Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. (Formerly, Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc.,) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

I, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION UNIVATION MOTOR CTA CASE NO. 8637 PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY, NISSAN MOTOR Memb ers: PHILIPPINES, INC.) DEL ROSARIO, P.J, Chairperson P e titione r, UY, and MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. -versus- Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, JUN 3 0 201S / 11: 03ch'h� Res pondent. X-------- -- - RESOLUTION DEL ROSARIO, PJ.: This resolves respondent's "MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION (Re: Decision Promulgated on 10 March 2015)" filed on April 1, 2015, with petitioner's "COMMENT (Re: Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated March 30, 2015)" filed on May 12, 2015 . Respondent moves for partial reconsid eration of this Court's Decision dated March 10, 20 15, the di spositive portion ofwhich reads, as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Univation Motor Philippines, Inc.'s Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Respondent Commi ssioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of TWELVE MILLION SEVEN IIUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTEEN AND 90/100 (Pl2,729,617.90) representing

RESOLUTION CTA CASE No. 8637 petitioner's unutilized or excess creditable withholding taxes for taxable year ending December 31 , 20 I0. SO ORDERED." In the subject Motion for Partial Reconsideration, respondent prays of this Honorable Court to grant the subject motion, to recall the Decision promulgated on 10 March 2015, and to render a new one denying petitioner's claim for refund. The motion is anchored on the following grounds: (1) the subject claim for tax refund is tainted with procedural infirmity due to petitioner's failure to submit complete documents in support of its administrative claim for refund; (2) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before elevating the case to this Cow1; (3) petitioner failed to prove its entitlement to refund in the judicial proceedings; and, (4) that claims for refund are construed strictly against the taxpayer and in favor of Government. In its comment, petitioner counter-argues that: (1) the submission of complete supporting documents in the administrative level is not prerequisite to the grant of the judicial claim for refund; (2) it was able to prove that the income from which the taxes were withheld was included in its Annual ITR for CY 201 0; and, (3) the rule that "claims for refund of overpaid taxes are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer" does not apply to claims for refunds of overpaid or erroneously paid taxes. The Court finds respondent's "Motion for Partial Reconsideration" devoid of merit. The National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and the relevant Revenue Regulations issued by respondent do not provide for a list of documents required to be submitted for claims of unutilized creditable withholding taxes. Respondent cannot demand what type of supporting documents should be submitted. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. First Express Pawnshop Company, Inc. 1, the Supreme Court ruled that the submission of "relevant supporting documents" should be determined by the taxpayer and not the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), thus: The term "relevant supporting documents" should be understood as those documents necessary to support the legal basis in disputing a tax assessment as determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only inform the taxpayer to submit additional documents. The BIR cannot demand what type of supporting documents should be submitted. Otherwi se, a taxpayer 1 G.R . Nos. 172045-46, June 16, 2009.

RE S O L U T ION CTA CASE No. 863 7 Page 3 of3 will be at the mercy of the BIR, which may require the production of documents that a taxpayer cannot submit. "2 From the above jurisprudence, it has been held time and again that the submission of supporting documents depends on the discretion of the taxpayer. It is respondent's duty to inform or send a notice to the taxpayer if she finds that the relevant supporting documents submitted by petitioner are insufficient. A careful perusal of the records shows that respondent did not inform petitioner to submit additional documents in support of its administrative claim for refund. Respondent cannot take refuge in the argument that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing its claim for refund before the Couri. It was on March 12, 2012 when petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund. The subject petition was fil ed due to respondent's inaction on Apri I 12, 2013. Petitioner cannot wait indefinitely as the two-year prescriptive period in claiming a refund for its 2010 unutilized or excess Creditable Withholding Tax was about to expire. More importantly, during tria l, petitioner was ab le to substantiate its claim for refund. Finding no valid or substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought, the Court has no recourse but to deny the present motion. WHER EFORE, premises considered, respondents "MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION (Rc : Decision Promulgated on 10 March 2015)" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice E~P.UY ~ t.J,M~~ -C~ Associate Justice CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice