Court of Tax Appeals
0Republic of the Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Aufzzow City Citibank, et al. vs. ~ THR Acting Commisstovfr of Intrpnal Revenur, et al.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
auFzZow CITY
CITIBANK, N.A.
PHILIPPINE BRANCHES,
Petitioner,
~- Versus ~ C.T.A. CASE NO. 3378
THR ACTING COMMISSTOVFR
OF INTRPNAL REVENUR,
Respondant
Kee eee eee eee x s / Zo / g /
DHRrRrC IS TIO N
The action is about a claim for refund of an
alleged overpald income tax in the total amount of
' P568,989.85 representing the 45% withheld tax on
rental income for the taxable years 1979 and 1980.
As it appears, petitioner, a resident foreign
corporation engaged in bueiness in the Philippines,
Jeased office building as well as parking spaces
located at Makati, Metro Manila. For the taxable
years 1979 and 1980 petitioner’s tenants withheld
and paid to the respondent the corresponding taxes
from the rentale due the petitioner pursuant to
Section I1(c) of the Expanded Withholding Tax
Regulations (BIR Revenue Regulations No. 13-78, as
amended), summarized as follows:
376
DECISION -—
CTA CASF NO. 3478
1979
First quarter P 60,690.97
Second quarter 69,897.08
Third quarter 69,160.89
Fourth quarter 70,160.56
P270,160.56
1980
First quarter P. 78,370.22
Second quarter 69,049.37
Third quarter 79,139.60
Fourth quarter 72,270.10
P298,829.29
It likewise appears that petitioner filed ite
corporate annual income tax return for the calendar
year ended December 31, 1979 on April 15, 1980
(Exh. “E"); that it shored a net loss of
P74,854,916.00 and ite available tax credite
totalled P6,257,780,00 - even without ineluding the
amounts withheld on rental ineome under the
Expanded Withholding Tax System - were unutilized
or unapplied for the reason that the year’s
operation resulted in a loss (Exhe. "E-1" & "E-2");
that the tax withheld by the tenants of the
petitioner against rentals paid during 1979 were
not ineluded in the tax credits, although such
rental income (P7,796,811.00) was ineluded in ite
income declared for said calendar year ended
December 31, 1978 (Exhe. "E-3" & “E-4").
37°70
DECISION -
CTA CASK NO. 3378 Again, for the year ended December 31, 1980, petitioner’s corporate annual income tax return (Exh. "BC") filed on April 15, 1981, showed net loss of P77,071,780.00 for income tax purposes; that ite available tax credit (refundable) at the end of 1980 in the amount of P11,532,855.00 (Exhes. “BC-1" & “BC-2") was unutilized or unapplied as tax eredit; that eald available tax credits do not include the amounts withheld by petitioners tenants against their rental payments during 1980 but said income payment has been declared as part of the gross income and ineluded in the annual ineome tax return (Exh. "BO-3").
Fetitioner filed «a claim for refund of the amounts of P270,160.56€ and P298,829.29 or a total of P56&,989.85 on Auguet 13, 1981 and the present petition for review on Cetober 12, 1981.
The case presents no dispute aa to the relatively simple material facts except for what respondent would have it impressed that the right to the recovery of the taxes withheld and paid on or before October 12, 1979 have already prescribed, invoking the statutory limitations mandated in Seetion 292 of the Tax Code, inter alia, “In any case no such seuit or proceeding shall be begun | after the expiration of two years from the date of 378 - 4 - payment of the tax or penalty. " The questio11ed withheld taxes 01 the rc::Jnttt.l income foz· the fi r st and second tJlUlrter.:
of 1 g 79 subject of the claim fell due and were _p,<Lfd on or before April 15, 197g a11d July 2 0 , 1979 res,r:1 {~ctively, C).t" moTe tlum two years pz·ioz· to the fL U ng of the instant peti ti on 011 Octobez· 12, 1981.
I!enc e barred.
It may suffi c e to H t:a te howevez· that tlle legal moorings of this <':f PP <'H 'fUJt:
c ontentious quibble
OJJ
been se t i n p 1 C1 Cf' fn ' n llm l:'-'"'r ("!( rul .ings.
Tllus
held, " when <~ t tvr il'J p aid in inB tallments, the p z·escz·i pti ve pez·iod nf trvo yean~ provided i11
Sectio11
306 (11ow Sec t:J on 2 92 ) o .f th e Na ti cma l
Interna} Revenue
Cc·de s h ould be eounted fz·om the date of t h e final p tiYment.
