CTA Case No. 4665 (Decision)
v RePUBLIC 0 THE PH LIPPI OtJfH OF TAX A ALS 111 �zoN en v SY~l _MATICS lNC. and J\1-\NI< OF fHE PHILIPP N JSU-lNT>S, COMMISSION Jt JN R �� T. A. CASE NO. 4G65 R VENUE~ SEP 02 1994 Re~p nd~nt. J( - - - - - lSI N nv v1� �or ,.. e f 1..1n d n f a 1 1 e g e d 1 y fee in th amount of Pl , :514,877.30 forth y <11"' YW:1 . Pet1t1ontH' ~::>y s em 1 1 .~ Inc. <SI> is a non-resldent fore 1 gn cor� pot~ ion wtttt b1.1s1n ~ , -; ddre s s at 4001 Rodney Represented hereto by the withholdtng agent/p titioner Bank of Phi 1 i pp in e Is 1 and s <BIJ i ) , � corpora ton dr.1ly organized and existing under the laws of the Phi -lippines. Un April 30, 1989, BPI ent red into an agreement ~oolith Sl entitled "Investment Charter So tware L1cense AqrP.ement" (ptJrtion of whtch was amended on July 20, �' 854
DECISION - � C.T.A. Cas e No. 4Gb5 - 2- l'J/39 ). J. Th is agreement was duly reg iste re d and approved by the Technology I r�ans fer Board of the Department of rrade and Industry o n J uly 21, 1989 undel~ C erti ficate of Registrat1on No. '3 50 . :~.:: The said Aqre em ent granted BPl a llcense to use certain sr c mputer programs. Further a pay men of a licensP feE.> 1n the amou n t of f-27 1, 800 .00 P6 , 05'3 , 509 .. 20 w s st tpul atf'tf I'" yabl up tl.n compl l:?t ion of or qinally payab le 1..1pon e x erut 1011 of the greement> . pet1 tioner l:IP l f ile d its Un Novem r' l o, Monthly Hen11tt a n e Hetur� n "f Incom Taxe s Withh eld f or t;he month nf' Uc:tob r 19HY s howtnq f inal Wlthholding ta~>C o f ~3,t:HH,.5...i'��::>':;l whi c h "'las paid undor Payment Ordet~ No. Jb37466 and CD C on f1rma 1on Receipt No . 17080580 both d<lt ecJ Novenber 10, 1 '::J/49 . �3 ehl toner� BPl c:dlt>ged that thi s amount includes the ~ � :... , 120,826. 2 2 in orne ta)( payrnent of petitio ner S l oi P6,059,509.20 J C f'nse fee. "� On f..\pr ' 1 1 2 G, BPI rt>ques ted for BIR ruling confirming its opin1on that the l icE>nse feE's an d royalties paid by 1 t to SI were subj e ct only to a 10" withholdin g tax pur�su ant to Arti cle 13 , paragraph 1 Exh. "t-1". "G'' . ~Ex h. "t..:'', "L:-1'' .,nd ''B" a nd "B- 1". "C-"" ()5 5
lH t: I SIUN - C. �1. n . Case No~ 4665 - 3- i:?( b> ( lii) of h RP - US r.'\ x l r- eat y 1 n re l at ion t o Art1 c le 12 , pa r agraph ~ <b > ot the H~ - W a s G r man y la x l reaty . ~ I n response , the Comm i s s1on e r of l nt erni'l f~ e venu e J ose U. Un!:] i s su d 13tR Ru ll ng N o . 079-9 1 on Ma y ,I J, 1991 �- o n f 1 r m1 n q BP l ' s opi n i on � . Th i s ru l ing provid s 1 n p ~r t: :::..::-_-i=~M'-'t.fJ r� '!l..ru:.L........J:!.at y o u r .~.1 icefL_ ~es a nd """""..