CTA Case No. 4129 (Decision)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY BANK OF AMERICA NT AND SA MAN I LA,;.BRANCH, C.T.A. CASE NO. 4129 COMMISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, x-- - �---� Respondent. �-- -�- .... �- -- )( DEC I I D N This petition invol ves a clai m of pet it icorH? t' Bank of Arnet' ica 1\!T and SA, Manila Bt' al"1Ch fot' t h e refund of alleged over pai d 5~ gross receipt s tax for The sole i ss ue is wh ether�� not the additional 1~ ta>< imposed on ev~ry sale or purchase of exchange sho1.1ld be included i 1"1 the r eceipts for purposes of computi n g the 5~ ba nk tax pursuant to Section 260 ( c ) [now 11. 9 (c) J of the Na ti onal Internal Revenue Code. Pet it i or1et' is a authot'i zed to eY1gage ir1 the ba nk ir1 g busine ss ir1 the Phi 1 i p p i nes. On Oct obet' 1.;::;:, 1984, Reve n ue Regulations No. 16--84 wa s pa s sed imposing ar1 add it i or1a J. 1 ~ t a>< on 185
�. DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 2- the gross peso value of every sale or purchase of fot~e i gr�1 exchange by banks ~-~hi ch We Clu ot e in fuJ. J., as follO::�WS: "Republi c of the PhiJ.ippir1es Ministry of Finance BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE Quezon City O cto bet~ 1E:, 1'381.~ REVENUE REGU LATIONS NO. 16 - 84 SUBJECT: Imposition of Addit iona l One Per T0 Cent <1~> Tax on the Gross Value Received by Bar1ks, Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries and Authorized Foreign Exchange Dealers. All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned. Purs uant to the prov ision of Section 326, in relation to Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1'377, a s a mend ed, these Reg1.1lat ions a~~ e het~ eby pt~ omulgated to gc�vet~n the mannet~ of imposition of the additio:�nal tax qf or1e pet~ cent <1~ ) o n the sa le or purchase of foreign exchange by banks, non- bank financial int ermed i aries and other authorized foreign exchange dealers . SECTION 1. Tax on foreign exchange tt~ ansactior1s. Ar1 additior1al tax of or1e per ce r1 t ( 1 ~ ) sha 11 be imposed or1 the gt~ oss va 1 ue of every sale or purchase of foreign exchange by all banks, non - b ~nk financial intermediaries and other aut h orized foreign exchange dealers. SECTION 2. t"1ar.rret... c�f cc� rn putat ic�r� r:�f ta>< base. Fa t~ purpose s of determining the gro ss peso value of every sA le or purchase of 186
DECI SION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 3- foreign eM c h a nge such v alue shall be computed by applying t he offici a l rate o f ex c hange betWf?.en the P hilippine p es o ar-,d the fot~ eign currency that is prevailing on the date of the actual consummation of the sale or purchase. I y-, the case of sa 1e of fo::�t~e i gn exchange arising from export proceeds and other inward remittances, the gross value shall not be diminished by commissions paid, document a ry stamps and other charges incurred on s uch transactions. Similarly, in the case of foreign exchange licenses to cover imports and other outward remittances , the gross value shall not be ir-,ct~ eased by cc�rm11is s ions paid, documentary stamps and other charges incurred on such tran s actions~ SECTION 3. Time of decl a ration and payrner-,t of taxes. The tax impo s ed o::�n the fc�t~ e i gn e><change, t t~ansact ed with i y-, one week, sha 11 be payab 1e on the f tt~st bank i ng day of the succeeding week and it shall be the duty of every bank and non-bank financial i r-,t et�' med i at~y and aut hot~ i zed fot~ei ~Jn exchange dealer to make a true and complete return <B. I.R. Form No. ) of the value of foreign exchange s old or purchased during the week and pay the tax due thereon. SECTION 4. Penalties . (1) Failm~e