Ibex Global Solutions Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

CUI-DAVID, J.:

In these consolidated Petitions for Review filed on April 28, 2023 (CTA Case No. 11146) and July 17, 2023 (CTA Case No. 11216), petitioner IbeJ< Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. seeks the refund or issuance of a TaJ< Credit Certificate (TCC) in the aggregate amount of P25,415,769.65, allegedly representing unutilized input value-added taJ< (VAT) attributable to its zero- rated sales for the 2nd, 3rd and 4 th quarters of fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2021, detailed as follows: CTA Case No.

Period Covered

Amount of Claim

11146 2nd Quarter (FY 2021) P7,829,882.01 11216 3rd & 4th Quarters (FY 2021J 17,585,887.64

TOTAL

P25,415,769.65

THE PARTIES

Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and eJ<isting under the laws of the Philippines, with registered address at Unit 301 Silver City Building, Tiendesitas, Frontera ~

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Verde, Pasig City, 1605 Philippines. 1 It is a VAT registered taxpayer having been issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue

(BIR)

a

Certificate

of

Registration

No.

OCN126RC20230000000458 issued on March 29, 2023.2 Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), with office address at BIR Building, Diliman, Quezon City.3

THE FACTS

ANTECEDENTS (ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL)

Petitioner avers that during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021 , it was engaged in the business of providing business process and contact services and other facilities through employees working at its various offices located in the Philippines. Allegedly, during the said period, almost one hundred percent ( 1 OOo/o) of its sales of such services were rendered for Ibex Global Bermuda, Ltd., a non-resident foreign corporation engaged in business outside the Philippines. Petitioner further avers that, in the course of performing contact services during the aforesaid period, it incurred and paid input taxes on its local purchases of VATable goods and services.

Petitioner likewise avers that, for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021 , it filed Quarterly VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550-Q) with respondent, as follows: 4

Quarter

Date Filed

2nd J anuary 22, 202 1 -Original Novem ber 19, 2021- Amended 3rd April 23, 2021 - Original November 20, 202 1 - Am ended 4th J uly 24, 2021 - Original November 20, 2021 - Amended Allegedly, since almost 1 00°/o of petitioner's sales were made to its non-resident foreign client, Ibex Global Bermuda Ltd., which sales were subject to VAT at a Oo/o rate, it did not Docket (CTA Case No. 11146), p. 308, Joint Stipulation of Fact and Issue (JSFI), Admined Facts, par. I. I. /d. at 310, JSFI, Stipulated Facts, par. 11.1 ; 228, Exhibit "P-4". /d. at 308, JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 1.2. /d. at 3 10. JSFI, Stipulated Facts, par. 11.2.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue have enough output taxes against which it could apply the input tax credits.

Thus, on December 27, 2022, or within two (2) years from the close of the 2nd quarter of FY ended June 30, 2021 (i.e., quarter ended December 31, 3020), petitioner filed with the BIR VAT Credit Audit Division (VCAD) an Application for Tax Credits/ Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), together with the Revised

Checklist of Mandatory Requirements on Claims for VAT

Credit/ Refund. s The application sought the refund or issuance of a TCC for unutilized and excess creditable input taxes attributable to its alleged zero-rated sales for the 2nd quarter of FY ended June 30, 2021, in the amount ofP7,829,882.01.6 Similarly, on March 29, 2023, or within two years from the close of the 3rd and 4th quarters ofFY ended June 30,2021 (i.e., quarters ended March 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021), petitioner filed another Application for Tax Credits/ Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) with the BIR VCAD, together with the Revised Checklist of Mandatory Requirements on Claims for VAT Credit/ Refund.7 This application covered the alleged unutilized and excess creditable input taxes attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021, amounting to P17,585,887.64.s However, on March 29, 2023, petitioner received a VAT Refund Notice 9 dated March 1, 2023, signed by Assistant Commissioner Maria Luisa I. Belen of the Assessment Service, denying its application for VAT refund covering the 2nd quarter of FY ended June 30, 2021.

Likewise, petitioner's application for VAT refund covering the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021, was denied through a VAT Refund Notice lO dated May 18, 2023, which petitioner received on June 15, 2023.

/d. at 256-257, Exhibits "P- I o·· and "P-I 0-A'·. 6 /d. at 310. refer to JSFI. Stipulated Facts. par. 11.3. 7 /d. at 258-259, Exhibits "P-1 1" and "P-11 -A". 8 /d. at 3 10, refer to JSFI, Stipulated Facts, par. 11.4.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

CTA Case No. 11146 On April 28, 2023, petitioner filed a Petition for Review, 11 docketed as CTA Case No. 11146, assailing the denial of its administrative claim for VAT refund covering the 2nd quarter of FY ended June 30, 2021.

On June 16, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, 12 which the Court granted in a Resolution 13 dated June 22, 2023. In the same Resolution, respondent was directed to transmit to the Court the entire BIR Records of the instant case.

On July 17, 2023, within the extended period granted by the Court, respondent filed his Answer, 14 interposing the following special and affirmative defenses, to wit: (1) Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 47-2020 provides for the Revised Checklist of Mandatory Requirements on Claims for VAT Credit/ Refund, and one of the documents needed to be submitted are the official receipts (ORs) or invoices in support of the application for VAT credit/refund; (2) original duplicate copies of ORs were submitted by the petitioner, however, upon perusal of the documents submitted, it could be seen that all ORs issued on zero-rated sales from non-PEZA and some PEZA registered branches were plagued with alterations or insertions, due to this, the authenticity of the supporting ORs submitted is already questionable, which cast doubt on the validity of the zero-rated sales from non-PEZA registered branches which is the basis of the claim of refund pursuant to Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC); (3) it is an elementary rule that the burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit;

(4) the presence of erasures/ alterations/ modifications on the ORs and other invoice violations failed to comply with the invo1c1ng requirements of Section 113 of the NIRC which is the ground in which the Revenue Officers disallowed the claim; and (5) tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government, since tax refunds involve a return of revenue from

II

fd. at6-J8.

