CTA Case No. 3205

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3205 Internal Meyeriie , I hrosey ht couse |, simply manifested that hye Le mtibtovt dh baays the oc decision or the f of dhe pileadtoas., (p. 841, (7a He ex. idence coantreavert ing or digputind petitioner’ s embitlemarnt be thes «¢ badm fer vy erfatracd wag pregentecd Oy posponcment. Sohne ore oho prance for judoment oco the plevaeltie rabRork oof fearine proof as ho fhe broth oad dae aed dee hpenie . mre d bes understood te frac csdmtdibeset beta: ee material and relevant allege tbioos of the crane diva party, and to res His mation for judaqmernk on bhe alleqatiang taken Logqether wath eich cf fii cu cus are admitted (Bauermann vs. Casas. LO Plaid. Agus Evangelista vs. Dela Rosa, et al... 4 Frid. F451, the facks as aiteqaad drm bles pobenandsc es ancl fred pres by the evidence may therefore be cansider ae nek disputed. Ags marrated by pekitioniorns Fetaitioner des oe oremtdernk foros iaqnm ceremer akien duly lic hao mapaqe: ir treegrroe ee bepsdimer sn Salceda, Salceda Otreat, Lb.

yasod Village, Makati, Metra Manila (para, 1, Petitions admitted, para. J, Angwer).

On Appeal 1979 pert boaerienr fidect with 306

DECISION --

CTA CASE NO. 3205 Revenue District Office Ho. Bureau of Internal Revenue, its anriual adneame bas reteugcm for the yer anded December L978, ghaving a met toss of Year, 2t Nad tax creadihe on eeeaurk af croditahie withholding tax on dinbere cu hares despa in the tetal amount ef FF:

POO owbdoh eacunk appeared ag refundeble es a? December Sd. 260 (Rehdtitca Ae, On CT Lurnee Ley Loria peti thang fi lect wa bby respondent's Bureau dite amended income bax returns ended Ure aber 2, SOP O, shioydiics a the and mf i975, pebitiener fad te dhe crmedge ow refricdob le Ee cof Pid LOAF (kocbiileid | en cangsieting af P27, 902,00 (exbibate Kee. &, F Ee oly HW) representing LSe withhoteding tax carried forward fram FOVR ae a baw mrectity, and Pee, boa, an (Exhibits Bee, Fa Ge Ta Mea f), 1) rrerppcere ape ari withholding tax oan interest on savings account acerued during fue year L979,

p. 4, Mourk Fe ceed) and Pele uwary (Oo, LYBiL (exh. D, fo. os Cowuae ¢ Recor) ) petitioner threouch ite 307

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3205 wy Sep tember ty AS ey aed Roaebr cary ky L981, respectively, claims for refund of the r amournte af boyy? Oo are f OOO, oo mesyparressesn bi raey BHO Sayimeny t Cif Rarecmner Lge por Phe cos Deerichagre years I97AQ and L979 (para, 7, F phLakdens admitted, para. 3, Answer).

On February

petition feu reviled ove ky Chie Court. eh damira PB4,095,.00 ag refundable whieh purports to caver ee FLOM) and Pa, JO, on the amounts af fF C1979), “Gre othe Ub at her amenbaih oof

Woy 1

Cyey

already incilucdes the amount of Fe7,9S2.09 carrie forward tes from 2970 CE xhibite Bo and Bei, the correchk amournb re fundab dc em dy Fay JO, 0, AS Special and affirmative defenses, io his armawere thaks respondent alleg This Honorable Court no jurisdiction ta take cagnizance of this ¢ The instant pehitian mo Case of sebioan Rie fear refine de thie id peta date when the said haz wv paic:s (Manufacturer's Bank and Trust Co. as trustee for Gem Trust Plans vse. The Commissizaner of Internal YVevenue,., lf No, 24659, Mewrmbor 2, Tea y 306

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3205 aire ogarestamercl che trayen Perry ott aid collected an acccadarnca ter kh pau In clains for refund cre fas credit, the burden entitled there bas, Giles yrbogs, fos (Diggers bey substantiate the «ame a6 faktal bo Ll aehions: ane against the claimant as such claim is an the mature of an exemption from taxation (Manila Electric Co.

VS. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , (SF, Plea, Lene 99O8 7. Oe tober

Py LSE EF SER

reed aa Assuming, bub mak admi thing that petationer is antitled ta tax refund, the riaght ta claim the refund has preseribed with regpech ta the period prior to Februsrey oo, Tere.