to file ar-,d pay the t ax . If the required return i s not filed or the tax n o t pa id within the time speci fied by law, the a mount of the tax shall be increased by t wer-,t y -- f i ve pet~ cey,t ( 2 5 i0 , the i nct~ emeY,t to f o t~ rn pat~ t of the tax and the entit~ e unp a id amount sha 11 be co 11 ect ed i y, the same ma y-,r-,et~ as the tax. (2) Willful neglect to:� file, ot~ false ot~ fra udulent return. In case of willful neglect to file the returns wi thin the period s pecified by l aw, or in case of fa l se or fraudulent return is willfully filed, there shall be added to the tax or to the deficiency tax in cas e any payment has been made on the basis of s u c h t~ettn~n befot~e the discovet~ y of the fa 1 s i t y ot~ ft~ aud, a sm~charge of f i f t y (50i0 of the amount . The arnc�unt S(::t added to 187
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 4- any tax s hal l be collected in the same manner and as part fo the tax unless the tax has been paid befot~ e thP discovet~y o:�f the fal s ity ot~ fraud, in which case, the a mount s o added shall be collected in the same manner a s the tax. In add it ion to the i':l.bove adrnir-,i s tt~ at ive penalties, the cri minal and civil penalties as provided for under Section 337 of the Tax Code of 1977 shall be imposed. SECTION Repealing c 1a use. All regulations, rules, orders or portions thereof whi c h are inconsistent with the provisions of these Regulations are hereby revoked. SECTION 5 . Effectivity. These Reg u l at i or-.s shall take effect on fot~ei gn exchange transaction s effected beg i r-m i ng Oct o b et~ 15, 1984. <SGD. ) ALFREDO PIO DE RODA Acting Minister of Finance RECOMMENDED BY1 <St3D. ) RUBEN B. ANCHETA Act i ng Comm iss i onet~" F�:�t~ the pet~ iod ft~o:�m O ctobet~ 22, 1984 to Jar-.uat~y ;;::, 1985, pet .it i or-. et~ paid a total of P9, 5E,8, 7'+9. 28 representing the additional 1~ t ax on gross value received from the sa l e or purchase of foreign exchange. Aside from the additional 1 ~ tax, banks like the pet itioner were also required to pay the percentage tax on gross receipts pursuant to Section 250 (now 119 ) of the National I y�,t et~na 1 Rever-.ue Code, as a mended by 188
) DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 3- Pt~es i dent i a 1 Dect~ee No. 17 39, effect ive Sep t e mb et~ 17, 1980. Section C:~50 <c) impo s e s a t a >< c:�f 5 '1- on t he gt~ c:o s s t~an s a c tion s wi t hin the Philippines. On Janua ry 2 1, 1985, p e titioner paid it s g ros s receipts tax for the fourth qua~ter o f 1 9 84 amountin~ t o P1 5 ,408, 152 .93 pursuant to Section 2 60 <Exhs.V, V- 1 and V-2). On Febt~ ual�'y 2 0, 1985 , petit i o:�net' paid a ddition a 1 gt~o:.ss t~ eceipts tax fot~ the ye a t~ endiF�Q De c::en1b e t' 3 1, 1.984 amounting to P47,B99.56 <Exhs. T, T- 1 and T- 2). On September 16, 1. 985, the Bureau of Internal Revey-,ue tht'U Revenue Memor a ndum Circ ul ar No. 3 9 -- 8 5 published acid it i o:�na 1 que s tion s anr.1 t he implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 1E, -- 8'+. Th e as appli c able provides : C~ue s ti o n 3 1. -- With o ut ch.::n' ging g t' osse d - up t~at es , can finaF.cial. ir. s tituti�: �F� S b e allowed t o t' epot' t -Fot~ gt~ oss t~ ecei p t s ta >< a nd net income tax purposes o nly the actual amount eat~n e d, without adding the 1'1- ta x assumed by the client? Ar.s. Yes. Thet~ e will be no:� pyt~ arniding of the 1'1- tax passed on t o the client for the financial ir.s titution. On May 22 , 1986, petit i onet~ t~e 1 y i ng on Re v. MenK�. Cit~ . No. 39- 85 filed a c laim fo:�t~ t' efund with t'e s ponclent 189