12 /d. at 78-80.

13 /d. at 81.

14 !d. at 83-87.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue the government, the claimant must indubitably show the specific provision of law from which her right arises; it cannot be allowed to exist upon a mere vague implication or inference nor can it be extended beyond the ordinary and reasonable intendment of the language actually used by the legislature in granting the refund.

Also, in compliance with the Court's directive, respondent transmitted the BIR Records for this case, consisting of 424 pages in one (1) folder, on September 4, 2023.15 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on October 26, 2023,16 but was cancelled until further orders from the Court.17 Prior thereto, Respondent's Pre-Trial Briefwas filed on October 20, 2023,18 while petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief was submitted on October 23, 2023.19 Meanwhile, on October 18, 2023, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Consolidate Petitions.20 Respondent did not file any comment thereto.21 In the Notice of Resolution22 dated January 18, 2024, the Court granted petitioner's Manifestation and Motion to Consolidate Petitions, thus, resolved to consolidate the present case, the case bearing the lower docket number, with CTA Case No. 11216, considering the abovementioned cases involve the same parties and issues.

CTA Case No. 11216 On July 17, 2023, petitioner filed a Petition for Review,23 docketed as CTA Case No. 11216, appealing the denial of its administrative claim for VAT refund covering the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021.

" 15 /d. at 97-99, Compliance with Manifestation and Explanation dated August 31 , 2023. 16 /d. at 88-90, Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated July 21, 2023. 17 /d. at 136, Notice of Resolution dated October 27, 2023. 18 /d. at I 08-110.

19 /d. at 128-133.

20 !d. at 101-104.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

On October 9, 2023, within the extended period granted by the Court,24 respondent filed his Answer,2s interposing the following special and affirmative defenses, to wit: (1) the denial of petitioner's claim for refund in the amount ofP17,585,887.64 is proper, for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for claiming refund or tax credit; and (2) tax refunds are strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the government.

On October 18, 2023, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Consolidate Petitions,26 to which respondent filed his

Comment (Re: Petitioner's Manifestation and Motion for

Consolidation [oj] Petitions dated 17 October 2023) on November 20, 2023.27 Meanwhile, respondent transmitted the BIR Investigation Records for this case, consisting of 344 pages in one ( 1) folder on October 19, 2023.28 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on February 7, 2024.29 In a Resolution dated January 16, 2024, 30 the Court granted petitioner's Manifestation and Motion to Consolidate Petitions. Accordingly, CT A Case No. 11216 was consolidated with CTA Case No. 11146, the case bearing the lower docket number.

Proceedings After Consolidation

Following the con solidation of the cases, the Pre-Trial Conference was conducted on February 7, 2024.31 Prior thereto, Respondent's Consolidated Pre-Trial Brief, 32 and petitioner's Consolidated Pre-Trial Brief, 33 were both submitted on February 2, 2024. ~ 24 /d. at 98- 100, Respondent's Motion for Addilional Time to File Answer dated September 6, 2023; I 02, Notice of Resolution dated September 12, 2023.

25 I d. at I 04- 11 7.

26 /d. at 123- 126.

27 /d. at 132 to 134.

28 /d. at 127-129, Compliance dated October 17, 2023. 29 /d. at 119-121, Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated October 16, 2023. 30 !d. at 140-1 42.

31 Docket (CTA Case No. 11146), pp. 139-140. Notice of Resolution dated January 18, 2024: 142-144, Notice of Pre- Trial Conference dated January; 286-289, Order dated February 7, 2024. 32 /d. at 167-1 72, attached to respondent' s Compliance with Motion to Amend Exhibit Markings and with Attached Consolidated Pre-Trial Brief dated February 2, 2024, Docket (CTA Case No. 11146), pp. 165-1 67. 33 /d. at 173-180.

Ibex Global Solution s (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

On February 27, 2024, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues,34 which the Court approved in its Resolution dated March 13, 2024,35 thereby terminating the pre-trial proceedings. The Pre-Trial Order was subsequently issued on April 12, 2024.36 Trial thereafter ensued, during which petitioner presented the testimonies of: (1) Mr. John Michael Arceo,37 its Tax and Corporate Compliance Manager; and (2) Mr. Neil U. Sison,38 the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) .39 On August 27, 2024, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence for Petitioner. 4o Despite being given the opportunity, respondent failed to file any comment thereto. 41 In the Resolution dated October 15, 2024,42 the Court admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits.

For his part, respondent presented Revenue Officer Michele J. Alonzo-Bucayu43 as a witness.

On April 14, 2025, Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence was filed, 44 to which petitioner filed its Comment (to Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence) on April29, 2025.45 In the Resolution dated July 10, 2025, 46 the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. In the same Resolution, the parties were given 30 days from notice, within which to submit their respective memoranda. On September 23, 2025, the instant case was submitted for decision, considering the filing of petitioner's Memorandum47 via registered mail on August 14, 2025, and the Records ~ 34 /d. at 308-314.

35 !d. at 335-336.

36 !d. at 349-367.

37 /d. at 187-204, Exhibit "P-1 4"; 368, 370-372, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, April 25, 2024, respectively.

38 /d. at 438-455, Exhibit "P-134"; 485-487, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 20, 2024. 39 Jd. at 369, Oath ofCommission dated April25, 2024; 368, 370-372, Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, April 25, 2024, respectively.

40 /d. at 512 -525.

4• /d. at 54 1, Records Verification dated July 15, 2024, issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court. 42 /d. at 550-55 1.

