Rgpubls: Of the Friliprinys Court of Tax Appeals Argsos Cty Vgreat Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs. = the Com-Isgicler of Int. Atl. Revenue, et al.

RGPUBLS: OF THE FRILIPRINYs

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

argsos CTY

VGREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE

CORPORATION, Petitioner, ~~" versus = C.T.A. CASE NO. 1944 THE COM-ISGICLER OF INT. atl.

REVENUE, Looe _Resronzents [2.9/8 DECl1so IT ON This is an offshoot cf C.T.A. Case No. 1046 enti- tled Filipinas Life Assurance Comvany vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the decision on which was later appealed to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. Le 21258 and decided by the latter on October 31, 1967. Ip that case the Supreme Court ruled to the efitect that domestic and resident foreign life insurance companies are enti- tled to report only 25% of their dividend snciiie as provided in suhsecticn (a) of Section 24 of the Tax Code. Petitioner in the present case moves for a sum= mary judaginent to sustain its claim for r fund of alleged overpayment of income tax in the amount of #5,902,00 for the taxable year 1965, anparently on the ground that there is no longer any genuine issue to be resolved.

Be that as it ma,, the following are the facts which are alleged in the petition for review and admit- ted in the AnBWEE ox sunported by the evidence, that Gave rise to the present controv.rsy.

It anpears that petitioner is a domestic life ins surance corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philipoines. On april 5, 1966, petitioner DhCa oT = Ci Gor No. 1944 filed an incens: tae reuorn ter the ywar LUGS declaring in full the divdusmis it roceived trom Vurieug corsere ttdong e Pountdnty te 458,494.05, ch widen dt yeda income tom dn tie aecant of Pde, 7be.w din two installments, the first anstalime at dag padbd when ik idied its return on Anril 8S, LS3CG under Cone. 6O, CHm~S770611 gne the aecond instuliwent on July 15, 4466 under che bt. CHSAO91L76, Realizing that only 25% of the divice@@a was ceturneble for purooges Cf the duces tax dh ose on dumestie corgeratacna, gpetitiooier files eh cune L3, 1966, an a@amendenl dnecme taxa return tor L¢65 declaring t. erein a ealy a taraacle dnease of 623,064.00, Together with the emunded veturn, vetaiicner fLidesd a written re cuest Por Yebrmue wi tres ewcecs saynont of Lis dies re tan fer Qv45 dm the ancunt or 29,072.00.

Wot cectedving «a deelodiln frou peste crt on its Gladiator rehaund and Leld-vinyg thot me Ceehcicn is forthe asiur bedere the wrvdiration cf the tuceyear perdusc wdthain whien te duitieve a@ judicial «wcticn, petitioner Lnternosed toie es cead to this Court on wu,y 3, 1962, In angwer ta the oetitdion for pevdew, pom rine merely Gendo-d An general tercg, metita.oaercty reason for ELA Liss this case and as 4 cediel anv aifires wave defenses, alleges acong others: that (1) the tax gought tc be refunded was nate and cellected in accorcance with iaw; and (.) there Ledngy mo cecision 260 NECITUICN oo CTA CALE NO. 1944 (3) aga yet of reynondent, she filing of the vetition for review ils premature, Truly, it seems clear that thera ig no longer any genuine isgue to be reswvlved in the present cone troversy because the orinmelsal question cf ehether or not only 26% of petiticner's dividends from other ecornorations is tawable has dong & «en cecided in a case between the same parties entitied Speat Pacific Laie Agsurance Cormoration v, Commissicnor of Internal Revenue, Cet... Case Mo, 20.26 on cCantemter 29, 197], In resolving the dsuue, this Court in ita @ecision hele:

“The claim for refune of netitiloner de based on Section 24 of the Naticnal internal Revenue Cxtea which orovides tiet ®in the case of dividends received by a agomegtiic or: pesddent foreigh corporation fron a domestic corneraticn Lieble to tax e ¢ « ON]Ly twenty-Live mer centum thereof shall be returngble fur purscses of the tax imposed by this secticn,' it is not controverted that petitioner is a domestic car ooration and that the dividends in question were received by it from other demestic corporations suoject to tax under the Income Tax Law, Therefore, the divie dends received by petiticner from other domestica corneraticns as declerce in its original and amended income tay returas are taxacle only te the extent of 25% of such dividends, and its claim cf hevinyg made an overpayment wut be sustained, {.e@ Filiscinas Life ‘\seurance Co. v. The Court cf Tax Appeals, ale Oe Lm dl12568, October 31, 1567.,)"“ Ag to the allegation of remvonsent that the 6 filing cf the setition tur review is ciaremature, it would suffice to quote from the very same decision dm the case of Great Pacific Life sssurance CoO. Vv.

To on po

DECISIUCN =

CTA CADh NO, 1944 (4) Commissloner, gupra, which st.atess “yy x “«,. Mowever, where the two year period is about to laose end the Commissicner is net expected ta render a Geeiagion on the taxpayer*s claim fer rafund befcre exniracion of sald period, tha tawpayer must appeal to the Court of Fax Appeals without wadting for @ formal decision ef the Commiantleonar, cthere wise, the taxpayer’a right to the refund would be barred, (Collector v. Sweeney, guprar Gibbe v. Coll, gitoras Collector v. Convention Of Snil, SBactint Churches, GR. Wa. be11807, Jan. 28, 1861; Fonnel ve. Coll., Gk. No.

wa £ind nc valid or cogent reagen to modify the Opinion and chaerveations of this Court in the eferee cited case.

in wlew of the foregoing, the relief sought by summary judgment is hereby granted. Petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount cf €35,902,00, rapresenting an cverpayment of income tax for the year 1965.

WHEREFORE, YVegooundent is hereby ordered to grant the refund to setitioner Great Pacific Life Asaurance Corporation, without pronouncement as to costs.

Su OREM AAT Je

wHuenoen City, Metro Manilla, Cantsmber 26, 1963, om a; C24 os

COR ZONVE ’ RCAWUIN

fassociate Judge

WE CONCUA:

te Aged 7 \Trevae- {bat sree sins Tsuage ne REYES ochate Jug