DECISION CTA CASE NO . 4 129 - 6- <Exh. U>. It alleged that the 1% additional taxes paid of its gross receipt s subjected anew to the 5 % bank tax pursuant to Section 260 (c). In other words, the gros s receipts was overstated by P9,568,749.28. i Neces s at~ 1 y, the 5'1- tax P9,568,749.28 P478,437.46 was erroneously paid by petitioner following the interpretation placed by respondent on Rev. Reg. No 16- 84 through its Rev. Memo. Cir. No. 39- 85 particularly Question No. 31 thereof. As of pres ent time, respondent has not acted upon petitioner's claim for refund of P478,437.46 on the alleged excess 5% gro s s receipts tax for the fourth On .Tar��-t a t~ y 19, 1987, petitior.et~ filed the instant petition for review pursuant to Sections 2 92 and 295 (now 230 and 204) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. In his answer, respondent contends that petitioner failed to support by evidence payment o f th e additional 1% tax totallir�g P9,568,749.28. to respondent's claim, after examining the records, found that petitioner was able to prove payment of at least P9,229,054.35 (Exhs. A - S- 2, inclusive, pp. 65 - 102, CTA rec. ). However, payment made on January 2, 1985 amounting to P339,694.85 was not presented as part 1 90
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 7- of petitioner's evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be Petitioner also presented proof that the additional 1~ tax was added as part of the gross receipts of petitioner for the fourth quarter of 1984 <Exhs. X, X-1, There is no dispute that the 1~ tt~arrsact ion taxes paid wet~e indeed irrcluded irr th e cc:.rnputatir:�n of the 5~ bank tax. The ct~ucial questiorr which has to be t~ esc�lved is whether or not the additional 1~ tax should be added as of the 5~ bank tax. We hold that it should be included as pat~ t of the gross receipts subjected to the 5~ bank tax. The 5~ bank tax under Section 260 is based on the t~ecei p t s 11 det~i ved sout~ ces w i t h i n t h e Philippines. The t errn "gt~oss receipts" was i rrt et~ pt~ et ed to mearr "the wh ole arnourrt t~eceived with o ut deductir:�ns, 11 otherwise, i t wi 11 be cc�rrs idet~ ed a 11 Y"ret receipts 11 � <National City Bank of New York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, BTR Case No. 5 �;:) ' July 12, 1952. ) ""'" Though the t e t~ rn 11 grc�ss receipts 11 ord i nat~ i 1 y rnearr s the arnoLmt collected arrd Lmcollected of all the sales, orr which amourrt the must be computed 1 91
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 8- det et~m i r.e the tax. <Eppstein v. State, Tex., 138 S. W. 1 u ::4 , 1125. It i s neoteweot~ thy t o stt~ess that the additional 1'1- liability impc�sed c�n the bank. If the 1'1- transaction tax is shifted by the bank to its clients then the 1'1- tax collected ft~orn the c1 ients st i 11 fot~m pat~t of the gross receipt s of the bank because wh at was received was actually earned and should be treated as income~ Section 260 provides for the basis of computing the 5'1- bank tax, that is, the receipts der ived by all banks business i rt the Philippines d i l SCO::ol.. rtt s, dividends, corm11 iss i orts, t~ oya 1 ties, and Sect ior� 29 (b) defi rtes as to "i rtc 1 ude gains, det~i ved pt~o fe ss ions, vocations, business, co:::ornrnerce, property or any interest therein; and from interest, rents, dividends, securities, eor the transactions of any business carried on for gain or profit, 182