43 /d. at 113-116, Exhibit "R- 16"; 157-164, Exhibit "R-15"; 568-590, Order dated, March 27, 2025. 44 /d. at 577-584.

45 !d. at 59 1-593, anached to petitioner's Manifestation and Submission dated April 28, 2025, Docket (CT A Case No. 11 146), pp. 588-590.

46 !d. at 607-608.

47 /d. at 610-639.

Ibex Global Solutions {Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Verification Report 48 dated August 27, 2025, stating that respondent failed to file his memorandum.49

THE ISSUE

As stipulated by the parties, the sole issue for the Court's resolution is:

Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to the refund or issuance of the tax credit certificate of the alleged unutilized and/or excess input VAT in the amount of PhP25,415,769.65 attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 2nd quarter to 4th quarter of fiscal year ended 30 June 2021.50 Petitioner's arguments Petitioner maintains that its sales of business process and contact center services and other facilities to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., a non-resident foreign corporation (NRFC) qualify as VAT zero-rated sales; that the performance by petitioner in the Philippines of services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking goods is rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines; that the payment for petitioner's services is in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) ; that the input VAT incurred by petitioner in the course of its business:

(a) are duly paid; (b) are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and (c) have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters; and that petitioner timely filed with this Court the instant Petition for Review. Respondent's counterarguments In his Answer (for CTA Case No. 11146), respondent contends that RMO No. 4 7 -2020 provides for the Revised

Checklist of Mandatory Requirements on Claims for VAT

Credit/ Refund and one of the documents n eeded to be submitted are the ORs or invoices in support of the application for VAT credit/ refund; that original duplicate copies of ORs were 48 !d. at 644.

49 !d. at 645, Notice of Resolution dated September 23, 2025. so /d. at 311, JSFI, Stipulation of Issue.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue submitted by the petitioner, however, upon perusal of the documents submitted, it could be seen that all ORs issued on zero-rated sales from non-PEZA and some PEZA registered branches were plagued with alterations or insertions, due to this, the authenticity of the supporting ORs submitted is already questionable, which cast doubt on the validity of the zero-rated sales from non-PEZA registered branches which is the basis of the claim of refund pursuant to Section 112 (A) of the NIRC; that it is elementary rule that the burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit; that the presence of erasures/ alterations/modifications on the ORs and other invoice violations failed to comply with the invoicing requirements of Section 113 of the NIRC which is the grounq in which the Revenue Officers disallowed the claim; and that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government.

Moreover, in his Answer (for CTA Case No. 11216), respondent argues that the denial of petitioner's claim for refund in the amount ofP17,585,887.64 is proper, for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for claiming refund or tax credit; and that tax refunds are strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the government.

THE COURT'S RULING

Pertinent to the resolution of these consolidated cases are Sections 112(A) and 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10963,51 which provide : SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.- (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. -

Any

VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the ~ 51 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5, 6, 24, 25, 27, 3 1, 32, 33, 34, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 74, 79, 84, 86, 90, 91, 97, 99, 100, 101 , 106, 107, 108, 109, 11 0, 11 2, 114, 116, 127, 128, 129, 145, 148, 149, 151 , 155, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 , 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 232, 236,237,249, 254, 264, 269, AND 288; CREATING NEW SECTIONS 5 1-A, 148-A, 150-A, 150-B, 237-A, 264-A, 264-B, AND 265-A; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 35, 62, AND 89; ALL UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8424, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(l), (2) and

(b) and Section 108(B)(l) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(8)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales.

(C) Period within which Refund of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund for creditable input taxes within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof: Provided, That should the Commissioner find that the grant of refund is not proper, the Commissioner must state in writing the legal and factual basis for the denial.

In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim, appeal the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals: Provided, however, That failure on the part of any official, agent, or employee of the BIR to act on the application within the ninety (90)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code." Based on the foregoing provisions, jurisprudence has laid down certain requisites that a taxpayer-applicant must comply with in order to successfully obtain a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT. These requisites may be classified into certain categories, as follows:

As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims:

1. The refund claim is filed with the BIR within two

(2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made;s2 y s2 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007 [Per J. Callego, Sr., Third Division]; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; AT&T Communications Services Philippines,

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

2. In case of full or partial denial of the refund claim, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the said claim within a period of ninety (90) days, the judicial claim has been filed with this Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision or after the expiration of the said ninety (90)-day period;53 With reference to the taxpayer's registration with

the BIR:

3. The taxpayer is a VAT-registered person; 54 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT:

4. The taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;55

5. For zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(l),

(2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(l) and (2) , 56 the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); 57 As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded:

6. The input taxes are not transitional input taxes;58

7. The input taxes are due or paid;s9 \~" Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

Refer to Energy Development Corporation v. Commissioner of internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203367, March 17, 202 1 [Per J. Hernando, Third Division]; Commissioner of internal Revenue v. CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company. Inc., G.R. No. 2 12727, February I, 2023 [Per J. Hernando, First Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Vestas Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 255085, March 29, 2023 [Per J. Hernando, First Division]. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007 [Per J. Callego, Sr., Third Division]; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 20 10 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

/d.

Under Republic Act No. I 0963, Section I 06(A)(2)(a)(2) was renumbered to Section I 06(A)(2)(a)(3) while Section I 06(A)(2)(b) was deleted. However, there was no corresponding amendment to the subsections cited in Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007 [Per J. Callego, Sr., Third Division]; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25. 2009 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]: AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

!d.

