CTA Case No. 3373 (Decision)

REPUBL I C OF THE PHILIP P IN ES COURT OF TAX APPEALS C:lUE ZON CITY LI EBERMANN OVE RSE A TRADING ( PHIL S. ) ~ IN C., MANI LA, F'<::ti t..ionE-"!r ~ C .T.A. CASE NO . 337 3 COMMI SS ION ER OF INT ERNAL R E V E NU E~ -- �-�� �� ~� �-� -� -~� ���- ~-~ DE C I S I 0 N ~)u.i. t. br�oug ht by pe:-~ t.i. t.i.oner� L..i e benna.nn 0Vf2r sea Tra ding (Phils.), Inc ., for recovery of the sum of P171, 77 4.69 repre se nting ~lleged erroneously paid 6% brok e r' s tax under Section 208 of the 1.977 National Intern a l Revenue Code, after no action was ~easonably taken by re s pondent Commissioner of In t .e r� na l Revenue on p ~tit ioner's admi n i s trative claim for refund. On May :2 .1. , becaus e of petitioner's fai l ure to prosecute its claim, t h is case, upon moti o n nf respondent, wa s dis missed by the Court. 285

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 2 To quot.E' t h e r-�?�:;o l uti on t1ay 21., Considering t he failure of peti - tioner 's counse l to appear at the hearing on May 7, 1 985, despite pr o p e r notice thereof, after postponement of hea ring for no less than twe l ve (1 2) times majori ty of whi c h were at the behest of petitioner's counse l , and th is case has bee n pending ~; :i. n c �! ~3r:::- p t. 0 mi:Jt:> r-� .1. 5, 191:] .1. , this Co u r� t, upon motion of res pondent, here by orders the di s missa l of the a b ove-entit l ed case for lack of interest o n t he part of petitioner t o prosec ute its a ppeal. l���l uv~F:~VE~ r� .i.n ,:,, r��E!so lut.ion cl <::\ tec:l De t.obE?t-� .1.7, i::h f!.'> COI...It"��t�.,, upon �::; how in<_~ of pE�?t.i. tionr::?r�� � :; '' c o u n ::.�-? 1 � "'� .in cl i s:.. p o,�:...i 1:.: .io n on the s-,c:: hc-?d t.tl ed d a t-~ of h f.�?i::l. r .i. n q , 1 .i. �f t-.r:.:!d Du.r��.i. r1 q t:.h l'o h r::.><.J.r-.i.. n g of th is case on December 17, 1985, petitioner, as well as r espond e nt, merely ~; u l:'lrnitt~;.!d tt1 r::.~ C::dS('? fo1"� dr::~cj_s ion o n t:h t:? h<3. �:; i s of th e pl E!i.:\diniJ ~". No ev ide n ce or proof wh at ~;; oE~VE0 t��� wa ::; presente d by petitioner to prove its e ntitl e ment to the s ubj ect c l ai m f o r Nei th e r was t h ere a ny ,... f.'!c ord of the-? Bt.weau of In tr:-?nla 1 F~evenur::~ l'" t? l a t:inq to t h E':-: c:,::J.se to l.Jh .i. l f.0 hoth tim E? to 28o

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 ~~~ ..... �;:;u bm i t t 1�1e .i r�� ~espect.ive memor an dum s, no memo~andum was t i l e d by eithe~ pa~ty. On the b asis of the pleading s: 1. Petitione~ i s a co~po~ation duly o~ganized .::\ n d c ~-: :i. '-'it�..i.nq unci f~ r�� ,~1.nd by vir� t.uf~ of tt1e 1 ,,_,,.,s of t hr.:.> F' hi l i p p .1. 1�1Ps , w:i. t h p 1�� inc: .i. pC":\ 1 office at M et~oba nk Buendia Avenue Extension, C.:\ l l n<:\ t ..i.o n <:=~ 1 .i.r�1t.r:-~r�� n c:\ 1 r� E've nuc0 r �E'CJ u l "' �1: i cn1�:> .i. ~:;~:; uf:' cl 1��� !:-~ l ,'.:\ t .i. VE:' t.: hE~ t��c.;, to, ~., .i. t t' off i c f~ a -1::. th e BIR Bldg., East T~.i. a ngle, Diliman , Quezon City, with s umm o n s in connectio n with this case. 19BO, p t-:-) -1.-� .i. t ion E' l-� l C:! t"" l���� onf:~uu ~:; y pay ing t h e 6% b~oker's t. ,,~ >: u n d !�:�~ r�� Sec tion 20 B of t h ro Old Tax Code as follow s: Ou .=1. .t�� t.<-:-' l'. End!;~ c:l Anne~-: "B" h e t�� eof :::s, 942.90 ~��--�-��-~-�����--��� ��--�-��� ���� �---��������-� Septembe~ 30, 1979 , Dec: f:~ m bf::) r 31. .1.979 t'l a 1���c h :::; .1. .1. CfF.30 AnnE�?~< "[;" h E? n~~ o f T:T., 632. 64� ,Jun!C! Anne~-: "D" hE:>t-�eo f :::;n; .1.900 28t

