal property produced or manufactured by it? In a popular or journalistic sense, BOAC might be described as "selling" "a product" — its service. However, for the technical purposes of the law on income taxation, BOAC is in fact entering into contracts of service or carriage. The very existance of "source rules" specifically and precisely applicable to the rendition of services must preclude the application here of "source rules" applying generally to sales, and purchases and sales, of personal property which can be invoked only by the grace of popular language. On a slighty more abstract level, BOAC's income is more appropriately characterized as derived from a "service", rather than from an "activity" (a broader term than service and including the activity of selling) or from the here involved is income taxation, and not a sales tax or an excise or privilege tax.

5. The taxation of international carriers is today effected under Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 69, promulgated on 24 November 1972 and by Presidential Decree No. 1355, promulgated on 21 April 1978, in the following manner:

(2) Resident corporations. — A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceeding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: Provided, however, That international carriers shall pay a tax of two and one-half per cent on their gross Philippine billings. "Gross Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger, excess baggege or mail, provide the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. The gross revenue realized from the said cargo or mail shall include the gross freight charge up to final destination. Gross revenues from chartered flights originating from the Philippines shall likewise form part of "gross Philippine billings" regardless of the place of sale or payment of the passage documents. For purposes of determining the taxability to revenues from chartered flights, the term "originating from the Philippines" shall include flight of passsengers who stay in the Philippines for more than forty-eight (48) hours prior to embarkation. (Emphasis supplied)

Under the above-quoted proviso international carriers issuing for compensation passage documentation in the Philippines for uplifts from any point in the world to any other point in the world, are not charged any Philippineincome tax on their Philippine billings (i.e., billings in respect of passenger or cargo originating from the Philippines). Under this new approach, international carriers who service port or points in the Philippines are treated in exactly the same way as international carriers not serving any port or point in the Philippines. Thus, the source of income rule applicable, as above discussed, to transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the Philippines, or wholly without the Philippines, has been set aside. in place of Philippine income taxation, the Tax Code now imposes this 2½ per cent tax computed on the basis of billings in respect of passengers and cargo originating from the Philippines regardless of where embarkation and debarkation would be taking place. This 2-½ per cent tax is effectively a tax on gross receipts or an excise or privilege tax and not a tax on income. Thereby, the Government has done away with the difficulties attending the allocation of income and related expenses, losses and deductions. Because taxes are the very lifeblood of government, the resulting potential "loss" or "gain" in the amount of taxes collectible by the state is sometimes, with varying degrees of consciousness, considered in choosing from among competing possible characterizations under or interpretation of tax statutes. It is hence perhaps useful to point out that the determination of the appropriate characterization here — that of contracts of air carriage rather than sales of airline tickets — entails no down-the-road loss of income tax revenues to the Government. In lieu thereof, the Government takes in revenues generated by the 2-½ per cent tax on the gross Philippine billings or receipts of international carriers.

I would vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.

 

 

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

  

THIRD DIVISION  SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS,                      Petitioner,

     -  versus  -

   COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,                      Respondent.

  G.R. No. 180356 Present: CORONA, J., Chairperson,VELASCO, JR.,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*

PERALTA, andMENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated:       February 16, 2010

 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x  

D E C I S I O N         

 VELASCO, JR., J.: 

The Case  

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the July 19, 2007 Decision[1] and October 30, 2007 Resolution[2] of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA E.B. Case No. 210, entitled South African Airways v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  The assailed decision affirmed the Decision dated May 10, 2006[3] and Resolution dated August 11, 2006[4] rendered by the CTA First Division.

  

The Facts

           Petitioner South African Airways is a foreign corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republicof South Africa. Its principal office is located at Airways Park, Jones Road, Johannesburg International Airport, South Africa. In thePhilippines, it is an internal air carrier having no landing rights in the country.  Petitioner has a general sales agent in the Philippines, Aerotel Limited Corporation (Aerotel). Aerotel sells passage documents for compensation or commission for petitioner’s off-line flights for the carriage of passengers and cargo between ports or points outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Petitioner is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a corporation, branch office, or partnership. It is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. , summarized as follows: 

   Period

 Date Filed

  2.5% GrossPhil. Billings

For Passenger 1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter4th Quarter

May 30, 2000August 29, 2000

November 29, 2000April 16, 2000

PhP 222,531.25424,046.95422,466.00453,182.91

Sub-total     PhP 1,522,227.11For Cargo 1st Quarter

2nd Quarter3rd Quarter4th Quarter

May 30, 2000August 29, 2000

November 29, 2000April 16, 2000

PhP 81,531.0050,169.6536,383.7437,454.88

Sub-total     PhP 205,539.27TOTAL       1,727,766.38

           Thereafter, on February 5, 2003, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Revenue District Office No. 47, a claim for the refund of the amount of PhP 1,727,766.38 as erroneously paid tax on Gross Philippine Billings (GPB) for the taxable year 2000. Such claim was unheeded. Thus, on April 14, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the refund of the abovementioned amount. The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 6656.           On May 10, 2006, the CTA First Division issued a Decision denying the petition for lack of merit. The CTA ruled that petitioner is a resident foreign

corporation engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. It further ruled that petitioner was not liable to pay tax on its GPB under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code  (NIRC) of 1997. The CTA, however, stated that petitioner is liable to pay a tax of 32% on its income derived from the sales of passage documents in the Philippines. On this ground, the CTA denied petitioner’s claim for a refund.           Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision was denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution dated August 11, 2006.           Thus, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CTA En Banc, reiterating its claim for a refund of its tax payment on its GPB. This was denied by the CTA in its assailed decision. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner was also denied in the assailed resolution of the CTA En Banc.           Hence, petitioner went to us. 

The Issues 

 Whether or not petitioner, as an off-line international carrier

selling passage documents through an independent sales agent in the Philippines, is engaged in trade or business in the Philippines subject to the 32% income tax imposed by Section 28 (A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC.

 Whether or not the income derived by petitioner from the sale of

passage documents covering petitioner’s off-line flights is Philippine-source income subject to Philippine income tax.

 Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund or a tax credit of

erroneously paid tax on Gross Philippine Billings for the taxable year 2000 in the amount of P1,727,766.38.[5]                    

 The Court’s Ruling

           This petition must be denied. 

Petitioner Is Subject to Income Taxat the Rate of 32% of Its Taxable Income

 Preliminarily, we emphasize that petitioner is claiming that it is exempted

from being taxed for its sale of passage documents in the Philippines. Petitioner, however, failed to sufficiently prove such contention.

 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines) Hotel

Corporation,[6] we held, “Since an action for a tax refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, which cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language, it is strictly construed against the claimant who must discharge such burden convincingly.”

 Petitioner has failed to overcome such burden. In essence, petitioner calls upon this Court to determine the legal implication

of the amendment to Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC  defining GPB. It is petitioner’s contention that, with the new definition of GPB, it is no longer liable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a). Further, petitioner argues that because the 2 1/2% tax on GPB is inapplicable to it, it is thereby excluded from the imposition of any income tax.

 Sec. 28(b)(2) of the 1939 NIRC provided:

(2) Resident Corporations. – A corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of a foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be taxable as provided in subsection (a) of this section upon the total net income received in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: Provided, however, that international carriers shall pay a tax of two and one-half percent on their gross Philippine billings. This provision was later amended by Sec. 24(B)(2) of the 1977 NIRC, which

defined GPB as follows: “Gross Philippine billings” include gross revenue realized from uplifts anywhere in the world by any international carrier doing business in the Philippines of passage documents sold therein, whether for passenger,

excess baggage or mail, provided the cargo or mail originates from the Philippines. In the 1986 and 1993 NIRCs, the definition of GPB was further changed to

read: “Gross Philippine Billings” means gross revenue realized from uplifts of passengers anywhere in the world and excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines, covered by passage documents sold in the Philippines. Essentially, prior to the 1997 NIRC, GPB referred to revenues from uplifts

anywhere in the world, provided that the passage documents were sold in the Philippines. Legislature departed from such concept in the 1997 NIRC where GPB is now defined under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a):

 “Gross Philippine Billings” refers to the amount of gross revenue

derived from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines in a continuous and uninterrupted flight, irrespective of the place of sale or issue and the place of payment of the ticket or passage document. Now, it is the place of sale that is irrelevant; as long as the uplifts of

passengers and cargo occur to or from the Philippines, income is included in GPB. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, inasmuch as it does not maintain

flights to or from the Philippines, it is not taxable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC. This much was also found by the CTA. But petitioner further posits the view that due to the non-applicability of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) to it, it is precluded from paying any other income tax for its sale of passage documents in thePhilippines.

 Such position is untenable. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways

Corporation (British Overseas Airways),[7] which was decided under similar factual circumstances, this Court ruled that off-line air carriers having general sales

agents in the Philippines are engaged in or doing business in the Philippines and that their income from sales of passage documents here is income from within the Philippines. Thus, in that case, we held the off-line air carrier liable for the 32% tax on its taxable income.

 Petitioner argues, however, that because British Overseas Airways was

decided under the 1939 NIRC, it does not apply to the instant case, which must be decided under the 1997 NIRC. Petitioner alleges that the 1939 NIRC taxes resident foreign corporations, such as itself, on all income from sources within the Philippines. Petitioner’s interpretation of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC is that, since it is an international carrier that does not maintain flights to or from the Philippines, thereby having no GPB as defined, it is exempt from paying any income tax at all. In other words, the existence of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) according to petitioner precludes the application of Sec. 28(A)(1) to it.