-...:::'"t"''-e= �a ~.i ~~ nc., a Pur s l~C!J:.l.!.. t o___y_p u r ~~~~--~-~~~~~~n~t~�-� ----~w i th_____ ~~!J! i.thholding ~---:Z:=. J. b > <i i i > o f . (I) t_tL__Br t _i_�_l i__t_g_'L. ~ -~~ r t. _,G_E> r many T a>< C() tl t . l. ~" '..rnP.~ .. Un d r the most n~t i o n r:w 11V t o; inn o t tl RP-US r ax [Artic l P 1 �~ , p .:1 r�a q r� p h 2 { b ) ( i ii>J, t he tax 1mposabl e on r ov ~ l ie~ <whi c h li~ew is e e mb r a c P license fees> de rived b y a r E'5oi dent of the United States tr am sources w1thin the Phili p pines sh a ll b e the lowest rate of Phili p pine tax that ma y be imposed on royalties ot the same kin d paid under similar circum s tanc es to a resident of a th . rd state. Ar�t ic l e 1 2 , par-agraph 2 (b) of the RP-West Germany Ta>< Tre>aty , effective January 1, 1 9 85 provides that t'oyalttes at~ising :in the Philippines and pa1d to a resident of West Germany may a 1 s o be t a x ed i n the Ph i 1 i p pi n e s, but the tax so charged s hall not exceed 10~ of th e g r oss amount of r oyal ties arising f rom the use of or the t' ight to u s e of, any patent, tradem a rk, de s 1gn o r model, plan , secret formul a , or from the u se of, ol~ the right to use, industrial, c ommercial or scientific e;Exhs . " D" and " D- 1". 6 Exh. " 1::. " . 8t5 6
IH f:ISION - t.:. I. A. Case No . 4665 -4 P><PI?l"iPnc.� � lhr:> ~aid t r ~ty al o pr ovi des that t� or� c; l n tH] 5 he t rp n sfAr of t echn o l ogy und er Phi l i p pi n P. law ub .Je t to approv al, the llmltatlons of the tax ratP mentio n ed un der <b> c;hall, 1n c c;e of royalttes ari 1n g i n the Republi c of the Ph i 1 1 o p 111"' c; , on 1 y a p p 1 y i f the contr.;H:t giYJn rlse to such royalties has be en appro v f'd by th Philipp lne competent au thor i t 1 ~. XKX ln lintl wi!:M t t bov t' tl I 1 11 Q, Petit :i on r BP 1 f i 1 e d on J ty :-� t, l t;l'-l l t:: laJ m tor� f<e rund W1 . 11 respondent's <nrl ~~sea 1��ch tl:iV ll:>Jon a ~ony for the +' l.P.(}l ].;\tjvf� Hullt-11) h t? amo�Jnt of P1 , 514,H/I, . ~'! p id by r et l l;ton~ S l. " The ove r remi ttanc e Licenst f ,. hi ~ 2 '71, 8<)0.00 '*d tip l y b'to' in nP ow _____??0 . 29:._ L1cens e f p~ _6 , 059, 509 . 20 - -~~- Multiply by regular aH r te 1->2 ,1 20 ,82 8. 22 fatal ~ aM remitt Pd to ATR ~.....:6:::;.Q;; g 950. 9 _c;_ (-kt u a l tax liab i l i t y P 1, 5 14, 877 . 30 (b, 059,509.20 }( 10?< ) Over r~mit ted withho ldinq tax However, responrlPnt did no t grant the refund nor pve n ans~o<1ered BPI's lett~:> r le a ving no re>course b ut to ft le a suit before th1s Court. T het~efore, a petition for t� ev ie"'' was filed on Novemb Pr s , 1 99 1 in ord er to jnterrupt tl1e running of the two-year prescriptive per1od under� Sec . i::.3 0 of the Nat 1onal Internal RevE'nUE' Cod�>, as amend e d. 7 Ex hs. "F" and "F-1".
