BIR Ruling No. 002-2025

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Quezon City

Sections 4 and 238 of the Tax Code of BIR Ruling No. 573-17 1997,as amended; Revenue Memorandum Order No. 83-99, Is amended 0 002-2 025

LAN 0 6 2025 SUN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL ESTATES HOMEOWNERS _ASSOCIATION, INC. (SVREHAD) Sun Valtey Golf & Residential Estate Inarawan, Antipolo City 1870

Attention: Mr. Jose T. Sorreda President

Gentlemen:

Association, Inc. (SVREHAI), representing SVREHAI Phases i and 2, for an appeal on letters dated February 22, 2022 and September 9, 2022"issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 45 -- Marikina City pertaining to the issuance of Authority to Print (ATP) to SVREHAI and invalidation of official receipts printed pursuant to said ATP. This refers to your request on behalf of Sun Valley Residential Estates Homeowners'

Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) with Certificate of Registration No O Documents submitted show that SVREHAI, with Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) is an acsociation duly registered with the BIR"with Certificate of Registration (COR) dated November 02,_2005. SVREHAI is also duly registered with the

to SVREHAI covering Phases 1 and 2 of the'subdivision, COR No. Homeowners Association (HOA) Franchising Unit, there are three valid,existing and duIv reaistcred homeowner's association within the Sun Valley Residential Estates (SVp E\ COR'No. covering Phases 3 and 6, and COR No. Based on the records on file with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HI.URB) issued to SVREHAI covering Phases 7 and 8? issued to SVKEHAI issued

2009, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2021. Sometime in September 2021, when SVREHAI's ATP was about to expire, it applied for and was given an ATP by BIR RDO No. 45-Marikina City for Official Receipt (OR) Nos Since its registration, SVREHAI has been issued with Authority to Print (ATP) for taxable year

allegedly received a phone call from a Group Supervisor of BIR RDQ No. 45-Marikina City regarding the complaint of some residents on the issuance of the ATP for OR Nos. In November 2021, SVREHAI's Property Manager, Mr. Isidro Montalban, Jr. (Mr. Montalban) IOSVREHAI

Helan Amante (Mrs. Amante) who persistently invoking that the legitimate officers of HOA of Sun request a copy of the Notice and Complaint. It was then found out that the complaint was filed by Mrs. Valley Residential Estates (SVRE) are indeed those elected officers of SVREHAI covering Phases 1- 6, contending that in 2016, the old Board of Directors called for the amendment of the By-Laws of the On November 17, 2021, Mr. Montalban went to BIR RDO. No. 45 -- Marikina City to formally

2 Authority to Print of Sun Valley Residential Estate Homeowners Association dated September 7, 2021 : Dcclslon on casc No. HLURB HQA-052819-3010

OT-002 2023

JAN 0 6 2025

which cancelled the CO f Phases 3-6. Perusai of the record shows, however, that in HLURB Case amendments to the Artictes of Incorporation and By-laws Of the Association invalid. NO. NCRHOA its legitimacy was ctearly pronounced in_the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 14, 2019, association for the expansion of the jurisdiction from SVREHAI 1-2 to SVREHAI Phases l-6, and that dated September 15, 2017, a decision was rendered declaring the

status of the intra-association dispute of SVREHAI involving Sorreda Group and Amante Group which at that time was still pending resolution before the Supreme Court in view of the Motion for Mr. Jose Sorreda (Mr. Sorreda), President of SVREHAI Phases 1-2 submitted a letter explaining the Reconsideration filed in the said case. pertaining to the intra-association dispute pending before the Supreme Court. On November 1 8, 2021. Based on the abovementioned complaint, Mr. Montalban was then directed to submit a letter

denied the Motion for the Writ of Execution in said case for being moot and academic, since it involved the term of office of the Amante Group in 2016-2017 which had already expired. Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration but the DHSUD

notice of the public registrations of the three association in thc subdivision. Decision of Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) dated February 13, 2020 in HOA entire SVREHAI (Pnases 1-6) on May 18, 2019 was declared null and void, and the court took judicia1 Case No. In February 2022, the DHSUD conducted a supervised election in SVREHAI pursuant to the 4 In the same case, Mrs. Amante's election as member of the BOD for the

a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), restraining ner from collecting association dues and from conducting an illegal election for the entire Phases I -6 in violation of the supervised election conductcd by the DHSUD. Meanwhile, in HSAC Case No. RIVA-HOA-. ., Mrs. Amante was the subject of

hoid-over. After the supervised election, the SVREHAI Board of Directors of Phases 1-2 was allowed to

Accordingly, you now raise the following issues to this Office for resolution:

PROCESS WHEN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE SORREDA GROUP WAS DENIED DUE VERBAL DISCUSSIONS OF BIR RDO NO. 45-MARIKINA CITY

H WHETHER OR NOT THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAS JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE INTRA-ASSOCIATION DISPUTES

BE RESOLVED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE INTRA-ASSOCIATION WHETFIERORNOTTHEISSUEONTHEJSSUANCEOFTHE ATPCAN DISPUTE IV The AtP OF SvrehAI HAs NOt BeeN LOSt, CANCelLed Or WHETHER OR NOT THE ATP OF THE AMANTE GROUP SHOULD BE REVQKED FOR BEING REDUNDANT AND'DUPLICITOUS SINCE REVOKED

5 Temporary Restraining Order against orticers or SVREHAI 1-6 issued by Human Settlement Adjudication Commission 3 Letter to Revenue District Office No. 45 (Answer to the alleged complaint against SVREHAI) 6 Committee Resotution 015-2022 of SVREHAI declaring failure cf election 4 Decision on case No. HLURB HOA Regional AdJudication Commisslor 2

OT- 0 0 2 - 2 0 2 5 JAN 0 6 2025 WHETHER OR NOT THE RULING/LEGAL OPINION OF THE CHIEF LEGAL^DIVISION, REVENUE REGION NO. 7B-EAST NCR SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AS IT WAS ISSUED BASED ON COMPLAINANTS, AMANTE GROUP MISLEADINGFACTS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE

Code) of 1997, as amended, provides as follows: At the outset, please be informed that Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax

Cases. - The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax

other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or Court of Tax Appeals.

to matters under the jurisdiction Of the Commissioner of Internai Revenue (CIR), which are related to the implementation of the provisions of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended, and other tax laws Administered by the BIR. Based on the above-cited provision, this Office can merely take cognizance of issues pertaining

issued in favor of SVREHAI and its subsequent invalidation. The'tax issue at bar is the validity of the issuance of ATP with Official Receipt No.

printing of any receipts or sales or commercial invoices, Which must be serially numbered and shall show, among other things, the name, business style, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and business address of the person or entity to use the same, and such other information that may be required by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the CIR. Section 238 of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended, provides that an ATP is required before the

application and submission of documents required therefor. The validity of the ATP and receipts printed pursuant to said ATP is now being questioned allegedly on the ground that: SVREHAI 1-6 is now the legitimate HOA of SVRE; that the registration of SVREHAI 3-6 was already cancelled; and that the registration of SVREHAI i-2 and 3-6 were already_consolidatex when their bv-laws were amended. However, as shown in the decision of HLURB in Case No. September 15, 2017 the amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws ot ue Msociation was declared invalid. in the case at bar, SVREHAI was validly issued with an ATP by RDO No. 45 upon its dated

existence in the registration &atabase. It is when the application for an ATP is submitted, together with after compliance with the requirements therefor shall remain yalid unless it is shown that the entity to this case, HLURB, has been validly revoked. In the same vcin, any party sceking to apply for an ATP must show that it has valid certificate of incorporation or registration with the concerned government agency such as Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Trade and Industry Or HLURB/ of an ATP, the RDO having jurisdiction over the business establishment shall verify the taxpayer's which the ATP was issued cease to exist or its registration with the appropriate governmcnt agency, in the necess in case of a homeowner's association. Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 83-99, as amended, provides that in the application ary documentary requirements that the RDOcan approve and issue the ATP. An ATP issued

3

CT- 0 0 2 - 2 0 2 5 JAN 0 6 2025

and is neither dissolved nor has ceased operations, such entity cannot be provided with a subsequent registration in case of change in its name or address with the BIR. Thus, a new ATP should not be allowed if a registered taxpayer is still existing. It cannot appiy for a new ATP and what should be In BIR Ruling No. 573-17, this Office had the occasion to rule that as iong as an entity exists

done is to update its registration in case of change in its name or address by using BIR Form No. 1905 which must be done at the RDO having jurisdiction of the taxpayer.

Premises considered. it is the opinion of this Office that since the ATP issued in favor of