 Its argument has no merit.First, the difference cited by petitioner between the 1939 and 1997 NIRCs

with regard to the taxation of off-line air carriers is more apparent than real. We point out that Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC does not, in any

categorical term, exempt all international air carriers from the coverage of Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. Certainly, had legislature’s intentions been to completely exclude all international air carriers from the application of the general rule under Sec. 28(A)(1), it would have used the appropriate language to do so; but the legislature did not. Thus, the logical interpretation of such provisions is that, if Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) is applicable to a taxpayer, then the general rule under Sec. 28(A)(1) would not apply. If, however, Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) does not apply, a resident foreign corporation, whether an international air carrier or not, would be liable for the tax under Sec. 28(A)(1).

 Clearly, no difference exists between British Overseas Airways and the

instant case, wherein petitioner claims that the former case does not apply. Thus, British Overseas Airways applies to the instant case. The findings therein that an off-line air carrier is doing business in the Philippines and that income from the sale of passage documents here is Philippine-source income must be upheld.

 

Petitioner further reiterates its argument that the intention of Congress in amending the definition of GPB is to exempt off-line air carriers from income tax by citing the pronouncements made by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile during the deliberations on the provisions of the 1997 NIRC. Such pronouncements, however, are not controlling on this Court. We said in Espino v. Cleofe:[8]

 A cardinal rule in the interpretation of statutes is that the meaning

and intention of the law-making body must be sought, first of all, in the words of the statute itself, read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly-accepted and most obvious significations, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction. Courts, therefore, as a rule, cannot presume that the law-making body does not know the meaning of words and rules of grammar. Consequently, the grammatical reading of a statute must be presumed to yield its correct sense. x x x It is also a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction that statements made by individual members of Congress in the consideration of a bill do not necessarily reflect the sense of that body and are, consequently, not controlling in the interpretation of law. (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover, an examination of the subject provisions of the law would show

that petitioner’s interpretation of those provisions is erroneous. Sec. 28(A)(1) and (A)(3)(a) provides: SEC. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations. -

 (A) Tax on Resident Foreign Corporations. - (1) In General. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, a

corporation organized, authorized, or existing under the laws of any foreign country, engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, shall be subject to an income tax equivalent to thirty-five percent (35%) of the taxable income derived in the preceding taxable year from all sources within the Philippines: provided, That effective January 1, 1998, the rate of income tax shall be thirty-four percent (34%); effective January 1, 1999, the rate shall be thirty-three percent (33%), and effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, the rate shall be thirty-two percent (32%).

 x x x x (3) International Carrier. - An international carrier doing business

in the Philippines shall pay a tax of two and one-half percent (2 1/2%) on its ‘Gross Philippine Billings’ as defined hereunder:

 (a) International Air Carrier. – ‘Gross Philippine Billings’

refers to the amount of gross revenue derived from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines in a continuous and uninterrupted flight, irrespective of the place of sale or issue and the place of payment of the ticket or passage document: Provided, That tickets revalidated, exchanged and/or indorsed to another international airline form part of the Gross Philippine Billings if the passenger boards a plane in a port or point in the Philippines: Provided, further, That for a flight which originates from the Philippines, but transshipment of passenger takes place at any port outside the Philippines on another airline, only the aliquot portion of the cost of the ticket corresponding to the leg flown from the Philippines to the point of transshipment shall form part of Gross Philippine Billings.

 Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC is a general rule that resident foreign

corporations are liable for 32% tax on all income from sources within the Philippines.  Sec. 28(A)(3) is an exception to this general rule.

 An exception is defined as “that which would otherwise be included in the

provision from which it is excepted. It is a clause which exempts something from the operation of a statue by express words.”[9] Further, “an exception need not be introduced by the words ‘except’ or ‘unless.’ An exception will be construed as such if it removes something from the operation of a provision of law.”[10]

 In the instant case, the general rule is that resident foreign corporations shall

be liable for a 32% income tax on their income from within the Philippines, except for resident foreign corporations that are international carriers that derive income “from carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail originating from the Philippines” which shall be taxed at 2 1/2% of their Gross Philippine Billings.

Petitioner, being an international carrier with no flights originating from the Philippines, does not fall under the exception. As such, petitioner must fall under the general rule. This principle is embodied in the Latin maxim, exception firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which means, a thing not being excepted must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general rule.[11]

 To reiterate, the correct interpretation of the above provisions is that, if an

international air carrier maintains flights to and from the Philippines, it shall be taxed at the rate of 2 1/2% of its Gross Philippine Billings, while international air carriers that do not have flights to and from the Philippines but nonetheless earn income from other activities in the country will be taxed at the rate of 32% of such income.

 As to the denial of petitioner’s claim for refund, the CTA denied the claim

on the basis that petitioner is liable for income tax under Sec. 28(A)(1) of the 1997 NIRC. Thus, petitioner raises the issue of whether the existence of such liability would preclude their claim for a refund of tax paid on the basis of Sec. 28(A)(3)(a). In answer to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the CTA First Division ruled in its Resolution dated August 11, 2006, thus:

 On the fourth argument, petitioner avers that a deficiency tax

assessment does not, in any way, disqualify a taxpayer from claiming a tax refund since a refund claim can proceed independently of a tax assessment and that the assessment cannot be offset by its claim for refund.

 Petitioner’s argument is erroneous. Petitioner premises its

argument on the existence of an assessment. In the assailed Decision, this Court did not, in any way, assess petitioner of any deficiency corporate income tax. The power to make assessments against taxpayers is lodged with the respondent. For an assessment to be made, respondent must observe the formalities provided in Revenue Regulations No. 12-99. This Court merely pointed out that petitioner is liable for the regular corporate income tax by virtue of Section 28(A)(3) of the Tax Code. Thus, there is no assessment to speak of.[12]

 Precisely, petitioner questions the offsetting of its payment of the tax under

Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) with their liability under Sec. 28(A)(1), considering that there has

not yet been any assessment of their obligation under the latter provision. Petitioner argues that such offsetting is in the nature of legal compensation, which cannot be applied under the circumstances present in this case.

 Article 1279 of the Civil Code contains the elements of legal compensation,

to wit: 

Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:

 (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and

that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other;(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the

things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;

(3) That the two debts be due;(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or

controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

  And we ruled in Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue,[13] thus: 

In several instances prior to the instant case, we have already made the pronouncement that taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the aforementioned distinction.

 Prescinding from this premise, in Francia v. Intermediate

Appellate Court, we categorically held that taxes cannot be subject to set-off or compensation, thus:

 We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting

of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the

government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the government.

 The ruling in Francia has been applied to the subsequent case

of Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, which reiterated that: 

. . . a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government. Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off.

 Verily, petitioner’s argument is correct that the offsetting of its tax refund

with its alleged tax deficiency is unavailing under Art. 1279 of the Civil Code. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals,[14] however,

granted the offsetting of a tax refund with a tax deficiency in this wise:Further, it is also worth noting that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in

denying petitioner’s supplemental motion for reconsideration alleging bringing to said court’s attention the existence of the deficiency income and business tax assessment against Citytrust. The fact of such deficiency assessment is intimately related to and inextricably intertwined with the right of respondent bank to claim for a tax refund for the same year. To award such refund despite the existence of that deficiency assessment is an absurdity and a polarity in conceptual effects. Herein private respondent cannot be entitled to refund and at the same time be liable for a tax deficiency assessment for the same year.

 The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax

return is valid, that is, the facts stated therein are true and correct. The deficiency assessment, although not yet final, created a doubt as to and constitutes a challenge against the truth and accuracy of the facts stated in said return which, by itself and without unquestionable evidence, cannot be the basis for the grant of the refund.

 Section 82, Chapter IX of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977,

which was the applicable law when the claim of Citytrust was filed, provides that “(w)hen an assessment is made in case of any list, statement, or return, which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was false or fraudulent or contained any understatement or undervaluation, no tax collected under such assessment shall be recovered by any suits unless it is proved that the said list,

statement, or return was not false nor fraudulent and did not contain any understatement or undervaluation; but this provision shall not apply to statements or returns made or to be made in good faith regarding annual depreciation of oil or gas wells and mines.”

 Moreover, to grant the refund without determination of the proper

assessment and the tax due would inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings or suits. If the deficiency assessment should subsequently be upheld, the Government will be forced to institute anew a proceeding for the recovery of erroneously refunded taxes which recourse must be filed within the prescriptive period of ten years after discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission in the false or fraudulent return involved. This would necessarily require and entail additional efforts and expenses on the part of the Government, impose a burden on and a drain of government funds, and impede or delay the collection of much-needed revenue for governmental operations.

Thus, to avoid multiplicity of suits and unnecessary difficulties or expenses, it is both logically necessary and legally appropriate that the issue of the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust be resolved jointly with its claim for tax refund, to determine once and for all in a single proceeding the true and correct amount of tax due or refundable.

 In fact, as the Court of Tax Appeals itself has heretofore conceded, it

would be only just and fair that the taxpayer and the Government alike be given equal opportunities to avail of remedies under the law to defeat each other’s claim and to determine all matters of dispute between them in one single case. It is important to note that in determining whether or not petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount paid, it would [be] necessary to determine how much the Government is entitled to collect as taxes. This would necessarily include the determination of the correct liability of the taxpayer and, certainly, a determination of this case would constitute res judicata on both parties as to all the matters subject thereof or necessarily involved therein. (Emphasis supplied.)