/d.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

8. The input taxes claimed are attributable to zero- rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume; 60 and

9. The input taxes have output taxes during quarters. 6 l not been applied against and In the succeeding In addition, claimants for VAT refunds or tax credits must satisfy the substantiation and invoicing requirements under the NIRC and its implementing rules and regulations. 62 The invoicing and substantiation requirements should be followed because they are the only way to verify the veracity of the taxpayer's claims. 63 Strict compliance with substantiation and invo1c1ng requirements is necessary, given VAT's nature and the VAT system's tax credit method, in which tax payments are based on output and input taxes, and the seller's output tax becomes the buyer's input tax, available as a tax credit or refund in the same transaction. It ensures the proper collection of taxes at all stages of distribution, facilitates the computation of tax credits, and provides an accurate audit trail or evidence for BIR monitoring. 64 Furthermore, it must be emphasized that in cases filed before this Court, which are litigated de novo, party-litigants must prove every minute aspect of their case. 65 Thus, it { 60 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007 [Per J. Callego, Sr., Third Division]; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]. 6 1 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007 [Per J. Callego, Sr., Third Division]; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

62 Team Energy Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 197663 & 197770, March 14,20 18 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

63 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 191495, July 23, 2018 [Per J. Martires, Third Division).

64 Team Energy Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. Nos. 197663 & 197770, March 14, 2018 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division).

65 Edison (Bataan) Cogeneration Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. G.R. Nos. 201665 & 201668, August 30, 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014 [Per J. Leon en, Second Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue

v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 1975 I 5, July 2, 2014 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; Dizon

v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008 [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; Atlas Consolidated

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue behooves petitioner to show compliance with each of the foregoing requisites and invoicing requirements. As a corollary, the absence of any of the said requisites is a valid ground for denying the refund claim.

First

and second requisites:

Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims were timely filed.

The first requisite under Section 112(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires the taxpayer to file an administrative claim for refund or tax credit within two (2) years from the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made.

In the present case, petitioner was able to establish that its administrative claims were filed within the prescribed period, to wit:

Quarter

Period Covered

Last day for filing an Date of filing of (FY ended June administrative claim administrative 2021) claim for refund 2nd Quarter October!, 2020 to December 3 1, 2022 December 27, December 3 1, 2020 202266 3rd Quarter January 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023 March 31, 2021 March 29, 202367 4th Quarter April 1, 2021 to June 30, 2023 June 30, 2021 Accordingly, the

Court

finds that petitioner's administrative claims were timely filed. Petitioner therefore complied with the first requisite.

As regards the second requisite, Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, requires that the judicial claim be filed within 30 days from receipt of the Commissioner's decision denying the claim, or after the expiration of the 90-day period granted to the CIR within which to act on the administrative claim.

Notably, petitioner was also able to prove that its judicial claims for the subject quarters were seasonably filed, to wit: ~ Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Inferno/ Revenue. G. R. No. 145526. March 16, 2007 [Per

1. Corona, First Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Quarter

Period

Date of illing of

Date of Receipt

Last day

(FYended

Covered

administrative

of Respondentts

for illing

June

claim for refund

Decision

Judicial

2021)

Claim

2nd Oct.1, 2020 Dec. 27, 202268 Mar. 29, 202369 Apr. 28,

Quarter

to Dec. 31, 2023 2020 3rd Jan. 1,

Quarter

2021 to Mar. 29, 202311 June 15, 202372 July 17, Mar. 31, 202373 2021 4th Apr. 1,

Quarter

2021 to June 30, 2021

Date of

illing of

Judicial

Claim

Apr. 28, 202370 J u ly 17, 202374 Therefore, the respective Petitions for Review were filed within the period prescribed by law. Consequently, the Court finds that petitioner complied with both the first and second requisites.

Third requisite: Petitioner is a VAT-registered entity.

The third requisite requires that the claimant be a VAT- registered person.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner is a VAT- registered person/ entity, with Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) 008-028-126-00000. 7s Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner has satisfactorily complied with the third requisite.

Fourth

and fi:(th requisites:

Petitioner failed to establish that its sales of services qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

The fourth and fifth requisites require that th e taxpayer be engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and that for zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(l), (2) and (b) and 68 /d. at 256-257, Exhibits "P-10" and "P-1 0-A''. 69 !d. at 260, Exhibit "P-12".

70 /d. at 6-1 8.

71 /d. at 258-259, Exhibits "P-11 " and "P-11-/\". 72 !d. at 265, Exhibit "P-13", 73 July 15, 2023, the 30'h day, fell on a Saturday.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

1 08(B)( 1) and (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the proceeds thereof must have been paid in acceptable foreign currency duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. In its amended Quarterly VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550- Q) for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021 covering the period from October 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 , petitioner reported total sales amounting to P4, 165,763,434.62, which include zero-rated sales in the amount ofP4,153,731,806.70, as shown below:

FY 2021

Vatable Sales

Zero-Rated Sales

Total Sales

2nd Quarter76 p 223,214.25 p 1,693,868,900.00 p 1,694,092,114.25 3rd Quarter77 11,160.75 1 ,256, 158,558.54 1,256,169,719.29 4 th Quarter78 11,797,252.92 1,203,704,348.16 1,215,501,601.08

Total

P12,031,627.92 P4,153,731,806.70 P4, 165,763,434.62 Petitioner claims that its sales of services to its non- resident client, IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., during the subject period, are subject to VAT at zero percent (0°/o) rate, pursuant to Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, 79 which reads:

Sec. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties. - (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. - The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate:

(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

(2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with .. / 76 !d. at 528, Exhibit "P-5-A".