On the alleqation be Iyea te. thig Courk has ma respondent has met stated the facta and the law an which he based his conelusian that this Court has no juriedichion. Ag ai matter af fact, asm ated abave, respandent submitted this c« for decision an the pleadings {y. ety CTA orecarcdes after petitioner has presented ate evidence, oral and documentary, arc Wi thot tei hespeprevs dive bhaig 309

DECISION -—

CTA CASE NO. 2205 ty affirmative defens of deck of jurisdiction while the caee was heing heerd and teied by the Court, While respandemt cuba bhecl a memorocgselun tm epg t af his cage, srovelitig Eber te pnesxe oof thik tiaartoe lack of jura de bic. Amoco cdg )dy. we find bkhas affirmative deferigse withouk meril and =hoald that this Court has jurtedietion bea take coqnizence of é this case.

As to the alleqation thak the petition No Cage cf wld pela dan for revue docs not allege hive chate wher sade has wee puadd, thes claims for refund failed with respandenkt which are integral parts: of Lhe pelttien fer reviee mention the years wher the oathbolechimyes wore mace, Vhinsig & 47 In a letter dated Sentemher 2& 1979 and another letter datec February LOS, "tdec oowittd) the reepmorncdernb os Ce Oy ' Whee » LOPD are F PULA oy! L981, ree pec lively. petitioner , fund of che amounkh of PE, 932,00 4,1OR,00, regpectively. Vee eee : Qe dieceame toe feu calendar years L978 and 19ry, Capra Annexes "A and "EB and meade an inkegral park hereafas!

7

Ee

Wee take it that ped baiaaer Feam when withholdings were made merida mob dle able bo stale the exact date whe Che withbeteineg agent paid the 310

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3205 withhoiding tax to the Gureau oof Internal Pevernue., Nevertheless, the rule is hah a taxpayer who income 1i6 withhelch ato omemrere aii bb fies ceewecd bie pias paid his tax tatahibaty weer ther ceunm faddes chie atk the end of the bax year. (Gibbs vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ori ?doe, Nevember GO, LS SCRA 218.) Sand am thas ca pale yengres bie bee payable by tlie te ire cttar ter by fomkbel bmenbe, the final meant. cere t pecyymernt at.

the end cof kha bea ae Wabpesri ak 1 Firnaliw ertaina o@ that the

We

oopavcd: eather made puro fi te or suf Ferret losses ame ibs Operations. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue VS. Asia Iles, Australia Express Ltd., t > Opral AO, L989, ) Ttoas thus clear that the petition for review etate aco korn.

Comine ta toe of pre ceaiption alleged in pareqraph ° of respondent’ s answer, it will be noted that pelitianer has abandoned; dbe oleaim for 1976 and 19777. The amount claimed per petition for review ig PE, See .OO for AS’ 8 and PRS, 1Os.,oO0 for 1979 (Pare. 3, 7 and the prayer of the Pebition for Fray lew) Watdy the cqeati fie ation thak peta bicrer made an erred ola dmire they Gt7 OU. 0 tad goes 381i

DECISION ~-

CTA CASE NO. 2205 fire as the refundable amount for 1978, and secondly ag park of the amount claimed far 1979 (carried forward from L978), petitioner’s claim for refund as formod on Exhbihatea FE ard Bes 19%? income hax crekurn isvolved fies @aiy Less ae ats parrot Feefiuricleta te LPP hg Years” wi thihes td trua involved. Wilh respe@et bo Phe Leeo withhoaltcinas, Australia Express Ltd. case, there igs na dispute ag to the timely fading of hath the claim for wefune and the fs Shey for pery det, Prue opeeeoeets: mdious bhiak the petlatten for resw.dev sar fa deh oor Felaciueary 1981 and othe ¢ adm for refered ony ptember i27, 1979. Since the prescriptive period of two years provided in $ thaien BOG triow Seckian B92) of the National Internal Revenue Coc shemde be cour terct from the date of the "final aymert' whieh thier Jast quarter payment abo the emedo oof the bavable year

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3205 business operations, ab ase clear that the 1975 Claim is rok Udeectrop reed. VPhoer deg bo ctr ber po ane t fell cue an Aprid AN, LSet.

As ta the 1978 withholding tes an interest oan bank cepogite, the la quarter merement ato bhe enc of the taxable We eaye wahiery al is finally its business operations i686 due on April 15, 1979, Between April JA, te /o ancl Februar v ao AGRE, tebe

Fided Cry

corres parc tre eleaam four mes fue we Congequent ly , bhere Ls rics part of the PSSG,103,00 whieh te barred bey pre ception, The next queetion therefore ais whether or not petitioner is entitberd ba the refund of FSS, 108,00 and 1979, sepa cd evry t submitted thig cc: for ceededan cn the [faecig eof the pleadings after pehitieorer heer pre