 Sec. 82, Chapter IX of the 1977 Tax Code is now Sec. 72, Chapter XI of the

1997 NIRC. The above pronouncements are, therefore, still applicable today. Here, petitioner’s similar tax refund claim assumes that the tax return that it

filed was correct. Given, however, the finding of the CTA that petitioner, although not liable under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC, is liable under Sec. 28(A)(1), the correctness of the return filed by petitioner is now put in doubt. As such, we cannot grant the prayer for a refund.

 Be that as it may, this Court is unable to affirm the assailed decision and

resolution of the CTA En Banc on the outright denial of petitioner’s claim for a

refund. Even though petitioner is not entitled to a refund due to the question on the propriety of petitioner’s tax return subject of the instant controversy, it would not be proper to deny such claim without making a determination of petitioner’s liability under Sec. 28(A)(1).

 It must be remembered that the tax under Sec. 28(A)(3)(a) is based on GPB,

while Sec. 28(A)(1) is based on taxable income, that is, gross income less deductions and exemptions, if any. It cannot be assumed that petitioner’s liabilities under the two provisions would be the same. There is a need to make a determination of petitioner’s liability under Sec. 28(A)(1) to establish whether a tax refund is forthcoming or that a tax deficiency exists. The assailed decision fails to mention having computed for the tax due under Sec. 28(A)(1) and the records are bereft of any evidence sufficient to establish petitioner’s taxable income. There is a necessity to receive evidence to establish such amount vis-à-vis the claim for refund. It is only after such amount is established that a tax refund or deficiency may be correctly pronounced.

 WHEREFORE, the assailed July 19, 2007 Decision and October 30, 2007

Resolution of the CTA En Banc in CTA E.B. Case No. 210 are SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the CTA En Banc for further proceedings and appropriate action, more particularly, the reception of evidence for both parties and the corresponding disposition of CTA E.B. Case No. 210 not otherwise inconsistent with our judgment in this Decision.           SO ORDERED. 

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119286             October 13, 2004

PASEO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

The changes in the reportorial requirements and payment schedules of corporate income taxes from annual to quarterly have created problems, especially on the matter of tax refunds.1 In this case, the Court is called to resolve the question of whether alleged excess taxes paid by a corporation during a taxable year should be refunded or credited against its tax liabilities for the succeeding year.

Paseo Realty and Development Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the lease of two (2) parcels of land at Paseo de Roxas in Makati City, seeks a review of the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dismissing its petition for review of the resolution3 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which, in turn, denied its claim for refund.

The factual antecedents4 are as follows:

On April 16, 1990, petitioner filed its Income Tax Return for the calendar year 1989 declaring a gross income of P1,855,000.00, deductions of P1,775,991.00, net income of P79,009.00, an income tax due thereon in the amount of P27,653.00, prior year’s excess credit of P146,026.00, and creditable taxes withheld in 1989 of P54,104.00 or a total tax credit of P200,130.00 and credit balance of P172,477.00.

On November 14, 1991, petitioner filed with respondent a claim for "the refund of excess creditable withholding and income taxes for the years 1989 and 1990 in the aggregate amount of P147,036.15."

On December 27, 1991 alleging that the prescriptive period for refunds for 1989 would expire on December 30, 1991 and that it was necessary to interrupt the prescriptive period, petitioner filed with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review praying for the refund of "P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld from income payments of petitioner for the calendar year ending December 31, 1989."

On February 25, 1992, respondent Commissioner filed an Answer and by way of special and/or affirmative defenses averred the following: a) the petition states no cause of action for failure to allege the dates when the taxes sought to be refunded were paid; b) petitioner’s claim for refund is still under investigation by respondent Commissioner; c) the taxes claimed are deemed to have been paid and collected in accordance with law and existing pertinent rules and regulations; d) petitioner failed to allege that it is entitled to the refund or deductions claimed; e) petitioner’s contention that it has available tax credit for the current and prior year is gratuitous and does not ipso facto warrant the refund; f) petitioner failed to show that it has complied with the provision of Section 230 in relation to Section 204 of the Tax Code.

After trial, the respondent Court rendered a decision ordering respondent Commissioner "to refund in favor of petitioner the amount of P54,104.00, representing excess creditable withholding taxes paid for January to July1989."

Respondent Commissioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, alleging that the P54,104.00 ordered to be refunded "has already been included and is part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990."

In a resolution dated October 21, 1993 Respondent Court reconsidered its decision of July 29, 1993 and dismissed the petition for review, stating that it has "overlooked the fact that the petitioner’s 1989 Corporate Income Tax Return (Exh. "A") indicated that the amount of P54,104.00 subject of petitioner’s claim for refund has already been included as part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which the petitioner automatically applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990."

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Court on March 10, 1994.5

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review6 dated April 3, 1994 with the Court of Appeals. Resolving the twin issues of whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld in 1989 and whether petitioner applied such creditable taxes withheld to its 1990 income tax liability, the appellate court held that petitioner is not entitled to a refund because it had already elected to apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the P54,104.00 refund claimed, against its income tax liability for 1990. The appellate court elucidated on the reason for its dismissal of petitioner’s claim for refund, thus:

In the instant case, it appears that when petitioner filed its income tax return for the year 1989, it filled up the box stating that the total amount of P172,477.00 shall be applied against its income tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year.

Petitioner did not specify in its return the amount to be refunded and the amount to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year, but merely marked an "x" to the box indicating "to be applied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year." Unlike what petitioner had done when it filed its income tax return for the year 1988, it specifically stated that out of the P146,026.00 the entire refundable amount, only P64,623.00 will be made available as tax credit, while the amount of P81,403.00 will be refunded.

In its 1989 income tax return, petitioner filled up the box "to be applied as tax credit to succeeding taxable year," which signified that instead of refund, petitioner will apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the amount of P54,104.00 sought to be refunded, as tax credit for its tax liabilities in 1990. Thus, there is really nothing left to be refunded to petitioner for the year 1989. To grant petitioner’s claim for refund is tantamount to granting twice the refund herein sought to be refunded, to the prejudice of the Government.

The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration7 dated November 8, 1994 in its Resolution8dated February 21, 1995 because the motion merely restated the grounds which have already been considered and passed upon in its Decision.9

Petitioner thus filed the instant Petition for Review10 dated April 14, 1995 arguing that the evidence presented before the lower courts conclusively shows that it did not apply the P54,104.00 to its 1990 income tax liability; that the Decision subject of the instant petition is inconsistent with a final decision11 of the Sixteenth Division of the appellate court in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 involving the same parties and subject matter; and that the affirmation of the questioned Decision would lead to absurd results in the manner of claiming refunds or in the application of prior years’ excess tax credits.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment12 dated May 16, 1996 on behalf of respondents asserting that the claimed refund of P54,104.00 was, by petitioner’s election in its Corporate Annual Income Tax Return for 1989, to be applied against its tax liability for 1990. Not having submitted its tax return for 1990 to show whether the said amount was indeed applied

against its tax liability for 1990, petitioner’s election in its tax return stands. The OSG also contends that petitioner’s election to apply its overpaid income tax as tax credit against its tax liabilities for the succeeding taxable year is mandatory and irrevocable.

On September 2, 1997, petitioner filed a Reply13 dated August 31, 1996 insisting that the issue in this case is not whether the amount of P54,104.00 was included as tax credit to be applied against its 1990 income tax liability but whether the same amount was actually applied as tax credit for 1990. Petitioner claims that there is no need to show that the amount of P54,104.00 had not been automatically applied against its 1990 income tax liability because the appellate court’s decision in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890 clearly held that petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability against its tax credit for 1988 and not 1989. Petitioner also disputes the OSG’s assertion that the taxpayer’s election as to the application of excess taxes is irrevocable averring that there is nothing in the law that prohibits a taxpayer from changing its mind especially if subsequent events leave the latter no choice but to change its election.

The OSG filed a Rejoinder14 dated March 5, 1997 stating that petitioner’s 1988 tax return shows a prior year’s excess credit of P81,403.00, creditable tax withheld of P92,750.00 and tax due of P27,127.00. Petitioner indicated that the prior year’s excess credit of P81,403.00 was to be refunded, while the remaining amount of P64,623.00 (P92,750.00 - P27,127.00) shall be considered as tax credit for 1989. However, in its 1989 tax return, petitioner included the P81,403.00 which had already been segregated for refund in the computation of its excess credit, and specified that the full amount of P172,479.00* (P81,403.00 + P64,623.00 + P54,104.00** - P27,653.00***) be considered as its tax credit for 1990. Considering that it had obtained a favorable ruling for the refund of its excess credit for 1988 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 32890, its remaining tax credit for 1989 should be the excess credit to be applied against its 1990 tax liability. In fine, the OSG argues that by its own election, petitioner can no longer ask for a refund of its creditable taxes withheld in 1989 as the same had been applied against its 1990 tax due.

In its Resolution15 dated July 16, 1997, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously file their respective memoranda within 30 days from notice. In compliance with this directive, petitioner submitted its Memorandum16 dated September 18, 1997 in due time, while the OSG filed itsMemorandum17 dated April 27, 1998 only on April 29, 1998 after several extensions.

The petition must be denied.

As a matter of principle, it is not advisable for this Court to set aside the conclusion reached by an agency such as the CTA which is, by the very nature of its functions, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of its authority.18

This interdiction finds particular application in this case since the CTA, after careful consideration of the merits of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s motion for reconsideration, reconsidered its earlier decision which ordered the latter to refund the amount of P54,104.00 to petitioner. Its resolution cannot be successfully assailed based, as it is, on the pertinent laws as applied to the facts.

Petitioner’s 1989 tax return indicates an aggregate creditable tax of P172,477.00, representing its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 and 1989 creditable tax of P54,104.00 less tax due for 1989, which it elected to apply as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year.19 According to petitioner, it successively utilized this amount when it obtained refunds in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300) and CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890), and applied its 1990 tax liability, leaving

a balance of P54,104.00, the amount subject of the instant claim for refund.20 Represented mathematically, petitioner accounts for its claim in this wise:

P172,477.00

Amount indicated in petitioner’s 1989 tax return to be applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year

- 25,623.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300)

P146,854.00

Balance as of April 16, 1990

- 59,510.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890)

P87,344.00 Balance as of January 2, 1991

- 33,240.00 Income tax liability for calendar year 1990 applied as of April 15, 1991

P54,104.00 Balance as of April 15, 1991 now subject of the instant claim for refund21

Other than its own bare allegations, however, petitioner offers no proof to the effect that its creditable tax ofP172,477.00 was applied as claimed above. Instead, it anchors its assertion of entitlement to refund on an alleged finding in C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 3289022 involving the same parties to the effect that petitioner charged its 1990 income tax liability to its tax credit for 1988 and not its 1989 tax credit. Hence, its excess creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 for 1989 was left untouched and may be refunded.

Note should be taken, however, that nowhere in the case referred to by petitioner did the Court of Appeals make a categorical determination that petitioner’s tax liability for 1990 was applied against its 1988 tax credit. The statement adverted to by petitioner was actually presented in the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. Sp No. 32890 as part of petitioner’s own narration of facts. The pertinent portion of the decision reads:

It would appear from petitioner’s submission as follows:

x x x since it has already applied to its prior year’s excess credit of P81,403.00 (which petitioner wanted refunded when it filed its 1988 Income Tax Return on April 14, 1989) the income tax liability for 1988 ofP28,127.00 and the income tax liability for 1989 of P27,653.00, leaving a balance refundable of P25,623.00 subject of C.T.A. Case No. 4439, the P92,750.00 (P64,623.00 plus P28,127.00, since this second amount was already applied to the amount refundable of P81,403.00) should be the refundable amount. But since the taxpayer again used part of it to satisfy its income tax liability of P33,240.00 for 1990, the amount refundable was P59,510.00, which is the amount prayed for in the claim for refund and also in the petitioner (sic) for review.

That the present claim for refund already consolidates its claims for refund for 1988, 1989, and 1990, when it filed a claim for refund of P59,510.00 in this case (CTA Case No. 4528). Hence, the present claim should be resolved together with the previous claims.23

The confusion as to petitioner’s entitlement to a refund could altogether have been avoided had it presented its tax return for 1990. Such return would have shown whether petitioner actually applied

its 1989 tax credit ofP172,477.00, which includes the P54,104.00 creditable taxes withheld for 1989 subject of the instant claim for refund, against its 1990 tax liability as it had elected in its 1989 return, or at least, whether petitioner’s tax credit ofP172,477.00 was applied to its approved refunds as it claims.

The return would also have shown whether there remained an excess credit refundable to petitioner after deducting its tax liability for 1990. As it is, we only have petitioner’s allegation that its tax due for 1990 wasP33,240.00 and that this was applied against its remaining tax credits using its own "first in, first out" method of computation.

It would have been different had petitioner not included the P54,104.00 creditable taxes for 1989 in the total amount it elected to apply against its 1990 tax liabilities. Then, all that would have been required of petitioner are: proof that it filed a claim for refund within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 230 of the NIRC; evidence that the income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in its return; and to establish the fact of withholding by a copy of the statement (BIR Form No. 1743.1) issued by the payor24 to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. However, since petitioner opted to apply its aggregate excess credits as tax credit for 1990, it was incumbent upon it to present its tax return for 1990 to show that the claimed refund had not been automatically credited and applied to its 1990 tax liabilities.

The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, i.e., that the facts stated therein are true and correct.25 Without the tax return, it is error to grant a refund since it would be virtually impossible to determine whether the proper taxes have been assessed and paid.

Why petitioner failed to present such a vital piece of evidence confounds the Court. Petitioner could very well have attached a copy of its final adjustment return for 1990 when it filed its claim for refund on November 13, 1991. Annex "B" of its Petition for Review26 dated December 26, 1991 filed with the CTA, in fact, states that its annual tax return for 1990 was submitted in support of its claim. Yet, petitioner’s tax return for 1990 is nowhere to be found in the records of this case.

Had petitioner presented its 1990 tax return in refutation of respondent Commissioner’s allegation that it did not present evidence to prove that its claimed refund had already been automatically credited against its 1990 tax liability, the CTA would not have reconsidered its earlier Decision. As it is, the absence of petitioner’s 1990 tax return was the principal basis of the CTA’s Resolution reconsidering its earlier Decision to grant petitioner’s claim for refund.

Petitioner could even still have attached a copy of its 1990 tax return to its petition for review before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, being a trier of facts, is authorized to receive it in evidence and would likely have taken it into account in its disposition of the petition.

In BPI-Family Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals,27 although petitioner failed to present its 1990 tax return, it presented other evidence to prove its claim that it did not apply and could not have applied the amount in dispute as tax credit. Importantly, petitioner therein attached a copy of its final adjustment return for 1990 to its motion for reconsideration before the CTA buttressing its claim that it incurred a net loss and is thus entitled to refund. Considering this fact, the Court held that there is no reason for the BIR to withhold the tax refund.

In this case, petitioner’s failure to present sufficient evidence to prove its claim for refund is fatal to its cause. After all, it is axiomatic that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer.28

Section 69, Chapter IX, Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC) provides:

Sec. 69. Final Adjustment Return.—Every corporation liable to tax under Section 24 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total net income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable net income of that year the corporation shall either:

(a) Pay the excess tax still due; or

(b) Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year.[Emphasis supplied]

Revenue Regulation No. 10-77 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue clarifies:

SEC. 7. Filing of final or adjustment return and final payment of income tax. – A final or an adjustment return on B.I.R. Form No. 1702 covering the total taxable income of the corporation for the preceding calendar or fiscal year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year. The return shall include all the items of gross income and deductions for the taxable year. The amount of income tax to be paid shall be the balance of the total income tax shown on the final or adjustment return after deducting therefrom the total quarterly income taxes paid during the preceding first three quarters of the same calendar or fiscal year.

Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual income tax computed and shown in the adjustment or final corporate income tax return shall either (a) be refunded to the corporation, or (b) may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year. The corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return its intention whether to request for refund of the overpaid income tax or claim for automatic credit to be applied against its income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year by filling up the appropriate box on the corporate tax return (B.I.R. Form No. 1702). [Emphasis supplied]

As clearly shown from the above-quoted provisions, in case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding year. The carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year is limited to the succeeding taxable year only.

In the recent case of AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,29 where the Court declared that "[T]he carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a given taxable year then islimited to the succeeding taxable year only," we ruled that since the case involved a claim for refund of overpaid taxes for 1993, petitioner could only have applied the 1993 excess tax credits to its 1994 income tax liabilities. To further carry-over to 1995 the 1993 excess tax credits is violative of Section 69 of the NIRC.

In this case, petitioner included its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 in the computation of its total excess credit for 1989. It indicated this amount, plus the 1989 creditable taxes withheld of P54,104.00 or a total of P172,477.00, as its total excess credit to be applied as tax credit for 1990. By its own disclosure, petitioner effectively combined its 1988 and 1989 tax credits and applied its 1990 tax due of P33,240.00 against the total, and not against its creditable taxes for 1989 only as allowed by Section 69. This is a clear admission that petitioner’s 1988 tax credit was incorrectly and illegally applied against its 1990 tax liabilities.

Parenthetically, while a taxpayer is given the choice whether to claim for refund or have its excess taxes applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year, such election is not final. Prior verification and approval by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is required. The availment of the remedy of tax credit is not absolute and mandatory. It does not confer an absolute right on the taxpayer to avail of the tax credit scheme if it so chooses. Neither does it impose a duty on the part of the government to sit back and allow an important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the taxpayer.30

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion however, the taxpayer’s election, signified by the ticking of boxes in Item 10 of BIR Form No. 1702, is not a mere technical exercise. It aids in the proper management of claims for refund or tax credit by leading tax authorities to the direction they should take in addressing the claim.

The amendment of Section 69 by what is now Section 76 of Republic Act No. 842431 emphasizes that it is imperative to indicate in the tax return or the final adjustment return whether a tax credit or refund is sought by making the taxpayer’s choice irrevocable. Section 76 provides:

SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.—Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either:

(A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or

(B) Carry-over the excess credit; or

(C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefore. [Emphasis supplied]

As clearly seen from this provision, the taxpayer is allowed three (3) options if the sum of its quarterly tax payments made during the taxable year is not equal to the total tax due for that year: (a) pay the balance of the tax still due; (b) carry-over the excess credit; or (c) be credited or refunded the amount paid. If the taxpayer has paid excess quarterly income taxes, it may be entitled to a tax credit or refund as shown in its final adjustment return which may be carried over and applied against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding

taxable years. However, once the taxpayer has exercised the option to carry-over and to apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed.

Had this provision been in effect when the present claim for refund was filed, petitioner’s excess credits for 1988 could have been properly applied to its 1990 tax liabilities. Unfortunately for petitioner, this is not the case.

Taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government. And since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of refund or exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and be based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception.32

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is herebyAFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

 

 SECOND DIVISION  

MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSIONFOUNDATION, INCORPORATED,                                           Petitioner,  

             - versus -

   COURT OF APPEALS andCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE,                                       Respondents.

        G.R. No. 162175         Present:         CARPIO, J.,Chairperson,               PERALTA,        ABAD,        PEREZ,* and        MENDOZA, JJ.           Promulgated:        June 28, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 

 D E C I S I O N

  

CARPIO, J.: 

The Case

        

         The Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Incorporated (petitioner or MJOPFI) filed this Petition for Certiorari[1] with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to reverse the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Decision[2] dated 30 May 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 61829 as well as the Resolution[3] dated 7 November 2003 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. In the assailed decision, the CA affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals’ (CTA) Decision[4] dated 24 October 2000. The CTA denied petitioner’s claim for refund of withheld creditable tax of P3,037,500 arising from the sale of real property of which petitioner claims to be a co-owner as trustee of the employees’ trust or retirement funds.

 

The Facts

          Petitioner, a non-stock and non-profit corporation, was organized for the purpose of holding title to and administering the employees’ trust or retirement funds (Employees’ Trust Fund) established for the benefit of the employees of Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMC).[5] Petitioner, as trustee, claims that the income earned by the Employees’ Trust Fund is tax exempt under Section 53(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code).                 Petitioner alleges that on 25 March 1992, petitioner decided to invest part of the Employees’ Trust Fund to purchase a lot[6] in the Madrigal Business Park (MBP lot) in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Petitioner bought the MBP lot through VMC.[7] Petitioner alleges that its investment in the MBP lot came about upon the invitation of VMC, which also purchased two lots. Petitioner claims that its share

in the MBP lot is 49.59%. Petitioner’s investment manager, the Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust),[8] in submitting its Portfolio Mix Analysis, regularly reported the Employees’ Trust Fund’s share in the MBP lot.[9] The MBP lot is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title   No. 183907 (TCT 183907) with VMC as the registered owner.[10]

          Petitioner claims that since it needed funds to pay the retirement and pension benefits of VMC employees and to reimburse advances made by VMC, petitioner’s Board of Trustees authorized the sale of its share in the MBP lot.[11]

          On 14 March 1997, VMC negotiated the sale of the MBP lot with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. (Metrobank) forP81,675,000, but the consummation of the sale was withheld.[12] On 26 March 1997, VMC eventually sold the MBP lot to Metrobank. VMC, through its Vice President Rolando Rodriguez and Assistant Vice President Teodorico Escober, signed the Deed of Absolute Sale as the sole vendor.            Metrobank, as withholding agent, paid the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) P6,125,625 as withholding tax on the sale of real property.          Petitioner alleges that the parties who co-owned the MBP lot executed a notarized Memorandum of Agreement as to the proceeds of the sale, the pertinent provisions of which state:[13]

 

                   2. The said parcels of land are actually co-owned by the following:             BLOCK 4, LOT 1 COVERED BY TCT NO. 183907

  % SQ.M. AMOUNT

MJOPFI 49.59% 450.00 P  5,504,748.25

VMC 32.23% 351.02 3,578,294.70

VFC 18.18% 197.98 2,018,207.30

             3. Since Lot 1 has been sold for P81,675,000.00 (gross of 7.5% withholding tax and 3% broker’s commission, MJOPFI’s share in the proceeds of the sale is P40,500,000.00 (gross of 7.5% withholding tax and 3% broker’s commission. However, MJO Pension Fund is indebted to VMC representing pension benefit advances paid to retirees amounting to P21,425,141.54, thereby

leaving a balance of P14,822,358.46 in favor of MJOPFI. Check for said amount of P14,822,358.46 will therefore be issued to MJOPFI as its share in the proceeds of the sale of Lot 1. The check corresponding to said amount will be deposited with MJOPFI’s account with BPI Asset Management & Trust Group which will then be invested by it in the usual course of its administration of MJOPFI funds.

          Petitioner claims that it is a co-owner of the MBP lot as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, based on the notarized Memorandum of Agreement presented before the appellate courts. Petitioner asserts that VMC has confirmed that petitioner, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, is VMC’s co-owner of the MBP lot.   Petitioner maintains that its ownership of the MBP lot is supported by the excerpts of the minutes and the resolutions of petitioner’s Board Meetings.  Petitioner further contends that there is no dispute that the Employees’ Trust Fund is exempt from income tax. Since petitioner, as trustee,  purchased 49.59% of the MBP lot using funds of the Employees’ Trust Fund, petitioner asserts that the Employees’ Trust Fund's 49.59% share in the income tax paid (orP3,037,697.40 rounded off to P3,037,500) should be refunded.[14]

                 Petitioner maintains that the tax exemption of the Employees’ Trust Fund rendered the payment of P3,037,500 as illegal or erroneous. On 5 May 1997, petitioner filed a claim for tax refund.[15]

                 On 14 August 1997, the BIR, through its Revenue District Officer, wrote petitioner stating that under Section 26 of the Tax Code, petitioner is not exempt from tax on its income from the sale of real property. The BIR asked petitioner to submit documents to prove its co-ownership of the MBP lot and its exemption from tax.[16]

 

         On 2 September 1997, petitioner replied that the applicable provision granting its claim for tax exemption is not Section 26 but Section 53(b) of the Tax Code. Petitioner claims that its co-ownership of the MBP lot is evidenced by Board Resolution Nos. 92-34 and 96-46 and the memoranda of agreement among petitioner, VMC and its subsidiaries.[17]

          Since the BIR failed to act on petitioner’s claim for refund, petitioner elevated its claim to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on 26 October

1998. The CIR did not act on petitioner’s claim for refund. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for tax refund before the CTA. On 24 October 2000, the CTA rendered a decision denying the petition.[18]

          On 22 November 2000, petitioner filed its Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. On 20 May 2003, the CA rendered a decision denying the appeal. The CA also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.[19]

          Aggrieved by the appellate court’s Decision, petitioner elevated the case before this Court.

 

The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals          The CTA held that under Section 53(b)[20] [now Section 60(b)] of the Tax Code, it is not petitioner that is entitled to exemption from income tax but the income or earnings of the Employees’ Trust Fund. The CTA stated that petitioner is not the pension trust itself but it is a separate and distinct entity whose function is to administer the pension plan for some VMC employees.[21]  The CTA, after evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, ruled that petitioner is not a party in interest.          To prove its co-ownership over the MBP lot, petitioner presented the following documents: 

a.        Secretary’s Certificate showing how the purchase and eventual sale of   the MBP lot came about.

             b.  Memoranda of Agreement showing various details:   

i.    That the MBP lot was co-owned by VMC and petitioner on a 50/50 basis;  ii.  That VMC held the property in trust for North Legaspi Land Development Corporation, North Negros Marketing Co., Inc., Victorias Insurance Factors Corporation, Victorias Science and Technical Foundation, Inc. and Canetown Development Corporation. 

 

iii.  That the previous agreement (ii) was cancelled and it showed that the MBP lot was co-owned by petitioner, VMC and Victorias Insurance Factors Corporation (VFC).[22]

  

The CTA ruled that these pieces of evidence are self-serving and cannot by themselves prove petitioner’s co-ownership of  the MBP lot when the TCT, the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld (Remittance Return) disclose otherwise. The CTA further ruled that petitioner failed to present any evidence to prove that the money used to purchase the MBP lot came from the Employees' Trust Fund.[23]

          The CTA concluded that petitioner is estopped from claiming a tax exemption. The CTA pointed out that VMC has led the government to believe that it is the sole owner of the MBP lot through its execution of the Deeds of Absolute Sale both during the purchase and subsequent sale of the MBP lot and through the registration of the MBP lot in VMC’s name. Consequently, the tax was also paid in VMC’s name alone. The CTA stated  that petitioner may not now claim a refund of a portion of the tax paid by the mere expediency of presenting Secretary’s Certificates and memoranda of agreement in order to prove its ownership. These documents are self-serving; hence, these documents merit very little weight.[24]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals          The CA declared that the findings of the CTA involved three types of documentary evidence that petitioner presented to prove its contention that it purchased 49.59% of the MBP lot with funds from the Employees’ Trust Fund: (1) the memoranda of agreement executed by petitioner and other VMC subsidiaries; (2) Secretary’s Certificates containing excerpts of the minutes of meetings conducted by the respective boards of directors or trustees of VMC and petitioner; (3) Certified True Copies of the Portfolio Mix Analysis issued by Citytrust regarding the investment of P5,504,748.25 in Madrigal Business Park I  for the years 1994 to 1997.[25]

          The CA agreed with the CTA that these pieces of documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are largely self-serving and can be contrived  easily. The

CA ruled that these documents failed to show that the funds used to purchase the MBP lot came from the Employees’ Trust Fund. The CA explained, thus: 

         We are constrained to echo the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals in regard to the failure of the petitioner to ensure that legal documents pertaining to its investments, e.g. title to the subject property, were really in its name, considering its awareness of the resulting tax benefit that such foresight or providence would produce; hence, genuine efforts towards that end should have been exerted, this notwithstanding the alleged difficulty of procuring a title under the names of all the co-owners. Indeed, we are unable to understand why petitioner would allow the title of the property to be placed solely in the name of petitioner's alleged co-owner, i.e. the VMC, although it allegedly owned a much bigger (nearly half), portion thereof. Withal, petitioner failed to ensure a “fix” so to speak, on its investment, and we are not impressed by the documents which the petitioner presented, as the same apparently allowed “mobility” of the subject real estate assets between or among the petitioner, the VMC and the latter's subsidiaries. Given the fact that the subject parcel of land was registered and sold under the name solely of VMC, even as payment of taxes was also made only under its name, we cannot but concur with the finding of the Court of Tax Appeals that petitioner's claim for refund of withheld creditable tax is bereft of solid juridical basis.[26]

  The Issues

          The issues presented are:  

1.      Whether petitioner or the Employees’ Trust Fund is estopped from claiming that the Employees’ Trust Fund is the beneficial owner of 49.59% of the MBP lot and that VMC merely held 49.59% of the MBP lot in trust for the  Employees’ Trust Fund.

