CTA Case No. 2915 (Decision)
.. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ' SMITH, KLINE & FRENCH OVERSEAS CO., (PHILIPPINE BRANCH), Petitioner, versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 2915 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - X DEC I S I 0 N Th5. <:; is about the 1 :i.abi l i t y to "'' clef .ic:iency / -J.i.thholcling t.a :-: at soun:e on r�o y ;:;~. l ty du.e '" non-- rf?.S i tlen t. �f nr.. F.~ .i. gn corporation whic h h ave accrued in p e t i t i o n er's ~ ook s. As set forth - petitioner foreign corporation inc: Dl'" p o r� "' t.t.-~d und r.~ r- thE:- l avJs of t. h E~ Lin i ted r;ta tes and li cen sed to do bu s iness in the Phjl ippin es throuqh .its local bra nch was assessed by the Y"f?S p n nden t. Comm:i. ~55 ioner" of In tE>r"na 1 r::evenu f.:> und e r l etter o f d e mand d ated July 9, 1976 for deficien cy wi th h old:i.ng t e:1:-: �at soun::: E�~ in the agqt-.. E~<] <~. t e C:lfnount. 4C
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2915 - 2- �of P1~)1.~381.J-. 7:?.. inclusive of inteF. f?st.~ br-oken down 2.DJ.LJJ . ~.~�.:..t.~lL ___: : -_____;1,.J.Z..t F\oya J. ty paymf.?n t:.s . . ... . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . _.f_:.l:.:.~_:?. ,..Z.9-1 .!._4_;?_ T ,::\:-: due? .then~: on ����� � � � �� ���� �������� P 4:.?..~959.00 Less: T ax paid p e r- return - P3~498.91 Ta :-: over�� pa id �for� l. st. nt.r-. . �������� p :J~?...i...~.!2.12...~!. Bal ;,~nc:e � � � � � � � � � � ��� �� � � � � � � . 5~ ~':.74 . 09 Add: 1 / 2% int. fr-. 7 - 26-71. to 1 2-3 1. - 72. 461. 2 0 l'-1� /.. .i. n t . f r� � .1. �-� .1 -- 7 3 to 7 -- :.?.. 6 -� 7 4 � � � -� ...:l. ..,...l.ElQ..~---~~1.. TOH'\L At10Uf\.IT DUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ~~---��-�:?,��'--~?_!_~-~.,1:8 ~.r:.~1.___Q.~..\.?:.V:.J,~~.!.::..... ::.....J..7..?..1... Rn y a 1 t y p r.~ y rn e n h ; � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E:J_~Z_.J.:>_�L~..2.S>. Tax due thereon ....... ..... . ........... 55~19.1.00 L e <:: s : {~moun t. p a i cf � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � __ J_._,___(;"~�:~Q..'!..:;;.~{>- B ,;:1. 1 ,;:1. n c: 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F� 5:3 ~ 270. 64 Add: 1 /2 /. int . fr._lD-2 6-71 t.o 1 2-3 1 -72 3,772.63 .. 14~~ in -t. 'fr-. l - 1 -73 t:.o .10 - 26-74 .� .....1.2.,.2f..:>2 _!!.J .Z. T CJ T?~ L A1"11]UN T DUE � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ~----~~-! ~g 5__:_~?.: F\~ n v ,::1 1 t. y pa y rnc:m t s � � � � � . � � � � � � � � � � � � � � E:J.. z.~~--' 2.{>_L~.c)(~~ T a:-: due t hc=r�eo n �������������������� L~ ::::; ~ ~.i98 . 00 U?ss: {~mount p <"li cl � . � � � � . � � � � � � � .. � � � __}.,_9~.9-~.3..9. 8 a J �C:l n c E' �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � F' ::::. 9,r-t6.1. .O'l� Add: 1/2/. int. fr-. 1 -26 - 72 to 12-3 1 - 72 . 2~230.63 14% i n t . f ,~ . l �- .t--7 ~::. to 1. --2 6�-7 :3 � � __LL_,_.~,_zz_~ 2!2. .�: .__ T 0 T AL At�1CI U1\1 T DUE � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � . ~:,;::?,~} . ~~-~ On August 25, 1976 � petit.i.cmer� pr� otest.ed the assessment:. but respond e nt Cnmmi. ssioner� nf In ten1a 1 Re vem .1 e denied the same <:mel r-e.i. t.er.at.e d the earl i.er d ema nd 'for- the payment. of the amount. of P131~384.72 as deficienc y ~-.~.i. t.hho l c:l ing ta:-:es at source 4C -