DECISICJN CTA CASE NCJ. 3373 ���- 'l --� , f:3r:? p t.Pm hP r.. ::~:o l.C?UO (~nnP:-: liE II hE?r�t::~o-f 32' 1. :=:;::=:;. 90 , Dec: E.> mb(-~ r�� ~) 1. 19!30 flnnE~ :-: IIF II he t�� Po -f Pl7.1, TJ f.l.� 69 ::::: :::~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::-_-: (.) ::; E.'V.i..d(�:�~ f1C: E.'c:l by t . hf:? fnllowinc;J S e pt e mb e r 30, 1979 Con f .inn,::\ t .i. u n {.)nne:< 11 {.) ..��1. '' iif:?C: E~ .i pt. l\ lt:J � h er.. E?of {) ~:oo70 ':':lE3 ci<:,, t.r."' d .1..0 -�- .1. 9����79 December 31~ 1.979 Con �f i. r.. rna t �..i. o r1 Anne :-: 11 I3-�- .1'' f~�-~CE'.i.. pt 1\i q., rler.. (�'? Of '' A ~~; 0 !''.ill�~=;;~~; 0 d "'' ted 1.��-:.? l-�80 t1 c\I'C: h [:(:>n f i. r��rnc.:\ t ..i. on l AnrHo>:-~ IIC ..... 11 at.tnc� h E? I'.. E-?0 f 1'\!'~C: P .i p t: 1\lo � (.) �1-0S' ;'if::, l 0 d a t.E�? cl LJ. �--~? l ���-BO ::::o, l cl'uo C n 11 f :.i. nn ~'- t ..i on {.) n n E0 :-: 11 D ..... l 11 1-'\E' C:: ('~ .i.. pt. 1\lo � A ~) :1. ~.? ~:l030 cl C.:\ t.E>d herr-:?of 7--'2 1 -.. !J(l Septe mb er 30, 1.980 Con 'f i. nn,3. t .i. on AnnE.>:�( 11 E -..� 1 11 f~E�?C: E' i pt. 1'-Ju .. h E?n:?of A 5 J. ~:l7l11 cl <::\ t. f.'.' cl 10���-20 ����' 00 Con �f .i. ,..� rn .::~ t. .i. on fl1'11.H ?:-: 11 F --� l II n E.'C E? .i. p t 1\10. ht:::> r.. E~ o f f-1 58.1.0096 da t�"'cl .1.�-� :.?o �- r:ll While re s pondent aclrn.it.s under P <':\ r.. agr�aph 2 of -1:'. h ,'.'.\ t. t pl~~ .i. t .i. o n E' ,... 286

DECISION CTA CASE NO~ 3373 - 5- the quarters ending September 30, 1979 to December 31, 1980, r es pondent specifically d~nies the allegation that said payments were erroneously made, the same being a mere conclusion of law, and f a lse. 3. Petitioner is not liable to pay the 6% Broker's tax because it is not a broker, accordingly in a letter dated April 1 ' 1981, petitioner thr '' lgh counsel, filed its written c laim for refund. '' Res pond e nt a dmits under paragraph 3 of his answer tha t petitioner filed a written claim for refund dated April 1, 1981 but he s pecifically denies the allegation that petitioner is not liable to pay the 6% broker � 's tax because it is not a brok e r, th e s an1e being a mere conclusion of law on the part of petitioner and fal s e . 4. To date, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue has not acted upon the petitioner's claim for refund to which reason petitioner is constrained to file the instant petition with this Honorable Court which will prescribe on October 19, 1981. 283

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 -��� 6 ..... Again respondent d enies this allegation, the same be.i.nq ~ mere conclusion on the pc:\r�� t. of petition er, the truth being that petitioner's c laim for refund is under investigation which has not yet been finished a nd completed. And by way of s p ~::?c:ial and a f f i nna t. i ve defenses, respondent avers that: In cl<c\ims t.a:-:es, the but-� den to s how pr� oof that it is entit l ed to the refund beinq c laimed; It. .i. s; .i.ncu.t11b(::> n t upon petitioner to s how that '' it has complied with thd provisions of Section s 292 and 295 o �f the Na tio nal Int~:?n1al F:;:E?Vr:nue Cod~:? of 1977; a nd Ass uming that petitioner ha s paid the taxes in ques tion, th e sa me a re pre s umed to h ave been paid i n accorda nce with law and therefore, no amount thereof i s refundab l e. As stated ear lier, t hi s case was s ubmitted for j udgm r.en t on the basis of the pleading s ~ithm:!.t petition er offering a ny pr-oof as to the truth of allegations which, as may be seen above, effect s pecifica lly denied by respondent, 2 lJ

---. DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 -- 7 -�� bear� ing em fono.Jarded to thi s Cour��t , No con t.t-a c: t of sa le or contract of pur-e hase wa s presented for ex amination or analysis and study by the Cour�t.. While xe rox co pies of r-evE~ nue ta:-: receipts were attached as annexes to th e petition for review~ the sa me were not compared with the originals~ identified, marked as exhibit s to t hE� Cot.\ r �t. No evidence or proof whatsoever was offered by petitioner in s upport of its allegation or claim that it is entitled to the I' n:.~ fund of p aid commer-c::.i. .:'\ 1 brok er's tax under Section 208 of It i s thus c l e ar beyond doubt that there is no g r�oun d or�� h .::.\ ~:; .i..~; upon which this Court can issu~::~ judgme nt ordering r- c~ ~:; pun i::l c~n t to ,.- �~ fund p e titioner th e a mount involved in its claim. As correctly contended by n:?~;ponc:len t, <.md deemed admitted by petitioner~ in claims for refund of taxes~ the burd ~ n rests on petitioner to show proof that it is entitled to the refund being claimed; it is incumbent upon petitioner to show that it has complied w.i. th the provisions of Sections 292 and 295 of the N ~ tional Internal Reve nue Code of 1977; 2.9

- DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 ..... 8 - that: pE'!t:itiorH:?r- h;.:;~.s paid thf? ta:-:es in presumed to have been paid in accordance with law and therefore~ no amount thc=�t-� E~of :i.s r�� r0�f t .tr1dablr~. Petitioner having failed to sustai n the burden placed upon i t by pr-esE~n ting p n :lD �f t. hat i t is entit l ed to the r� efund of the amount .i.nvolvE1d herein, this Court could not look with approval to the grant of the refund. And more so when j_ t . r�� e~fu.nd of ta :-: !'?<::.; t.tnd oub ted 1 y p c:\ ,,..take~=; o �f t. hE'! na tu Y"f? .' p:-:r-~mpt.i..nn, a nd the same cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorica l 1 an qu ;:,\(]!�:'!. In c. v ~; . Auditor Gen era l, l........�l7t388, De t. C J. aims -for- F"(-? fund ar. c:~ t corl ~'; ,,- u~~?d s tr-ict 1 y aq a :i. n s t c 1 a iman t ~; since a claim for rE:�fund is i n the nature of an exemption from t ax ation . (Commi ssioner of Internal F\F:)V Pnl .lC'! V~::;. L edes ma, L - 17509, 1970, 31 !:lCF\A 9:':i. ) As se t forth in Commi ssi oner of Internal FIE'Vf'.!f'll.lf:? vs. Guerrero, L-20812, Sept. 12, 1967, 21 SCRA .180: "Fr.. cHn 1906, Catholic Church vs. H a~;t..i nq s t.o .1.966, in Esse Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Acting Commi ss ioner of Customs, it has been the con s tant and uniform holding that exempti o n s from

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3373 ..... Cf ..... taxation i s not favored and is never pre s um ed~ so it mu st be st rictly construed t.:E:I :-: p<1 yr.:! r��. Affirmatively put, th e law E' :-: f~m p t :i.on �f n::>rn ta:-:~:~ t .i.o n, an e:-:(~?mpt. ing pr� ov i ~:;ion ~:; hou 1 cl b e~ cons t nJE~d (C atho l ic Church vs. Hastings, Commi ssion8r of Cus toms, L-2 1841, Oct. 28, 1966, 18 ~3CR(-'I Ll�Bf:3; Ph:i.J. . Co rnrn i ~;~.;.i.oner- o�f L -��� .1. 9707 ~ r.~uq � 17, 19 67~ 20 SCRA Cornrn .is ~==; .i. nne r�� of I nt.er�� n t:ll Guerr�e ro, L-70942, " '"1 ,."'1 .1. 967, S C F~A 180; ,'".I,::\ n .1.. J.. <�~ F.:-. .J. PC: �l�.: r�� :..t. c Cu. v~;. .t::. .�::. , De t. . , ,..,,.. .�::...::. !' 1 975, 67 SCRA 351.) WHEREFORE, finding t. ht:.:> pr,>l.i tion �f o l'. wit�. hout rn E~t-� .i.t. , i. s di �:; rniss t.:~d t he r-E~ f l.tnd I c: r��(:.:> d it. c:;ought. is hE�r�eby at pe titioner's costs. SO mmERED . Qu ezo n City, Metr o Mani l a, Marc h 2 5, 1 988 . AMANTE g F'1r e~:;idir ,Judg e 293

- DEC I SI ON CTA CAS E NO . 3373 --� .1.0 ��-� WE CON CUR : '-- ROAQUII\I CE RT I F I CAT I 0 N I certify t hat thi s decis ion wa s reache d a ft er due c onsultation a mong t he members of thP Court of Tax Appea l s in accordance wit h Section .1. ::::; , A,..t: .i c 1 !'~ \1 I I I of thE? Cons t .i. tu t :i.on .. AMANT E F'r��c,s ic:li ,JudqP Court of Tax Appea l s 294