 2.     If petitioner or the Employees’ Trust Fund is not estopped, whether they

have sufficiently established that the Employees’ Trust Fund is the beneficial owner of 49.59% of the MBP lot, and thus entitled to tax exemption for its share in the proceeds from the sale of the MBP lot.

 The Ruling of the Court

  

         We grant the petition.    

          The law expressly allows a co-owner (first co-owner) of a parcel of land to register his proportionate share in the name of his co-owner (second co-owner) in whose name the entire land is registered.  The second co-owner serves as a legal trustee of the first co-owner insofar as the proportionate share of the first co-owner is concerned. The first co-owner remains the owner of his proportionate share and not the second co-owner in whose name the entire land is registered.   Article 1452 of the Civil Code provides: 

         Art. 1452.  If two or more persons agree to purchase a property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each.   (Emphasis supplied)

          For Article 1452 to apply, all that a co-owner needs to show is that there is “common consent” among the purchasing co-owners to put the legal title to the purchased property in the name of one co-owner for the benefit of all.   Once this “common consent” is shown, “a trust is created by force of law.”    The BIR has no option but to recognize such legal trust as well as the beneficial ownership of the real owners because the trust is created by force of law.   The fact that the title is registered solely in the name of one person is not conclusive that he alone owns the property.           Thus, this case turns on whether petitioner can sufficiently establish that petitioner, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, has a common agreement with VMC and VFC that petitioner, VMC and VFC shall jointly purchase the MBP lot and put the title to the MBP lot in the name of VMC for the benefit petitioner, VMC and VFC.            We rule that petitioner, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, has more than sufficiently established that it has an agreement with VMC and VFC to purchase jointly the MBP lot and to register the MBP lot solely in the name of VMC for the benefit of petitioner, VMC and VFC. 

Factual findings of the CTA will be reviewedwhen judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

 

                 Generally, the factual findings of the CTA, a special court exercising expertise on the subject of tax, are regarded as final, binding and conclusive upon this Court, especially if these are substantially similar to the findings of the CA which is normally the final arbiter of questions of fact. [27]  However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule,[28] such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.          Petitioner contends that the CA erred in evaluating the documents as self-serving instead of considering them as truthful and genuine because they are public documents duly notarized by a Notary Public and presumed to be regular unless the contrary appears. Petitioner explains that the CA erred in doubting the authenticity and genuineness of the three memoranda of agreement presented as evidence. Petitioner submits that there  is nothing wrong in the execution of the three memoranda of agreement by the parties. Petitioner points out that VMC authorized petitioner to administer its Employees’ Trust Fund which is basically funded by donation from its founder, Miguel J. Ossorio, with his shares of stocks and share in VMC's profits.[29]

          Petitioner argues that the Citytrust report reflecting petitioner’s investment in the MBP lot is concrete proof that money of the Employees’ Trust Funds was used to purchase the MBP lot. In fact, the CIR did not dispute the authenticity and existence of this documentary evidence. Further, it would be unlikely for Citytrust to issue a certified copy of the Portfolio Mix Analysis stating that petitioner invested in the MBP lot if it were not true.[30]           Petitioner claims that substantial evidence is all that is required to prove petitioner’s co-ownership and all the pieces of evidence have overwhelmingly proved that petitioner is a co-owner of the MBP lot to the extent of 49.59% of the MBP lot. Petitioner explains: 

         Thus, how the parties became co-owners was shown by the excerpts of the minutes and the resolutions of the Board of Trustees of the petitioner and those of VMC. All these documents showed that as far as March 1992, petitioner already expressed intention to be co-owner of the said property. It then decided to invest the retirement funds to buy the said property and culminated in it owning 49.59% thereof. When it was sold to Metrobank, petitioner received its share in the proceeds from the sale thereof. The excerpts and resolutions of the parties'

respective Board of Directors were certified under oath by their respective Corporate Secretaries at the time. The corporate certifications are accorded verity by law and accepted asprima facie evidence of what took place in the board meetings because the corporate secretary is, for the time being, the board itself.[31]

          Petitioner, citing Article 1452 of the Civil Code, claims that even if VMC registered the land solely in its name, it does not make VMC the absolute owner of the whole property or deprive petitioner of its rights as a co-owner.[32] Petitioner argues that under the Torrens system, the issuance of a TCT does not create or vest a title and it has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership.[33]

          The issues of whether petitioner or the Employees’ Trust Fund is estopped from claiming 49.59% ownership in the MBP lot, whether the documents presented by petitioner are self-serving, and whether petitioner has proven its exemption from tax, are all questions of fact which could only be resolved after reviewing, examining and evaluating the probative value of the evidence presented. The CTA ruled that the documents presented by petitioner cannot prove its co-ownership over the MBP lot especially that the TCT, Deed of Absolute Sale and the Remittance Return disclosed that VMC is the sole owner and taxpayer.  

         However, the appellate courts failed to consider the genuineness and due execution of the notarized Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging petitioner’s ownership of the MBP lot which provides: 

         2.   The said parcels of land are actually co-owned by the following: 

             BLOCK 4, LOT 1 COVERED BY TCT NO. 183907

  % SQ.M. AMOUNT

MJOPFI 49.59% 450.00 P     5,504,748.25

VMC 32.23% 351.02 3,578,294.70

VFC 18.18% 197.98 2,018,207.30

  

Thus, there is a “common consent” or agreement among petitioner, VMC and VFC to co-own the MBP lot in the proportion specified in the notarized Memorandum of Agreement.

 

         In Cuizon v. Remoto,[34] we held:

 

         Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents and public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.  

         The BIR failed to present any clear and convincing evidence to prove that the notarized Memorandum of Agreement is fictitious or has no legal effect. Likewise, VMC, the registered owner, did not repudiate petitioner’s share in the MBP lot. Further, Citytrust, a reputable banking institution, has prepared a Portfolio Mix Analysis for the years 1994 to 1997 showing that petitioner investedP5,504,748.25 in the MBP lot. Absent any proof that the Citytrust bank records have been tampered or falsified, and the BIR has presented none, the Portfolio Mix Analysis should be given probative value.           The BIR argues that under the Torrens system, a third person dealing with registered property need not go beyond the TCT and since the registered owner is VMC, petitioner is estopped from claiming ownership of the MBP lot.  This argument is grossly erroneous. The trustor-beneficiary is not estopped from proving its ownership over the property held in trust by the trustee when the purpose is not to contest the disposition or encumbrance of the property in favor of an innocent third-party purchaser for value.  The BIR, not being a buyer or claimant to any interest in the MBP lot, has not relied on the face of the title of the MBP lot to acquire any interest in the lot. There is no basis for the BIR to claim that petitioner is estopped from proving that it co-owns, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, the MBP lot.  Article 1452 of the Civil Code recognizes the lawful ownership of the trustor-beneficiary over the property registered in the name of the trustee.  Certainly, the Torrens system was not established to foreclose a trustor or beneficiary from proving its ownership of a property titled in the name of another person when the rights of an innocent purchaser or lien-holder are not involved.  More so, when such other person, as in the present case, admits its being a mere trustee of the trustor or beneficiary.   

         The registration of a land under the Torrens system does not create or vest title, because registration is not one of the modes of acquiring ownership. A TCT is merely an evidence of ownership over a particular property and its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the property may be co-owned by persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[35]

          No particular words are required for the creation of a trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.[36] It is immaterial whether or not the trustor and the trustee know that the relationship which they intend to create is called a trust, and whether or not the parties know the precise characteristic of the relationship which is called a trust because what is important is whether the parties manifested an intention to create the kind of relationship which in law is known as a trust.[37]

          The fact that the TCT, Deed of Absolute Sale and the Remittance Return were in VMC’s name does not forestall the possibility that the property is owned by another entity because Article 1452 of the Civil Code expressly authorizes a person to purchase a property with his own money and to take conveyance in the name of another.            

         In Tigno v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained, thus: 

         An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another. In such a case, the property is held on resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer, unless a different intention or understanding appears. The trust which results under such circumstances does not arise from a contract or an agreement of the parties, but from the facts and circumstances; that is to say, the trust results because of equity and it arises by implication or operation of law. [38]  

               In this case, the notarized Memorandum of Agreement and the certified true copies of the Portfolio Mix Analysis prepared by Citytrust  clearly prove that petitioner invested P5,504,748.25, using funds of the Employees' Trust Fund, to purchase the MBP lot. Since the MBP lot was registered in VMC’s name only, a resulting trust is created by operation of law. A resulting trust is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable interest and is presumed to have been contemplated by the parties.