"'

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). (Emphasis supplied) As can be discerned from the foregoing provision, certain essential elements must be present for a sale or supply of services to be subject to the VAT rate of 0°/o, to wit:

1. The recipient of the services is a foreign corporation, and the said corporation is doing business outside the Philippines, or is a non- resident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed;so

2. The services fall under any of the categories under Section 108(8)(2), 81 or simply, the serv1ces rendered should be other than ''processing, manufacturing or repacking goods";B2

3. The service must be performed in the Philippines83 by a VAT-registered person; and

4. The payment for such services should be 1n acceptable foreign currency accounted for 1n accordance with BSP rules.84 For the first essential element, to be considered as an NRFC doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported, at the very least, by both a Certification of Non- Registration of Company issued by the Philippine Securities and

Exchange

Commission

(SEC), and proof of incorporation/registration in a foreign country (e.g. , Articles/ Certificate of Incorporation/ Registration and/ or Tax Residence Certificate). The former establishes that the recipient of the service has no registered business in the Philippines and is not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, while the latter proves that the recipient of the service is indeev 80 Site/ Philippines Corporation (Formerly C/ient/ogic Phi/s. Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 201326, February 8, 2017 [Per J. Caguioa, First Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 190102, July II , 20 12 [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].

81 Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005 [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 82 Commissioner of Internal Revenue . v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007 [Per J. Carpio. Second Division]. 83 Commissioner of internal Revenue . v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., G.R. No. 153205, January 22,2007 [Per J. Carpio, Second Divison]; Commissioner of internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005 [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 84 /d.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue foreign. The said documents have consistently been required by this Court for the purposes of the said first essential element. In fact, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd.,85 the Supreme Court affirmed the necessity of presenting the said documents in this wise: For purposes of zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the Tax Code, the claimant must establish the two components of a client's NRFC status, viz.: (1) that their client was established under the laws of a country not the Philippines or, simply, is not a domestic corporation; and

(2) that it is not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. To be sure, there must be sufficient proof of both of these components: showing not only that the clients are foreign corporations, but also are not doing business in the Philippines.

Such proof must be especially required from ROHQs such as DKS. That the law expressly authorizes ROHQs to render services to local and foreign affiliates alike only stresses the ROHQs burden to distinguish among their clients' nationalities and actual places of business operations and establish that they are seeking refund or credit of input VAT only to the extent of their sales of services to foreign clients doing business outside the Philippines. To recall, the CTA found that the SEC Certification of Non-Registration of Company and Authenticated Articles of

Association

and/ or

Certificates

of

Registration/ Good

Standing/Incorporation sufficiently established the NRFC status of 11 of DKS's affiliates clients The Court upholds these findings.

The Court accords the CTA's factual findings with utmost respect, if not finality, because the Court recognizes that it has necessarily developed an expertise on tax matters. Significantly, both the CTA Division and CTA En Bane gave credence to the aforementioned documents as sufficient proof of NRFC status. The Court shall not disturb its findings without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the tax court are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties. In any case, after a judicious review of the records, the Court still do not find any reason to deviate from the court a quo's findings. To the Court's mind, the SEC Certifications of Non-Registration show that these affiliates are foreign corporations.

On the other hand, the articles of association/ certificates of incorporation stating that these affiliates are registered to operate in their ss G.R. No. 234445, July 15, 2020 [Per J. lnting, Second Division]. ~

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue respective home countries, outside the Philippines are prima facie evidence that their clients are not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines." (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) In the present case, petitioner presented the following documents which undoubtedly show compliance with the first essential element, i.e., IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. is an NRFC not engaged in business in the Philippines for the subject periods, viz.:

(1) Apostilled Form No. 6 Certificate of Incorporation of IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. with Registration No. 49882 dated December 30, 2014;86 and

(2) Certification of Non-Registration of Company dated March 27, 2023 issued by the SEC,87 to the effect that the records of the Commission "do not show the registration of IBEX GLOBAL BERMUDA LIMITED as a corporation, partnership, or One Person Corporation (OPC) ."

As regards the second and third essential elements, per petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation, 88 its primary purpose is to "engage in the business of providing and exporting call/ contact center and other facilities and services as may be required by the manufacturers and sellers of goods and services and the buyers and consumers thereof, particularly non- Philippine residents, through digital and electronic software applications and other services to facilitate and complete commercial transactions; and in general, to carry on and undertake such activities which may seem to the Corporation capable of being conveniently carried on in connection with the above purposes, or calculated, directly or indirectly, to enhance the value of or render profitable, any of the Corporation's property or rights."

Further, petitioner presented its Tax and Corporate Compliance Manager, Mr. John Michael Arceo, who, through his Judicial Affidavit, 89 testified that petitioner rendered call/ contact center services and related support services to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., consisting primarily of inbound and outbound call, chat, and email support performed by ~

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue petitioner's employees in the Philippines. Pertinent portions of his testimony are reproduced below:

Q7.

Please describe Petitioner's business presence in the Philippines in second, third and fourth qu arters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 and at the present. A7.

In the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 or from October 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 and at the present, the Company performs in the

Philippines

its business of providing call/ contact center services and other facilities as a domestic corporation.

Q10. In the period of 1 October 2020 to 30 June 2021 (the 'Claim Period'), wh o were its customers or clients? AlO. For the period of October 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the Company mostly rendered its call/ contact center services and other facilities for IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., a non-resident foreign corporation located and doing business outside the Philippines. The other customer of the Company during such period is Wall Street Courier Services Inc. but the Company provided very minimal call/ contact center services and other facilities to such client. Q 11 . How much of Petitioner's sales during the Claim Period were for IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd.?

All. PhP4,211,223,909.00 out of PhP4,217,564,412.35 or 99.85% of the Company's sales during the Claim Period were for IBEX Global Bermuda, Ltd. Q 12. Please explain the nature of services rendered by petitioner to its IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. A12. The Company's call/ contract center services and other facilities for IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. are primarily support services for inbound/ outbound calls, chat and email which are performed by the Company's employees in the Company's offices in the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) However, the Court finds the foregoing evidence insufficient to establish the precise nature of the services actually rendered to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Specifically, no proof of any contract or service agreement was adduced by petitioner other than the bare allegations of its witness. While it may be true that petitioner's primary purpose may include the alleged services rendered to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., the existence of a contract or service agreement between them is necessary to show that such services were agreed upon and intended to be rendered to the said NRFC.