DECI S ION CTA CASE NO . 2 915 - 3- c orre s ponding to th- e.. three (3) qu a r t e rs of 1971 in 2:\ lr~ tt� pr� d �3t.ed Dct.nb<?r�� ? 4~ .1.r-177 but 1�� ec::Pi.vE�'d by th e p e titioner on December 2~ 1977. Hence this petition for review. F'et.:i. t.i.oner hnldr::; on to the pr�opos .i t.ion that t �.h e h'.i.t.hholdinq ta:-: at s our�c::e r.:\r.i.s:,p s onl y i':\t t .he t :\.rnP n �f t h f:? l'"~?rn it. tanc: E? o�f t h(7? r� oy a 1 ty to th E� non - re s id e nt licen s or and not upon the a c c ru a l thereof a s the non - resident corporation d e ri v e s no economi c ad v an t <:lqc~ 11n t. .i. 1 .i. n C C:HTlP actu.::\lly c on s tru c ti v ely remitted to it , a s explained in L.D. . s. , Caul k v l.J � .1.16 F " Su.pp " 8'..'.�:�t':l� ~ !.! ~i. AFTP !.l-9B ( 19~5~:) ) " "Ba s E?d on DUI.-� c l i.Pnt ~5 1'" (7?C n rei s on ro y alti es clu e to the non - re s ident li c en so r s .in 197 1, t .he � r�oya l ty to P".'i~~l ~ 674, the Cjt'"O SS 35% wi thholding tax on which amount s to F'185,0B5.90 ( <,:; .i.. c ) . 1�-1( '�'t�:'!ver� , only a por- �U . on nf s :':l.icl gr-o s s r �o ')l .::\ l t y of F'5~)1~674.00 h,::,\s been t�� pm:.\.t.t e d , a nd on s u c h remittances, CKtr" c: 1 .i en t paid F'E3H,.l~'i 4-.46 as withholding ta:-:, on cli �ffE~rent dates official r� ecf.:>.i.pts. Thf.:> unpaid ~"i thho 1 d .i.nq t:.a}�{' on - the unn~m.i. t.ted t"o y alt.i.es amounh:; to F'97,9 :3.1..44�." Fu r-the rrno r-e ~ "ThP C!"~ nt. r.. .:,\1 .Bank 1'"�-:��s tr.. icti.on pr.. oh.ibiting herein 4C 6
-.:. DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2915 - 4- pr-:.:> t i.. t. .i. on c.~ r� �f r�� om r-ern.i. t. t:. i. nq a P�" r- t of the ro y a.l t i. f.~s (Pl e a se see Regulati o n s implementing CB Circ ular 289 , copy attac h ed a s Annex "A") to the non- for-e.i. (Jn c cJr.. pnr�a-4:: i o n i s und Emi a bl y a ~::; u h s �1-_,:-:\ n t .i. ,:;~_ J l .i .rni t .3 t.i.on on such a r: cr �Lt e d r- o ya lties; . He n ce , o n l y that p a r t whi c h was' . co n s titute s inco me. Logically, ther e for e , the duty t o withhol d ari s es only wh e n the Ce ntra l Bank pP t ..it.ion F~ r- to r-f."m i t the r �o yi':\l ties i::\ c r -r-uPd, b f.'-~c:au s f? i t .i�:; only .3. t that point of time ltJh r.:~ n t h e~:;e r-oy a 1 t.: :i.r-~s mr.:\ y b e;~ c: o n s i. cfp r-r.-?cl .A. D.c. cu.n.~~ to Before that, the would - be recipient c:.::\nnot Y f.�? t s;ubjE>c: t the s e r-o y altie s In fact, it cannot as yet contro l them, neither can i t .3l ~::; o w.i.thdra.w tht-:?m �fr-o m t.hf.0 F'hilippinE~ s. 11 Res pondent Commi s sioner of Internal Revenue c:lo f�:~ s po E-.i. t ,::\n unvar-y .i.nq i'.\ SSPr- tion t:. h .;,\ t ''t.-J .i thho J. d .inq t <.~:-~ :i.. ~:; not dep(�?ndf.~nt on r-emittance o �f the income p a yablE> to the ~cin - resident foreig n corporation but on the accrua l thereof. Such being the case, a l thouqh <:':\ por�t.i.cHJ .of thE� afl\ cu nt. du e .t o the non-- re s ident foreign corporation cannot be remitted on a cc ount o �f CE'!ritr-a l Bank rest.t�-iction s, the t<~ )-: duE~ 4�(
DECISION CTA CASE NO . 2915 - 5- on said ' pol'"� ticm s hould be deducted and 1--d. thhelrl as ii' t.hei'"P is; no r� estr�ict.ie>ns, 11 (BIR Ruling No. 71- 003, 1=-e bnJ ar�y ::?.6 ~~ . .1.97 .1.) Su �f'f.i.ce .it, t.hf:~ issuE:~ now r�;:l.i.st-~d was squar�ely - �.:. ~2J:_.J. o.~~g_r:na..L... ReY..�!..l~:!.g_.!l CTA Case No. 2846, Mar- c h 16, 1972; cer-tior-ar-i denied in Comm.i.s~ioner- of Inter-nal Revenue v. Court. of T ax Appeals, et. a l. , G.R. No. 72054, September- 29, 1986, si milar in many or so in tenor.. C.:\n d c: i r.. c: um s t. <~n c:: t-~s , w hf:? r �e "' ~:; t. h E? r� e, .:::. o h~'? ,,.e, th e r� u 1 inc} E� qua 11 y applies, to .tg..r~~1.t�, thu~; �-- " f.