11 .L:l ' J UN �� L:~ I . f..\ . C<l~.f' No. 4bb� -~ - lhi <:> ca ~ "'1 .:1~ 5Uilmttl 1�d by �" ,.-.pan ent' s c ou nse l fo r-� rlects1on tHl thl? b .S L S !lf th~ f:\ 11~ t~e cot~ de, pet i t t o n e r ' s evide n ce� a n d t h e ple~d1 n 4 �� Bo h p a rti es f ailed t o su b mit th i m rno l he sol r r-t~ l vr d b v t hi s C ourt is 1--1heth e r o t�� not petit i OtiPt '"> nttt l e to t h e l~efund of Pl,~5 1 4,8 77 . 30 r pr .'l el1tHHJ flV t"fl id w h hol di ng tax of SI , a n o n -resi d e nt forei qn c orporat i on , pur s u a n t to the ,I HP- US Ta )( Trea ty. Hased on the ev1den c ~ pr es ented , t h 1s Court f in ds n o rea so n why We ca n n ot gra n t p e t i t i oners' clai m. As stated by Com mi ss i oner J o se U. Dng o n hi s rulin g: <i >nasmuch a s t h e 'Software L ic en s e Agr ee me nt' b e t ~r1een you and Sys tem a t ics Inc. ha d bee n du l y registered and approved by th e Te c h n o l o q y Tran s f e t ' Bo a rd o f t he De par t men t o f Tra d e a n d In dustry on J u ly 21 , 198 9 un o r: C~r t lf i r: l:t+ o Req i stt-ati on No. 950, "" tiyal �b :i e And l i C('H Hi �~ f ~ ari s in n t.!-le Phi 1 fj bi n es a nd p a y a bl e t o Sy s tema tics In c ., a no n-resi dent for-eiq n c orpor at ion bM.c;P d in Ar k a nsas . u . s . A. , are s ub j f'c t to the Phi lippine tax at the rat e of l O K b e c ause this r a tP a ppears i n t he RP - We s t Gt?r m ~ ''Y T a )( Tre a ty and p u r- suan t to Art icle 1 .3, p r.;u:r anM 0 ( b ) Ci ii> of the RP-US T ax Tr a ty. )(){)(. S ince petition E> r s wer e able to p r o v e th a t the w1 th holding tax on lice ns e fe e they p ai d and remitted to 6 Th e B I R records was not transmitted t o the Court. ~c oun s el f o r respo nd ent did n ot ob j e c t to the adm 1 s sion o t p e titione r s ' ex h 1b i ts .
�' nu:I.-JON - C. T.~. C SP Nu. 4665 - b- m un t s to 35", where i t I o1.ald be ref mded to them . 1r h � ~~ y ord~red to REFUND to pet 1 t i o 11"' r� � l!ltHH"I t1 I re presenting o v e r' p a i d w L t h h o ! i n q t n mP )( on 1 i n~!" fee purs1..1ant to RP-US fa~ lreaty. SO ORDE RED . f~ ~ ~ tHNES TO D. ACOSTA Presi d i n g Judge WF CONCUR : 1\..:1<. GRIJBA Ass - e Judge I '"'~~- ~~.~ I Associat e J ud~:r;; ~60
' I 111- C J S J ON - n. C. I . Cas~! No. 1i� bb ~) I- C E H - r IF-- I c.: AT I 01 lu:>r'Pb y CE>rtif y t h .::lt this decision was reached .~fter d1..1P. cons 1 fllt:itl tl monq l.tH� mt rnbef'�s f the Lo~trt o �F r ~ )( ~.\ p o e ~ l s n ��eo d � ~ e r \>ll t: h S ~ t. t i o h t 3 fh� t i c 1 e V1 J I o �f CA �� JZ ct2-~ i:w-.u:. StU U. At:USJA ' 11' �'s 1 d 1 nQ Judge CniiY't of 1.-=tH Appeal s 85 9
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 64 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 64)
- PREMIER CENTRAL, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10251)
- SAN MIGUEL RENGCO PACKAGING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 5804)
- MAXIMA MACHINERIES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9210)
- CTA Case No. 1494 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1494)
- NESIC PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 524)
- CTA Case No. 2917 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 2917)
- CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9592)
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.