Mere allegations without adducing documentary evidence are not sufficient. Allegation is not synonymous with proof.90 In claims for tax refund, which are construed strictly against the taxpayer, entitlement must be established through competent and convincing evidence.

Consequently, the Court is unable to verify whether the services rendered by petitioner were, in fact, services "other. than processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods." For this reason alone, petitioner failed to establish compliance with the second and third elements necessary for VAT zero-rating. With the foregoing finding, petitioner fell short of establishing that its sale of services qualifies for VAT zero-rating under Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Needless to say, it is only when the sales of a VAT-registered person are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated that he/ she/ it may have the option to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or for a refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales.91 Nonetheless, for purposes of discussion, and assuming arguendo that petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation and the testimony of its witness are sufficient to prove compliance with the second and third elements, the Court still finds that the present claim must fail for petitioner's failure to satisfy the fourth and fifth requisites for the grant of its refund claim, as discussed below.

Before going into the fourth essential element, which corresponds to the fifth requisite requiring that for zero-rated sales under Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and ~

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue regulations, it is equally important to emphasize that the VAT zero-rated sales to which such foreign currency remittances correspond, must likewise be duly supported by VAT zero-rated ORs, in accordance with the applicable invoicing requirements. Such ORs must contain all the information required under Sections 113(A) and 113(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Section 4.113-1 (A) and (B) of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, as amended. Furthermore, the sales invoices (Sis) and ORs must be duly registered with the BIR pursuant to Section 237, in relation to Section 238, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

Since the reported zero-rated sales are allegedly in the nature of sale of services under Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, petitioner was required to issue BIR- registered VAT 0 Rs covering the foreign currency proceeds received from each transaction. These receipts must contain all information required by law, including, among others, the notation "zero-rated sale" and petitioner's TIN-VAT number. To support its reported zero-rated sales of services for the 2nd, 3rct, and 4th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021 in the amount of P4,153,731,806.70, petitioner submitted various VAT zero-rated ORs together with the corresponding Billing Statements,92 issued to its client, IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd., which were accounted for by the ICPA in the amount of P4,437,53l,009.19, higher by f283,799,202.49. 93 The findings of the ICPA are presented below:94

Exhibit

Reference95

Description

Valid

Invalid

Total

"P-43"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities properly substantiated by p 686,260,783.60 p - p 686,260,783.60 VAT ORs which complied with invoicing requirements

"P-44"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by 884,355,505.23 - 884,355,505.23 altered VAT ORs but are 92 Exhibits "P-43-1" to "P-43-17", "P-44-1" to " P-44-19", "P-45-1" to "P-45-9", "P-46-1" to "P-46-32", "P-47-1 " to

W

"P-4 7-1 5", "P-48-1" to "P-48-3", " P-49-1 ", "P-50-1 ", "P-52-1 " to "P-52-4", "P-53-1" to "P-53-8" and " P-55-1" to 11" "P-55-5", USB (Exhibit "P-1 35-B").

93 f>4,437,531 ,009.1 9 less N , I 53,73 1 ,806.70; Based on the ICPA's findings, in the 2nd quarter of the FY ended June 30, 2021, it showed that the amount in the petition/schedule was 1"283, 799,202.49 higher than the VAT Return, Docket (CTA Case No. 11146), p. 393, Exhibit "P-135", Findings and Observation, par. 4.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue countersigned by

the Petitioner's

authorized representative

"P-45"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by VAT 363,057,895.84 -

ORs with

reconciling items

"P-49"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by altered VAT ORs but not 43,993,917.82 - countersigned by

the Petitioner's

authorized representative 363,057,895.84 43,993,917.82

Total

P1,933,674,184.67 p 43,993,917.82 P1,977,668,102.49

"P-46"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities properly substantiated by P1, 127,209,179.27 p - P1, 127,209,179.27 VAT ORs which complied with invoicing requirements

"P-47"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by altered VAT ORs - but are 667,161,427.41 667,161 ,427.41 countersigned by

the Petitioner's

authorized representative

"P-48"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by VAT 110,883,75 1.21 - 110,883,751.21

ORs with

reconciling items

"P-50"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by VAT 5,328,898.24 5,328,898.24 ORs but not within the period claimed

"P-51"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities 8,854,430.33 8,854,430.33 but unsupported

by Valid Document

"P-52"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities supported by altered VAT ORs but not 94,755,827.29 94,755,827.29 countersigned by

the Petitioner's

authorized representative

"P-53"

Zero-rated sales of service to entities 332,471,484.97 - 332,471,484.97 where the original

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue official receipts are lost in the docket, and petitioner provided sworn declaration

(Exhibit P-28)

"P-55"

Zero-rated sales of service with VALID 113,197,907.98 113,197,907.98 ORs but without - billing statements

Total

P2,350,923,750.84 P108,939,155.86 P2,459,862,906. 70

Grand Total

P4,284,597,935.51 Pl52,933,073.68 P4,437,531,009.19 The Court agrees with the ICPA's finding that Exhibits "P- 49" "P-50 " "P-51 " and "P-52" totaling P152 933 073 68 are ' ' ' ' ''.' invalid and must therefore be disallowed. Section 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reads:

SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-registered Persons. - (A) Invoicing Requirements. -A VAT-registered person shall issue:

(1) A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and

(2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services.

(B) Information Contained in the VAT invoice or VAT Official Receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt:

(1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN);

(2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax: Provided, That:

(c) Ifthe sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term 'zero-rated sales' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt;

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

(3) The date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the services; and

(4) In the case of sales in the amount of One thousand (P1,000) or more where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT- registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser, customer or client. (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing provisions, a VAT OR must be issued for, inter alia, every sale of services; and such OR must indicate, among other mandatory information, a description of the nature of the services performed.