-3 incf? the r-oy .::d ties could not. be remitted to Bayer- ~ due to Ce~tral Bank no:~ s t.or-.i.c:t.i.ons, .::"ts st.e:\t.e d by r �espo nd e nt himse lf i n his decision a ppe aled 'fr-om , S LIIrP J. y , t�� e~ ~..:; ponc:lent' s cotln~::.e l �should not e:.:pect. p�~ tit.i.oner- to ma ke ri�f:(or�t. s , a lbeit. unlc~wful, to r �e rnit the sa mE~ . And on l"'f:~s pondent ' s.; p n . i .n t. t:h at sine~=.~ the roya lt ies had been accrued in pet.ifioner's honk s t h r::'! i nc ome th e rl'*"n bf.~camr::'! s ubject to withholding even if r e mittanc e was ef fe cte d later, s uffi ce it to say that the C:lCC Y"LI<':\ 1 nf the r�� oya 1 t..i. es in pE.�t i t io nE.�t... ' s b C)o 1=: ::5 , c.1 s t1 e 1d .i. n t 1�1e I.:::..!JL.-. ~.J~~b!..!l=~ , c1 j_ d n o t <J.mot.l n t to q <:'l.i.ns', pr� o�f .i. t: s .:J. nd in c ome on thE'' pat�� t of non-�r.. es :.i.den t. Ba yp r� an d, ther-efore , no necessi t y to withhold tax devol v ed on petitioner- . "fh1 t. !' acc:cJ r�� cj irH;_~l y!l r�u. l e that s ince t.he r�o yB l t i E?s .i.n que s t..ion cou 1 d !J..Q_t. be pa.i. d or- r�e m.i. t +. eel .i.n 1972 by pet.i tioner Ba yer Fhann ac eu t..i.ca 1 s , In c:. , to non - re si c:len t fore.i. qn corpo r at i.on Ba yer AktienqesPllsc:hal'ft, Lever-ku sen Bayermerc:: k 4
. .... DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2915 - 6- due to Centr- .3 1 Bank r-e�s+:r-� i.cticms~ p e titioner was under no obligation to \�-Ji t.hho let and P�~Y income tc:~.>: --a t.--source on �3r."'l.i c:l r�oy altiE�~s <':lnd, t.hE~r� r-~for��p ~ 1.s not liable for the deficiency withholding tax - a t -source asses sm~nt of respondent Commissi.onf:~r- of Inter-�nal Revenue :-: :�:. 11 Going by the pronoun c Pm e nt and insofar- as the same i s brought to bear upon the cir-cumstances no obt.a.in:i nq, there can be occasion to further s p ec:u li':l.t.E? when t.hr.:? chip s mu st fall~ s n to speak~ 11 The t :.i.me n �f p i:lymen t:. c~ �f the royalties is the maturatio n point of thP ~-~.i.thh o ld.i.ng duty . 11 (Bayer'� ~ We hesitate to furth e r fa s hion an issue into a sa t i s ~c tor-ily settled leg a l situation. ~\IHEF\F FUF<E, r��e~; p on c:I E~ nt 's d e�f j c i e ncy assess ment �for'- thf:? pet-.i.od i.nvc:> l ve d is hpr�e by set aside. No costs .. Que~on City, Metro Ma n i la, July 29, 1988. ~REVES A!s s ociate Jud ~ 4
-- . ._ DECISION - 7- CTA CASE NO. 2915 l�JE CDI\ICl..Jn = AMANTE FI Judqe c'. - -- ROAQUIN CERT I F I CAT I 0 N I hereby certify that this deci s ion was r e a ched after due con s ultation among the members of the Cour t of Tax Appeals in accordanc e with Section 13, Article VII I of the Cbnstitution. AMANTE Pr-esid inq Judge Court of Ta\ Appeal s 4 7~
More in CTA Decisions
- PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. INC. v. CITY of BALANGA and AMADO P. JIMENEZ, in his capacity as, OIC-Treasurer of the City of Balanga(CTA Case No. AC-27)
- NATIONAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10791)
- CTA Case No. 6552 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 6552)
- SANKYU LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 707)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING PHILIPPINES, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 1341)
- CITCO INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED - PHILIPPINE ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10258)
- CTA Case No. 356 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 356)
- CTA Case No. 5700 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5700)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.