February 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law

Here are selected February 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on tax law:

Assessment; final decision. Records show that petitioner disputed the PAN but not the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices. Nevertheless, we cannot blame petitioner for not filing a protest against the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices since the language used and the tenor of the demand letter indicate that it is the final decision of the respondent on the matter. We have time and again reminded the CIR to indicate, in a clear and unequivocal language, whether his action on a disputed assessment constitutes his final determination thereon in order for the taxpayer concerned to determine when his or her right to appeal to the tax court accrues. Viewed in the light of the foregoing, respondent is now estopped from claiming that he did not intend the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices to be a final decision.  Allied Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 175097, February 5, 2010.

Excise tax;  refund. The proper party to question, or claim a refund or tax credit of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer, which is Petron in this case, as it is the company on which the tax is imposed by law and which paid the same even if the burden thereof was shifted or passed on to another. It bears stressing that even if Petron shifted or passed on to petitioner Silkair, the burden of the tax, the additional amount which petitioner paid is not a tax but a part of the purchase price which it had to pay to obtain the goods.   Silkair (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010.

Gross Philippine billings;  off line carrier. South African Airways, 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.

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.

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.  South African Airways vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180356, February 16, 2010.

Overseas communication tax; PAL.  Under its franchise, Philippine Airlines is exempt from the overseas communications tax.  Republic of the Philippines represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), G.R. No. 179800, February 4, 2010.

VAT; invoice. The CTA en banc correctly denied petitioner Panasonic’s claim for refund of the VAT it paid as a zero-rated taxpayer on the ground that its sales invoices did not state on their faces that its sales were “zero-rated.” For the effective zero rating , the taxpayer has to be VAT-registered and must comply with invoicing requirements.

When petitioner Panasonic made the export sales subject of this case, i.e., from April 1998 to March 1999, the rule that applied was Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95, otherwise known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations, which the Secretary of Finance issued on December 9, 1995 and took effect on January 1, 1996. It already required the printing of the word “zero-rated” on the invoices covering zero-rated sales. When R.A. 9337 amended the 1997 NIRC on November 1, 2005, it made this particular revenue regulation a part of the tax code. This conversion from regulation to law did not diminish the binding force of such regulation with respect to acts committed prior to the enactment of that law. Panasonic Communication Imaging Corporation of the Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 178090, February 8, 2010.

VAT; motion pictures.  Gross receipts derived by respondents from admission tickets in showing motion pictures, films or movies are not subject to value-added tax under Section 108 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. SM Prime Holdings, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 183505. February 26, 2010.

VAT; refund of excess creditable VAT withheld. The CTA did not err in granting respondent Ironcon’s application for refund of its excess creditable VAT withheld.

Respondent Ironcon’s excess creditable VAT in this case consists of amounts withheld and remitted to the BIR by Ironcon’s clients. These clients were government agencies that applied the 6% withholding rate on their payments to Ironcon pursuant to Section 114 of the NIRC (prior to its amendment by R.A. 9337). Petitioner CIR’s main contention is that, since these amounts were withheld in accordance with what the law provides, they cannot be regarded as erroneously or illegally collected as contemplated in Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC.

Petitioner CIR also points out that since the NIRC does not specifically grant taxpayers the option to refund excess creditable VAT withheld, it follows that such refund cannot be allowed. Excess creditable VAT withheld is much unlike excess income taxes withheld. In the latter case, Sections 76 and 58(D) of the NIRC specifically make the option to seek a refund available to the taxpayer. The CIR submits thus that the only option available to taxpayers in case of excess creditable VAT withheld is to apply the excess credits to succeeding quarters.

But the amounts involved in this case are creditable withholding taxes, not final taxes subject to withholding. As the CTA correctly points out, taxes withheld on certain payments under the creditable withholding tax system are but intended to approximate the tax due from the payee. The withheld taxes remitted to the BIR are treated as deposits or advances on the actual tax liability of the taxpayer, subject to adjustment at the proper time when the actual tax liability can be fully and finally determined.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ironco Builders and Development Corp., G.R. No. 180042, February 8, 2010.