[39]  Based on this resulting trust, the Employees’ Trust Fund is considered the beneficial co-owner of the MBP lot.          Petitioner has sufficiently proven that it had a “common consent” or agreement with VMC and VFC to jointly purchase the MBP lot. The absence of petitioner’s name in the TCT does not prevent petitioner from claiming before the BIR that the Employees’ Trust Fund is the beneficial owner of 49.59% of the MBP lot and that VMC merely holds 49.59% of the MBP lot in trust, through petitioner, for the benefit of the Employees’ Trust Fund.          The BIR has acknowledged that the owner of a land can validly place the title to the land in the name of another person. In BIR Ruling [DA-(I-012) 190-09] dated 16 April 2009, a certain Amelia Segarra purchased a parcel of land and registered it in the names of Armin Segarra and Amelito Segarra as trustees on the condition that upon demand by Amelia Segarra, the trustees would transfer the land in favor of their sister, Arleen May Segarra-Guevara. The BIR ruled that an implied trust is deemed created by law and the transfer of the land to the beneficiary is not subject to capital gains tax or creditable withholding tax.        

Income from Employees’ Trust Fund is Exempt from Income Tax          Petitioner claims that the Employees’ Trust Fund is exempt from the payment of income tax. Petitioner further claims that as trustee, it acts for the Employees’ Trust Fund, and can file the claim for refund. As trustee, petitioner considers itself as the entity that is entitled to file a claim for refund of taxes erroneously paid in the sale of the MBP lot.[40]

          The Office of the Solicitor General argues that the cardinal rule in taxation is that tax exemptions are highly disfavored and whoever claims a tax exemption must justify his right by the clearest grant of law.  Tax exemption cannot arise by implication and any doubt whether the exemption exists is strictly construed against the taxpayer.[41]  Further, the findings of the CTA, which were affirmed by the CA, should be given respect and weight in the absence of abuse or improvident exercise of authority.[42]  

         Section 53(b) and now Section 60(b) of the Tax Code provides: 

         SEC. 60. Imposition of Tax. -                     (A) Application of Tax. - x x x            (B) Exception. - The tax imposed by this Title shall not apply to employee’s trust which forms part of a pension, stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of an employer for the benefit of some or all of his employees (1) if contributions are made to the trust by such employer, or employees, or both for the purpose of distributing to such employees the earnings and principal of the fund accumulated by the trust in accordance with such plan, and (2) if under the trust instrument it is impossible, at any time prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to employees under the trust, for any part of the corpus or income to be (within the taxable year or thereafter) used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of his employees:Provided, That any amount actually distributed to any employee or distributee shall be taxable to him in the year in which so distributed to the extent that it exceeds the amount contributed by such employee or distributee.

          Petitioner’s Articles of Incorporation state the purpose for which the corporation was formed: 

Primary Purpose            To hold legal title to, control, invest and administer in the manner provided, pursuant to applicable rules and conditions as established, and in the interest and for the benefit of its beneficiaries and/or participants, the private pension plan as established for certain employees of Victorias Milling Company, Inc., and other pension plans of Victorias Milling Company affiliates and/or subsidiaries, the pension funds and assets, as well as accruals, additions and increments thereto, and such amounts as may be set aside or accumulated for the benefit of the participants of said pension plans; and in furtherance of the foregoing and as may be incidental thereto. [43] (Emphasis supplied)

          Petitioner is a corporation that was formed to administer the Employees' Trust Fund. Petitioner invested P5,504,748.25 of the funds of the Employees' Trust Fund to purchase the MBP lot. When the MBP lot was sold, the gross income of the Employees’ Trust Fund from the sale of the MBP lot was P40,500,000. The 7.5% withholding tax of P3,037,500 and broker’s commission were deducted from the proceeds. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,[44]  the Court explained the rationale for the tax-exemption privilege of  income derived from employees’ trusts: 

         It is evident that tax-exemption is likewise to be enjoyed by the income of the pension trust. Otherwise, taxation of those earnings would result in a diminution of accumulated income and reduce whatever the trust beneficiaries would receive out of the trust fund. This would run afoul of the very intendment of the law.

          In Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[45] the CTA held that petitioner is entitled to a refund of withholding taxes paid on interest income from direct loans made by the Employees' Trust Fund since such interest income is exempt from tax.  The CTA, in recognizing petitioner’s entitlement for tax exemption, explained: 

         In or about 1968, Victorias Milling Co., Inc. established a retirement or pension plan for its employees and those of its subsidiary companies pursuant to a 22-page plan. Pursuant to said pension plan, Victorias Milling Co., Inc. makes a (sic) regular financial contributions to the employee trust for the purpose of distributing or paying to said employees, the earnings and principal of the funds accumulated by the trust in accordance with said plan. Under the plan, it is imposable, at any time prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to employees under the trust, for any part of the corpus or income to be used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of said employees. Moreover, upon the termination of the plan, any remaining assets will be applied for the benefit of all employees and their beneficiaries entitled thereto in proportion to the amount allocated for their respective benefits as provided in said plan.                   The petitioner and Victorias Milling Co., Inc., on January 22, 1970, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, whereby they agreed that petitioner would administer the pension plan funds and assets, as assigned and transferred to it in trust, as well as all amounts that may from time to time be set aside by Victorias Milling Co., Inc. “For the benefit of the Pension Plan, said administration is to be strictly adhered to pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Pension Plan and of the Articles of Incorporation and By Laws” of petitioner.                 The pension plan was thereafter submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for registration and for a ruling as to whether its income or earnings are exempt from income tax pursuant to Rep. Act 4917, in relation to Sec. 56(b), now Sec. 54(b), of the Tax Code.                    In a letter dated January 18, 1974 addressed to Victorias Milling Co., Inc., the Bureau of Internal Revenue ruled that “the income of the trust fund of your retirement benefit plan is exempt from income tax, pursuant to Rep. Act 4917 in relation to Section 56(b) of the Tax Code.”           

            In accordance with petitioner’s Articles of Incorporation (Annex A), petitioner would “hold legal title to, control, invest and administer, in the manner provided, pursuant to applicable rules and conditions as established, and in the interest and for the benefit of its beneficiaries and/or participants, the private pension plan as established for certain employees of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. and other pension plans of Victorias Milling Co. affiliates and/or subsidiaries, the pension funds and assets, as well as the accruals, additions and increments thereto, and such amounts as may be set aside or accumulated of said pension plans. Moreover, pursuant to the same Articles of Incorporations, petitioner is empowered to “settle, compromise or submit to arbitration, any claims, debts or damages due or owing to or from pension funds and assets and other funds and assets of the corporation, to commence or defend suits or legal proceedings and to represent said funds and assets in all suits or legal proceedings.”                      Petitioner, through its investment manager, the City Trust Banking Corporation, has invested the funds of the employee trust in treasury bills, Central Bank bills, direct lending, etc. so as to generate income or earnings for the benefit of the employees-beneficiaries of the pension plan. Prior to the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 1959 on October 15, 1984, respondent did not subject said income or earning of the employee trust to income tax because they were exempt from income tax pursuant to Sec. 56(b), now Sec. 54(b) of the Tax Code and the BIR Ruling dated January 18, 1984 (Annex D). (Boldfacing supplied; italicization in the original)                         x x x                It asserted that the pension plan in question was previously submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a ruling as to whether the income or earnings of the retirement funds of said plan are exempt from income tax and in a letter dated January 18,1984, the Bureau ruled that the earnings of the trust funds of the pension plan are exempt from income tax under Sec. 56(b) of the Tax Code. (Emphasis supplied)          

           “A close review of the provisions of the plan and trust instrument disclose that in reality the corpus and income of the trust fund are not at no time used for, or diverted to, any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit of the plan beneficiaries. This fact was likewise confirmed after verification of the plan operations by the Revenue District No. 63 of the Revenue Region No. 14, Bacolod City. Section X also confirms this fact by providing that if any assets remain after satisfaction of the requirements of all the above clauses, such remaining assets will be applied for the benefits of all persons included in such classes in proportion to the amounts allocated for their respective benefits pursuant to the foregoing priorities.        

            “In view of all the foregoing, this Office is of the opinion, as it hereby holds, that the income of the trust fund of your retirement benefit plan is exempt from income tax pursuant to Republic Act 4917 in relation to Section 56(b) of the Tax Code. (Annex “D” of Petition)

  

This CTA decision, which was affirmed by the CA in a decision dated 20 January 1993, became final and executory on 3 August 1993.          The tax-exempt character of petitioner’s Employees' Trust Fund is not at issue in this case.  The tax-exempt character of the Employees' Trust Fund has long been settled.   It is also settled that petitioner exists for the purpose of holding title to, and administering, the tax-exempt Employees’ Trust Fund established for the benefit of VMC’s employees. As such, petitioner has the personality to claim tax refunds due the Employees' Trust Fund.          In Citytrust Banking Corporation as Trustee and Investment Manager of Various Retirement Funds v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[46]  the CTA granted Citytrust’s claim for refund on withholding taxes paid on the investments made by Citytrust in behalf of the trust funds it manages, including petitioner.[47]  Thus: 

         In resolving the second issue, we note that the same is not a case of first impression. Indeed, the petitioner is correct in its adherence to the clear ruling laid by the Supreme Court way back in 1992 in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Court of Tax Appeals and GCL Retirement Plan, 207 SCRA 487 at page 496, supra, wherein it was succinctly held:                         x x x     

           There can be no denying either that the final withholding tax is collected from income in respect of which employees’ trusts are declared exempt (Sec. 56(b), now 53(b), Tax Code). The application of the withholdings system to interest on bank deposits or yield from deposit substitutes is essentially to maximize and expedite the collection of income taxes by requiring its payment at the source. If an employees’ trust like the GCL enjoys a tax-exempt status from income, we see no logic in withholding a

certain percentage of that income which it is not supposed to pay in the first place.          x x x    

            Similarly, the income of the trust funds involved herein is exempt from the payment of final withholding taxes. 