A review of the ICPA schedules®® and the following ORs reveals that, while the ICPA-accounted valid zero-rated sales of P4 284,597 ,935.5197 were supported by VAT zero-rated ORs, the same were not fully compliant with the prescribed invoicing requirements under the VAT law and regulations. Specifically, the ORs do not indicate the nature of the services rendered by petitioner:

i = Amount Amount

OR Date Received Conversion Received

Exhibit°® mm/dd/yyyy USD Rate PhP ‘| «p.43-107 | Dvor#os1g__| 11/23/2020 | __1,494,151.25| 48.08 | ___71,838,792.10 | 14,829,488.35 96 Exhibits “P-43” to “P-48”, “P-53” and “P-55”. 97 P4,437,53 1,009.19 less P152,933,073.68.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

BH OR 000028 | 05/21/2021 927,554.09 47.77 44,309,258.88 “P_46-26” CP OR 0035 05/21/2021 924,187.86 47.77 44,148,454.07 “P_46-27” CP OR 0036 05/24/2021 11,928.41 47.90 571,370.84

“P-46-8”

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

“P_46-28” SC OR 1092 52,916,787.86 “P-46-29” 58,240,015.90 “P-46-30” 41,390,475.38 “P-46-31” 11,254,064.98 “P-46-32” 45,273,254.37 “P-47-1” 63,477,765.73 “P-47-2” 40,087,281.36 “P-47-3” 77,004,902.62 “P-47-4” 42,915,957.38 25,86 1,660.00 21,136,857.70 39,207,809.06 36,199,221.04 3 1,687,200.00 1,167,591.67| 48.43 56,546,464.58 49,725,924.33 994,762.82 48,176,363.37 56,219,899.36 16,547,975.32 714,105.00 _voran | | 899165854] | 4,284,597,935.539_ The supporting ORs show that the amounts were in partial/full payment for “INWARD,” but this apparently pertains to the remittance payment from IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. and does not specifically describe the nature of services rendered by petitioner, as required under Section 113(B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and its implementing regulations. As such, the ICPA-accounted valid zero-rated sales of P4,284,597,935.51 shall be denied VAT zero-rating. ¥/ °° With P0.02 rounding-off difference against the total valid zero-rated sales as accounted by the ICPA.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

To reiterate, petitioner's compliance with all VAT invoicing requirements is required to be able to file a claim for input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales. 1oo The invo1c1ng and substantiation requirements should be followed because they are the only way to determine the veracity of the taxpayer's claims.1o1 Moreover, it must be pointed out that compliance with all VAT invoicing requirements provided by tax laws and regulations is mandatory.1o2 Having failed to establish that its sale of services to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. during the 2nd, 3rd and 4 th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021 qualifies for VAT zero-rating under Section 1 08(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, petitioner likewise failed to satisfy the fourth and fifth requisites for the grant of its refund claim.

Such being the case, the present claim must fail. Correspondingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to determine whether petitioner complied with the remaining requisites for the grant of a refund or tax credit of its alleged unutilized input taxes for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4 th quarters of FY ended June 30, 2021.

Actions for tax refund or credit, as in the present case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption. As such, the law is not only construed in strictissimijuris against the taxpayer, but also the pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption must also be strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. The burden is on the taxpayer to show that it has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. Since taxes are the lifeblood of the government, tax laws must be faithfully and strictly implemented, as they are not intended to be liberally construed. l03

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present consolidated Petitions for Review are DENIED, for lack ofmerit. J 100 J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 17 1307, August 28, 2013 [Per J. Perlas- Bernabe, Second Division].

101 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 191495, July 23, 2018 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].

102 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 183531 , March 25, 20 15 [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].

103 !d.

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

LAN~*~VID

Associate Justice

!CONCUR:

,.

(With arate Opinion) JEAN MARIE~. ACORRO-VILLENA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the consolidated cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. A so iate Justice

Acting Chairperson

Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the Special First Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the consolidated cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~. ~ 1--.__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Presiding Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

IBEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS

(PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, -versus-

COMMISSIONER

OF

CTA Case Nos. 11146 & 11216

Members:

BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, J1.

INTERNAL REVENUE

Promulgated:

Res~ondent. ·,!Ill 3 ! ~J:lW1 )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ~~ - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - )(

SEPARATE OPINION

BACORRO-VILLENA, L.:

I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, which rules that petitioner IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. (petitioner) is not entitled to a refund of its e)(cess and unutilized input value-added ta)( (VAT) for the second {2nd), third {3rd), and fourth (4th) quarters of the fiscal year (FY) ending 30 June 2021, based on the following grounds:

1.

Petitioner failed to establish compliance with the third essential element for the sales to IBEX Global Bermuda Ltd. (IGBL) to qualify for value-added tax (VAT) zero-rating under Section w8(B)(z)' oft SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties. - (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. - The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: ( I) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

(2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, ... the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)[.] (Emphasis supplied)

SEPARATE OPINION

IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, i.e., that the services were performed in the Philippines; and 2.