And, the 'final payment' is the l ast qu:,rt r payment at tlle e11d of the cal en dar o1· f .t sc 1 y ear r.rben it is fi11ally ascez·ta .i.JJ,'!fble th <1 t (/Jo t ,'f , 'fJ.'l.'VtH' e.i thez· made pz•ofi ts oz· suffered losses iJJ 1 ts busi11ess opera tio11s. "
(Commissione r of Internal Revenue v . Asia Australia Express Ltd ., G. R.
No.
85956 ,
April
10 , 1989 ~ citing Collector of I nternal Revenue v . Pr ieto , 2 SCRA 1007 and Commiseloner of Internal Revenue v . 37~ i “ i Palanca, Jr., 18 SCRA 496). Thie lends settling eloquence to the focusing question raised in the case at bar.
By such pronouncement there ean be no oceasion to further speculate upon when to base the running of the statutory period of Ilimttations otherwise there would be a random quirk of a ‘variance in the treatment of cases similarly situated. Brought to bear upon the circumetances obtaining, the petition for review was filed on October 12, 1981 well within the two year peritod counted from April 165, 1980, the date of the filing of the final adjus tment return for the calendar year ended December 1979, pursuant to Section 8&7(b) of the Tax Code. Respondents objection which would bar petitioner’s claim for the first two quarter tax Payments 1e of no moment.
All told, the case before Us hardly presents a gripping question. As this shown the basis for the elaim is not short of specific support in terme of tractable data openly laid and fully diacloged. The records make it clear that petitioners income tax returns for the taxable years in question have Shown losses and excess creditable Income tax Ppaymente. Respondent points to no factual errors nor superfluities which need be abridged. The
38N
DECISION -
CTIJ CASE NO. 3378 - 6 - .t•equisite statements <'HJ(f ce.t·tificatioJJS of i11come tax r.r.tthheld and rerdt:'---u:f upon r.rhich tllCked the c .l aLmed r efund cou lri f unJJ sh tht"l basis fo r a have r em a in ed a t .i d.l · n.J?· speed 1 so to spelfk .
Moreover, 1·esponden t POl' es no objectio11 in ba ving the case submitted fo r d~cil':don e-n the basis of tbe pleadings 1 1·eco.n:fs and t he ( vi dencc hy pe ti t;lonei'. It may suffice to s t <=tte tlu~ t "Si11ce one who prays f o.t· judgmen t o n tl1e p.leadlngs without offering proof as to t:h t' f ru t.h of a .ll the material al l egat .. ions 1 must be UJ t t-i~'n;h , od to have admitted the trutl1 of al } m."'t.r>r i ,' 1 and rt1.l e van t .~l legat i oJJB of t:he opposing PlH'ty, (HHi to .t·est his mo tion fo1· judgment on these all eg ations taken together wltb such of his or.rn as <1 1"::"' admitted (Bauermann v.
Casas , 10 Phil .
~R6
;
Rvnn~A lista v. De la Rosa, et al., 76 Phil. 115 L re:~ 'onden t 1 as po _in ted ou t by p eti tlon e.t' 1 may be con H.lde1·ed as not questioJ1il18' se1·1ously petlticmer's entitleme11t to its claim for 1·efund.
Mo.t·e so when the evideJJce pz·esented, which was not disputed by z·espo11deJ1t, sufficiently establishes petitioner ' s z·ight to the z·efund.
(Commonwealth Management and Service Corporation v . Commissioner of Interna l Bevenue,
CTA
Case
No.
32.32, June 26, 1985. ) " 38 .1 - 7 - He do not think aJJY diffe~·e11t coJJclusion ought be ~·eacbed i11 tbe case ~"~ t bar.
NHEREFORE, respondent 1s hereby ordered to grant the refund o:f the a.11oun t sought by the petitioner.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Quezo11 City, Me t~·o Hanila, August 30, 1991.
NE CONCUR:
~~- Q\.Q~ DNE'#ro D . ACOSTA
Associate Judge
C.II£.HTZFZCATZON
I
he~·eby ce~·tify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the JDembers o:f the
Court
o:f
Tax
Appeals
111 acoordtmce w'l th ' Section 13, A~·tlole VIII o:f the Ccmstitutlon. 3R?