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 320% evidence ain support of ite entitlement to ite claim for refund. Evidence wag inkrocdeced shoving that for L973 mei bicwimesy freee at rest. Leese cf FLL, 845,603.00 (Chutithite om, rehab cared charadrnp seta year, petitioner had tax credits on account of creditable withhalcding bax oan donkerest oon bart deposits ino the amaunt of SF qeGSS OO which amour 1978 appeared ag refundable Of Dacsember that this refundahte amok we carreged forward tea 1979 as all awed under Section @7 af the applicable National Interne) Revenue Code (exhibit EB), and that for bhato year with a net lass of FPA,LI@, 141. ou refundable amour of P56, 108.00 (Exhibit Be) cansishing of Pav,¢82,00 (Esxhilbite Be@, E, FP. Ha J, Feo oly M) representing ISA withholding tax carried forward from 1978 credit. and - tr, 1 Od ,.00 (Exhibit Be?, FE, , J, NM, ©, ©) reprecernkirig withholding cy ariherre ener

AVAL Re

accrued during the year e779, No controeverbing ey itcercm wee presented by respondent, and having aehmittod Ulig ce cory thee 314

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 3205 pleadings on the face of the wiretuitted evidence cf petitioner thew de thier wh hep mrad bh Veact ber ke refunme of bof eb Pi ef Pe bb a, Peespeaaricdran & maybe canesidered top dveever adm ad t Peach peboa b lormer e entitlement to the refund.

Th may bie hhak charade the hearing ct this cace on February tl, $906, respondent, whale examining peladiorer ss tions whieh werk airke the details of the imecomes cpus of and ododuetians cladaech beoopebitiener in ite LON « Mowerver, pe claim far refund bas been pemcine with rcespondenk ss amine ties, verdfacatiorn and cheakarig since Sentember 2%, L779, Theoaugh all the years, nao action whatescever was taken by respondent. Vhies returns for the taxable years in question have shewrt Lonsses Pioapuascderrt hag nat weed ary deficiency a merpk oer dadsqgauted the correc trie thereof. The regquagite etatements or certific~ ations from the banks that withhelcd on the dite payments hac reser preci head eyed achat hte ar evidence . ‘Dataprep [Phils.], Inc. Ve. Com—

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3205 missioner of Internal Revenue, ClA Case Mo. 3600, March 20, Ue} Reapondent has never placed ain Gf tlye qrcaese Gnemme repro tec, the legality af the deductions claimed, and the fact of substlantiabianm of suck feduchdiane. Foor respancank he require oprebkibteoger to iuekity are eiuppor kt Pte ode amed deco tienes Fer bho ofirmb hime in the jucdicral lev werdor dye hea sane biarn oa pracedure owherety thie Coaurek wereld ibe astecd to mer ocdywald hes internal revenue taxes, To cure oman, this cannot be permitted Por the reaseanm tlaat bhatt osm duty whieh ouusecler the dave eaters. fo Rigs 0 Feet oot Internal Fler rye a (See Section as National Internal Revenue Code.)

saidoaim what so qiledmdy capply bo mah tare that, "But a eheule fe expected, the achion could be maintained oon the hagis of the pleadinads, admisaian are) at fa davit cy thee parkies which neither pravwck ary wngsehk dine quies tiers rene involves material factual amine ly in dispute. The adminietrabive machinery ore proce 316

DECISION —

CTA CASE NO. 2205 employed on the raighk tea the claim te have mavect barely ah tabl tirep synced. ler fe re babive ly quiescent for some sever C7) years an a claim of such oa imple rature and onmeab eo congiderable a Oe ee Pyoye fake whieh ono Lomyeqerr ire th Po gare Of expectation, mpoates but ~ an unwarranted fre wucrat ie peg ta oof aimee baer, Readily a cone lusiean can be threct.

for that matter

a TNE

eae of fade deadline ina more expeditious and coampoetenthy veogpansive te action, (Commoriwealth Parifac Consultants, Ltd,

v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gla Cane Neo,

YO Ee

e703, May UA, Ashe), The circumstances abtaining im othe o¢ ve bear connpre da Ube tea aig khaim the tenmabidbiaty os perk at damer om or deriyl boo the ore furre based oan the evidence and pleadtoas. (Dataprep [Phils.], Inc. VS. Conmamissioner of Internal Revenue, supra,

WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to grant a refund and/or tax credit to petitioner Sun Insurance Office Limited in the amount af P54,102.00 representing 317

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 32705 overpaid income tax for the years 1978 and 1979. No costs.

SQ ORDERED.

Quezan Caihy., Metro Manila, June 22, LOE, tt ea fi i an

AVONTE “FILLER

Prosidzng Sadae

WE CONCUR:

(om leave CONSTANTE C. ROAQUIN

Assactiake Tudue

wee 3 Z. REYES

AzZSsac Lake Tucddges

CTR MRPTVA PT CACHE ££ On

I hereby Cer ha fy that thes decdeidean Wea R reached after duc coreuldtebiews america hhe members of the Court af Tax Appeals im oaceerdance with Section 13, Article VIIT af the Canestitutioan., bf ra 7 cee nesnamapb nein afl ‘ A Cpnrerle fe ee) /

AMANTE’ FILLER

Praca ding duce Court oof Tax Apneals ?

3816