Petitioner failed to comply with the VAT invoicing requirements necessary for its sales of services to IGBL during the relevant taxable periods to qualify for VAT zero-rating. This failure bears directly on the fourth and fifth requisites for the grant of a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT, namely: (a) that petitioner engaged in zero- rated or effectively zero-rated sales; and (b) that petitioner duly accounted for the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

As to the first ground, I submit that notwithstanding the undisputed testimony of petitioner's witness, John Michael Arceo (Arceo), who testified in her capacity as petitioner's Tax and Corporate Compliance Manager, that petitioner's employees performed inbound and outbound call, chat, and email support services for IGBL in the Philippines, such testimony, standing alone, does not sufficiently establish compliance with the third essential element by a preponderance of evidence. The testimony merely reflects petitioner's own assertion and lacks independent documentary support showing that petitioner actually performed the services in the Philippines for IGBL during the relevant taxable periods. Notably, petitioner did not present any contract, service agreement, statement of work, or similar document identifying the services that IGBL engaged petitioner to perform, the place where petitioner would perform them, or the parties' respective obligations. Such documentary evidence would have corroborated the witness's testimony and established that petitioner and IGBL agreed that petitioner would perform the covered services in the Philippines. In the absence of such evidence, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the services subject of the claimed VAT zero-rating were, in fact, performed in the Philippines, as required under Section w8(B)(2) 2 of the NIRC of1997, as amended.

With respect to the second ground, I concur that the VAT official receipts (ORs) offered in evidence did not fully comply with the invoicing requirements prescribed under the VAT law and its implementing regulations. Specifically, the VAT ORs merely state that the amounts receive~~ constituted partial or full payment for "INWARD." This notation appears to U 2 Supra at note I.

SEPARATE OPINION

IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue refer only to remittances received from IGBL and does not describe the nature of the services petitioner rendered, as required under Sections 237 and 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, viz:

OR:

SEC. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.oo) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service[.] SEC. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. -

All

persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Bureau oflnternal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices before a printer can print the same.

No authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall be granted unless the receipts or invoices to be printed are 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 Commissioner.3 The following information should be reflected in the VAT invoice or 1.

A statement that the seller IS a VAT-registered person, followed by its TIN;

2.

The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT, provided that: (a) the amount of tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; (b) if the sale is exempt from VAT, the term "VAT exempt sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (c) if the sale is subject to o% VAT, the term "zero- rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; or (d) if the sale involves goods,~ properties or services, some of which are subject to and U Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

SEPARATE OPINION

IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the breakdown of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the VAT on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt. The seller has the option to issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale;

3· In the case of sales in the amount of P1,ooo.oo or more, where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT-registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and TIN of the purchaser, customer or client;

4· Date of transaction; and 5· Quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service. 4 Tellingly, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 42-20035 expressly provides that a taxpayer's failure to comply with the invoicing requirements will result in the disallowance of the claim for input tax, as follows:

Q-13: Should penalty be imposed on TCC application for failure of claimant to comply with certain invoicing requirements, (e.g., sales invoices must bear the TIN of the seller)?

A-13: Failure by the supplier to comply with the invoicing requirements on the documents supporting the sale of goods and services will result [in] the disallowance of the claim for input tax by the purchaser- claimant.

If the claim for refund/TCC is based on the existence of zero-rated sales by the taxpayer but it fails to comply with the invoicing requirements in the issuance of sales invoices (e.g., failure to indicate the TIN), its claim for tax credit/refund of VAT on its purchases shall be denied considering that the invoice it is issuing to its customers does not depict its being a VAT-registered taxpayer whose sales are classified as zero- rated sales. Nonetheless, this treatment is without prejudice to the right of~ the taxpayer to charge the input taxes to the appropriate expense account or U See Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, 27 April 2007. Clarifying Certain Issues Raised Relative to the Processing of Claims for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Credit/Refund, Including Those Filed with the Tax and Revenue Group, One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center, Department of Finance (OSS) by Direct Exporters.

SEPARATE OPINION

IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue asset account subject to depreciation, whichever is applicable. Moreover, the case shall be referred by the processing office to the concerned BIR office for verification of other tax liabilities of the taxpayer.6 Thus, only sales of services supported by documents compliant with the above-stated requirements shall qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2)7 of the NIRC of1997, as amended. Accordingly, the Court cannot accord VAT zero-rating to the sales of services aggregating P4,284,597.935·51, which the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) treated as valid zero-rated sales but which petitioner failed to support with compliant VAT ORs. The Court must likewise disallow the remaining alleged zero-rated sales of services amounting to PI52,933,073·68, which the ICPA found invalid, because the supporting VAT ORs were: (1) altered without the countersignature of petitioner's authorized representative; (2) issued outside the period covered by the claim; or (3) unsupported by valid corroborating documents. However, as to the third ground, contrary to the ponencia, I respectfully submit that petitioner sufficiently established compliance with the second essential element for the sales to IGBL to qualify for VAT zero- rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC ofl997, as amended, i.e., that the services rendered by petitioner were. in fact. services "other than processing. manufacturing. or repacking of goods."

Petitioner presented its Amended Articles of Incorporation8 (AOI), which state that its primary purpose is to "engage in the business of providing and exporting call/ contact center and other facilities and services as may be required by the manufacturers and sellers of goods and services and the buyers and consumers thereof, particularly non-Philippine residents." Petitioner likewise presented the undisputed testimony of its witness, Arceo, who categorically testified that petitioner rendered call/contact center services and related support services to IGBL. These services primarily consisted of inbound and outbound call, ch~d email support performed by petitioner's employees in the Philippines.0 Italics in the original text and emphasis supplied. Supra at note I.

Exhibit "P-1 ", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 11146), pp. 205-215.

SEPARATE OPINION

IBEX Global Solutions (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Taken together, the foregoing pieces of evidence sufficiently establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that the services petitioner rendered to IGBL were not in the nature of processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods. It is worth noting that the second essential element under Section 108(B)(2)9 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is framed in the negative. It merely requires proof that the services rendered are not "processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods." Accordingly, petitioner need not establish the precise legal classification of every service it rendered. It is sufficient that the evidence, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the services do not fall within the excluded category contemplated by the statute. All told, I vote to DENY the present consolidated Petitions for Review for lack of merit but only as to the first and second grounds discussed above. Supra at note I.

' '

JEAN MAR~~O-VILLENA

&~iate Justice