 

This CTA decision became final and executory when the CIR failed to file a Petition for Review within the extension granted by the CA.                Similarly, in BIR Ruling [UN-450-95], Citytrust wrote the BIR to request for a ruling exempting it from the payment of withholding tax on the sale of the land by various BIR-approved trustees and tax-exempt private employees' retirement benefit trust funds[48] represented by Citytrust. The BIR ruled that the private employees benefit trust funds, which included petitioner, have met the requirements of the law and the regulations and therefore qualify as reasonable retirement benefit plans within the contemplation of Republic Act No. 4917 (now Sec. 28(b)(7)(A), Tax Code). The income from the trust fund investments is therefore exempt from the payment of income tax and consequently from the payment of the creditable withholding tax on the sale of their real property.[49]

                 Thus, the documents issued and certified by Citytrust showing that money from the Employees’ Trust Fund was invested in the MBP lot cannot simply be brushed aside by the BIR as self-serving, in the light of previous cases holding that Citytrust was indeed handling the money of the Employees’ Trust Fund.  These documents, together with the notarized Memorandum of Agreement, clearly establish that petitioner, on behalf of the Employees’ Trust Fund, indeed invested in the purchase of the MBP lot. Thus, the Employees' Trust Fund owns 49.59% of the MBP lot.          Since petitioner has proven that the income from the sale of the MBP lot came from an investment by the Employees' Trust Fund, petitioner, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, is entitled to claim the tax refund of P3,037,500 which was erroneously paid in the sale of the MBP lot. 

         WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the Decision of 30 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61829. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is directed to refund petitioner Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Incorporated, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, the amount of P3,037,500, representing income tax erroneously paid.

        

         SO ORDERED.

 

                                      ANTONIO T. CARPIO                                           Associate Justice

       

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

                      DIOSDADO M. PERALTA                 

        Associate Justice   

   

 

  

 

 

 

     ROBERTO A. ABAD                     JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

         Associate Justice                                      Associate Justice             

 

 

 

 

 

        

                                           JOSE C. MENDOZA      

                                               Associate

Justice                                                              

 

ATTESTATION

         I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the

Court’s Division.

 

 

 

                                                   ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                                                 Associate Justice

                            Chairperson

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division  Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above

Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the

writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

 

 

                                                                 RENATO C. CORONA

                                                                         Chief Justice

 

 

 

 

           

           

*              Designated additional member per Raffle dated 2 June 2010.[1]              Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[2]              Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto  and               Danilo B. Pine, concurring.[3]               Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and                Danilo B. Pine, concurring.[4]              Penned by Associate Judge Ramon O. De Veyra with Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and         Associate Judge Amancio Q. Saga, concurring.[5]              Rollo, p. 7.[6]               Id. at 6. [7]               Id. at 159. Excerpts of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Miguel J. Ossorio

Pension Foundation, Inc. held on 25 March 1992 read as follows: 

               Mr. C.R. De Luzuriaga, Jr. informed the Board that VMC Co., Inc. and some of its subsidiaries are buying Ayala-Alabang lots in Muntinlupa. He inquired whether MJOPFI would be willing to invest in, or buy part, of the lots being purchased by VMC. Upon motion of Mr. Emilio Y. Hilado, Jr. seconded by Mr. Orlando D. Fuentes, it was unanimously-

                Resolution No. 92-34

                RESOLVED, That MJOPFI buy one-half (½) of one (1) Ayala-Alabang lot thru [VMC Co., Inc.], the purchase price thereof to be paid thru VMC and/or to be reimbursed to VMC.

[8]              Now Bank of the Philippine Islands after their merger.[9]               Rollo, pp. 162-165. From 1994-1997, the Portfolio Mix Analysis reported that P5,504,748.25 was

invested in real estate, specifically on the Madrigal Business Park I property.[10]             Id. at 59.[11]             Id. at 166. Excerpts of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the petitioner held on 24

July 1996 read as follows: 

      2. Mr. Gerardo B. Javellana informed the Board that there is a need to raise cash to pay pension benefits. Upon motion of Mr. Rolando Hautea, seconded by Mr. Orlando D. Fuentes, it was unanimously-

                                     Resolution No. 96-46

                       RESOLVED, that MJOPFI’s property consisting of 500 sq. m. situated at Madrigal Park in Alabang, Muntinglupa, be sold at the best price available, and that any of the corporate officers, namely, Mr. C.R. De Luzuriaga, Jr., or Mr. Rolando Hautea, or Mr. Orlando D. Fuentes be authorized to sign the required deed of sale.

[12]              Id. at 167. Excerpts of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of VMC on 17 March 1997 read as follows:

           Mr. Gerardo Javellana informed the Board that pursuant to previous authority from

the Board, VMC sold the Lot 1, Block 4 of the land, registered in VMC’s name as TCT No. 183907 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati, which land is co-owned with Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. and Victorias Insurance Factors Corp., in favor of Metro Bank on March 14, 1997 for P81,675,000.00; that Metro Bank issued a check in favor of VMC of P75,549,375.00 (which is less ofP6,125,625.00 withholding tax), which was supposed to have been deposited with Urban Bank, but in view of the latter’s freezing all VMC’s deposits, VMC advised Metro Bank not to fund the check (to stop payment), which it did. However, Metro Bank thereafter refused to release the proceeds of the check to VMC, saying that it would apply part of the proceeds of the sale to the obligations of  VMC to Metrobank. As Metrobank’s moves meant that it did not pay VMC, because a check amounted to payment only when cashed, upon motion of Mr. Manuel Manalac, seconded by Mr. Gerardo Javellana, it was unanimously -

                        RESOLVED, That in the event matters would not be amicably resolved or ironed out with Metrobank, a letter be sent to Metrobank rescinding or cancelling the deed of sale of Lot 1, Block 4 at the Madrigal Business Part (sic) in Muntinlupa, with TCT No. 183907.

[13]             Id. at 13.[14]             Id. at 15.[15]             Id.[16]             Id.[17]            Id. at 16.[18]            Id. at 17.[19]            Id. at 17-18.[20]             Section 53(b) of the Tax Code.                                Section 53. Imposition of Tax.                                x x x

               (b) Exception. - The tax imposed by this Title shall not apply to employee's trust which forms part of a pension, stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of an employer for the benefit of some

or all of his employees (1) if contributions are made to the trust by such employer, or employees, or both for the purpose of distributing to such employees the earnings and principal of the fund accumulated by the trust in accordance with such plan, and (2) if under the trust instrument it is impossible, at any time prior to satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to employees under the trust, for any part of the corpus or income to be (within the taxable year or thereafter) used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of his employees: Provided, That any amount actually distributed to any employee or distributee shall be taxable to him in the year in which so distributed to the extent that it exceeds the amount contributed by such employee or distributee. 

[21]             Rollo, pp. 114-115.[22]            Id. at 115.[23]            Id. at 116.[24]            Id. at 116-117.[25]            Id. at 66.[26]            Id. at 67.[27]             Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129130, 9 December 2005, 477      SCRA 49, 52.[28]             Recognized exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,

surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellee and the appellant; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

[29]            Rollo, pp. 351-352.[30]            Id. at 353.[31]            Id. at 354.[32]            Id. at 357.[33]            Id. at 358.[34]             G.R. No. 143027, 11 October 2005, 472 SCRA 274, 282.[35]          Naval v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167412, 22 February 2006, 483 SCRA 102, 113.[36]            Civil Code,  Article 1444.[37]            DE LEON, HECTOR, COMMENTS AND CASES ON PARTNERSHIP, AGENCY AND TRUSTS, 5th ed., p. 665 (1999).[38]            G.R. No. 110115, 8 October 1997, 280 SCRA 262, 271.[39]            Buan Vda. de Esconde v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 81, 89 (1996).[40]            Rollo, p. 361.[41]            Id. at 324.[42]            Id. at 325.[43]              Id. at 128.[44]             G.R. No. 95022, 23 March 1992, 207 SCRA 487, 495.[45]             CTA Case No. 4244, 2 November 1990.  On 2 November 1990, the CTA rendered this decision which

was affirmed by the CA in a decision dated 20 January 1993 in CA G.R. SP No. 23980 and which became final and executory on 3 August 1993. In compliance with the decision, the CIR refunded to petitioner the amounts of P780,352.28 on 23 September 1994 andP312,606.40 on 19 September 1996.

[46]             CTA Case No. 5083, 9 March 1998.   In a Resolution dated 13 July 1998, the Court of Appeals in     CA G.R. SP No. 47375 ruled:

               For failure of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to file the Petition for

Review within the extension granted which expired on 11 April 1998, this case is considered abandoned and withdrawn and is ordered dismissed.

[47]             Citytrust was refunded the amount of P5,114,260.44 representing erroneously paid final withholding taxes on the investments made by Citytrust in behalf of the trust funds it manages. Of this amount, petitioner was refunded P293,482.49.

[48]             The list of BIR-approved duly trusteed and tax-exempt private employee’s retirement benefit trust funds includes petitioner Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. Trust Fund under Trust Account No. TA # 5C-019A.

[49]             Likewise, in BIR Ruling [DA-(C-033) 139-09] dated 5 March 2009, the BIR confirmed that the sale of the Bank of the Philippine Islands Group of Companies Retirement Fund’s (BPI RTF) capital assets is exempt from capital gains tax and from the creditable expanded withholding tax.