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 9- s c~_t!:�.~.� �' Ir.stead eof the bank burden was �Shifted teo the clients. As such, the additior.al 11- tax chat~ged by petitior.et~ to i t s clients at'e actually gair.s eot~ ir.corne of the bank. <W.r�Q.!'!J:::...L~...Dir:!.!l revenue laws are given great weight. <Mol ina v. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 545; Madrigal and Paterno v. Rafferty and Concepcion, 38 Phil. 414; People v. Hernandez, 59 Phil 272; Anderson v. Posadas, 66 Phil. 205.) Howevet', this pt'inciple is r.eot absc:.lute. It may be o:� vet'come by T h us, i f t h t' o ugh a r�lisappt'ehensio:�r� of the law ar� officet' (in this case respondent> has erroneously executed it for a long time, the error may be corrected when the true construction is Ir.cider.tally, the doctt'i ne of estoppel does neot app 1y het'e. (Phi 1 i ppi ne Long Distance Telephone Co., v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674.) Ir. th~ case at bat' , the ir.tet' pt'etatieon placed by respc�r�der.t eoh Rev. Reg. No. 16- 84 tht'co ugh Rev. Memo:� '. Cit'. Neo. 39- 85 pat' ticulat' lY ar.s wet' tc� questior� no. 31 thereof is not in consonance with the provisions of Sections 260 and 29 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. The of ar. officet' chat'ged with th e duty cof 193
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 41 29 - 10 - given effect. Fi ndir�g r,o legal b as is teo supp cq�~ t the interpretation of respondent in Rev. Memeo. Cir. No:r. 39- 85 question r�o:�. 31 it feollo:rw s that such ir,t en~pt~etatic�n of Rev. Reg. No:�. 15- 84 dc�es r�c�t hav e the feot~ce and effect cof law. Claims for refund are in the n ature eof claims fo:rr exe mption ft~eo m tax at i c�r ,. <Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95; Resins, Inc. v. Auditor General, 25 SC RA 754.) When exemption frorn taxation is c la i r11 ed, it mu st be shc�wr' ir,dubi tabl y t c� exist. The pres umpt io n is al ways against any surrender eof the taxi r,g p eo wet~ . <Mol ina v. Rafferty, supt~~. > As such, exe mp tic�n " cannot be allo wed unless gt~a nted ir, the mc�st explicit ar,d categc�t~ical lar,guage". <Resins, Inc. v. Auditor General, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Guerrero, 21 SCRA 180; Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 31 SCRA 520; Union Garment Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, 4 SCRA 30 4.) The law does no:rt leoeok with fav or a tax exemption ar1d that he wh�:� wc�uld seek tc� be thus privileged mu st justify it by WC�t~ ds too plair1 tc� be mi staken ar1d toe� cat e g eot~ i ca 1 to be misinterpreted. <Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 958; Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corp. v. CTA, 54 SCRA 555; Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. P. J. Keiner Co.,
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 11 - Ltd., 65 SCRA 143; Manila Electric Co. v. Vera, 67 SCRA 351. ) In view of the fcq�~egoir.g, this cotwt is of the opinion and so holds that the additional 1~ tax paid by Rev. Reg. No. 16-84 was rightfully included in its gross receipts for the period for purposes of computing the 5~ bank tax under Section 260. WHEREFORE, f i r�d i r.g the instant petit i or� fm~ t~ev i ew the san1e is DISMISSED . P e t i t ior.et~' s claim for t~efur.d of 5~ gt~oss t~ ecei pts tax for the fourth quarter of 1984 amounting to P478,437.46 � is thet~efor DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Met t~o Man i 1a, Mat~ch 30, 199�~- ~- fft t;r--. TANT� C. ROAQUIN Judge I CONCUR: ~~~. ~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presidir�g Judge 195
-u DEC ISION CTA CASE NO. 4129 - 12 - . CE RT I F I CAT I 0 N I het~eby cet~ tify that t h i s decisior-1 was t~eached after due consultation between the members of the Court of Tax Appea 1 s i r-1 acco t~dance w i t h Sect i or-1 13, At~ t i c 1 e VIII of the Consti t ution. ~~Q'"~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Pt~esi d ing Judge Court of Tax Appeals 196
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.