CTA Case No. 3667

DECISION

2 .....

The facts are not disputed, respondent having submitted this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and records after petitioner has presented its evidence. As alleged in the petition for review and admitted by respondent, and bor·ne out by the records:

1.

Petitioner is a domestic corporation or-ganized and e:-:isti.ng undE~t- and by vir·tue of tt1e laws of the Philippines, with principal office and place of business at 222 Buendia Avenue, Makati, 1'1e t. t""Cl 1'1an i l a n 2..

F\(·?.~.; ptJnde= n t is the.' dt.t 1 y design a ted and in c umbent Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the Philippines duly authorized by law to act on claims for tax refund or credit and on other matte r s involving the enforcement of national in te:}r·na.l revenue with office at the BIR National Office Building, East Tr··iangle, C:luezon City, where he may be served with summons. 3.

For the calendar years 1981 and 1982, pet.i tione:~r- r·ec:e.i ved f I'"Orll various domestic c orporations advi s ory/professional fees ·fn:lm which the corre sponding ta:-:

was withheld and duly remitted to the BIR under the Expanded Withholding 115

DECISION ~-

CTA CASE NU. 3467 s Tax System. (Exhibits "B-1", HB BM "Rea, "I", ME EO OE TAT ge VB eT MARY NARS", and "Y".)

4. The amount of advisory/professional fees received by petitioner and the corresponding tax withheld for the said calendar years 1981 and 1982 are as follows: ("B-1", "“B-2", "B-3", "C", "C-1i", "DN, "Dei", “E", “E-i"“, “F“ "F-i", "GG", “G-i", “H", "Heo, UT, "rat, "9", "VEN, "EY, "Mt, CNT, "a", Neem MR MRAP Shy US H-1". UT NTH1", TU" "URNKi", mye Wyma, mi, "Wei", mK o> con and uy) Year Tax Withheld Covered Amount and Faid 1981 F165,743.00 Fi1,368.00 19B2 266,270.00 23,152.00 Total FSS2,013.00 F24,720.00 oe The abave income payments were duly declared by petitioner as part of its gross incame as shown under Schedule 2 of its final annual returns for 1981 and 1982. (Exhibits "BB", "Bi", “RHO PERE MS TAN. "Hi", "Q-2", and "GQ-3".)

. In the calendar year 1981, petitioner suffered a loss and consequently had no income tax liability against which to apply the available tax credit. For the calendar year 1982, petitioner had Liv

LT a tavable income of anly Fi,934.00 and thus it was only able to apply the amount of Fi,954.00 against jtsa income tax liability as shown ino the return for the said year, leaving ao oreftundable amount of Pee, 766,00 (F2]4,720.00 lesa FPL,?54,00)., (Exhibits 2s = a = So OO © OO = © CeO ee POD", "Oe BU, "Oe EN. "O84", "OS" and "OQe-&".)

7. On July 9, L9As, petitioner filed with respondent ai claim for refund of the amount of PAS,7°68.98 only outoof the total refundable amount of FSS, 766.00 which said amount of P1IS,798.98 it was able to aupport with individual certifications dsasued by the withholding agents concerned and corresponding copies oof revenue tax receipts, bank confirmation receipts and accompanying returns. fExehabihe "RN, ne ia a Se "Re! UERG" URN "Ree G' yy SAN Me Dy MQe RN "Qe. "0-4" ,"Q-5", "0-6", "2 ame “Zed ) B. The amount of Fi?, 798.98, subject of the claim for refund, was never aonplied against petitioner’ s incame tan liability. (Exhibits "EB", “Ree DT" SBR "Ben SReAS OU RR GU RRO6" "ON. 'O-L", Ae Soe 8 SOQ 5 Ey AL at & Op we 8 UD} & W " th} Z it 4 anel aw 7-1 at " )

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 5467

9. To date, respondent has not yet granted petitioner’s claim for a refund of the said amount of FL9,798.978.

Hence, this petition for review.

The lone question tendered for resolution is whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund/tax credit: of the amount of F19,798.98 representing overpaid and wunapplied creditable withhalding tax on income as of December 21, 1762.

It as not disputed thats

(a) During the year 1981, petitioner’s corporate annual income tax return reflected a met loss and that it had a total creditable tax of Fill,568.00 which was shown as refundable thereon.

(bh) During the year 1982, petitioner’s corporate annual income tax reckuren reflected a net income of FS,584.00 and a tax due oaf F1l,?54,00, After petitioner eredited against said hax due of PL ,F54,00 the total amount of F224, 720.00 reprasanting ats L982 creditable withholding taxes and the refundable amaurt af Fil, 568.00 which is shown in lle

DECISION ~

CTA CASE NO. 32667 ite T9651 income tax return, petitioner’s LSBs bax return showed a refundable amount of Pit, 764.00, (co) Petitioner however was only able to support with individual certifications issued by withholding agents (BIR Form L745) and official recerapts the total amount of PL?,798.98.

(id) Sonsequeantly anly the amount. af Pig,798,.98 was claimed as refundable, Ce} The revenue examiner ta whom this claim for refund was assiqned for investigation racommnended the grant of the refund.

The question ainvelved in this case, an the light of the facts presented, is far fram being one SION « In Dataprep (Phils.). Ine.

af Internal Revenue, CTA Case Na.

S600, March 3O, 19834, this Courkh, speaking through Judge Alex 2. Reyes, sustained a taxpayer's claim for refund on the basis of tax returns and BIR Form To cates recards make Lt clear that 8 dmecoane tax returns for the LESS on) 6 quueshian have showr spandent has nok issued any sspegament nor disputed the deficiency DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3 667 -- 7 -· cor-r·-ec t.ne ~:; s ther~eof.

The s t a tt.·? m c-7~n t. ~...,.i. t~1he 1 d c u ~:; tomE-~ t-s co 11 ec: b :?d the c l ,::~ im cer·ti f .ic<~ t.ion of d E?d UC tE?d by i::lnd thn.1 whi c h t hE~ the ta xes and upon for refund could ~5 <::\t.is f<':l. cti on of definite ·.• r-equisi. te the amounts p~?ti tioner' s t-es pond en t ~>~hi c h tack E?d ·fur·ni s h the r-esolution.

F~!?s pond E• nt. points t.o no f actl.l <3. l er·r .. or nor supe r ·· fluiti~? s ~>~h:i. c h r!E?•:=d be abridged e xcept for the non creditability of taxes on bank interest payments as earlier pointed o ut.

As thus s hown the basis of the c laim is not s hort of s pec ific support in terms of tractable data openly laid and fully disc losed fo r any legitimate analysis, doubt and objection but action t:her·E:~on <'::\P PE?<.H-s c:ons .i. gnE-~d in a limbo of ling~::-•r·irl!J VE!r··if.i.c ;·~t:..i.on to d ate. We see no r···· E~D. :1on ·''l"ld nonp .i.s vouc h sa.fed ~->~hy a simple c ase~ wher·e fact and fabrication are no long er indistinguishable~ should remain cur~ i.ous; 1 y un pE~r ··tu r ·· t:H:'! d. It.

may be r11-::~c E?:;3<H ·y to n~~pr::•a t. what t h .is Cour-t said in ~~~he:\ t ~::; o p l i-:\inl y <~ pp J. y to the case at !:Jar·· that~ "But as s hould be e:·:p€-?c:t ed~ the action could be maintai n ed on the basis of the pleadings, admission a nd affidavit of the parties wh ic h neither provokes any unsettli.ng questions nor involves material fa c tual iss ues genuinely in di s pute. The a dmini s trative mac hinery or process employed on the right to the c laim seems -1.-.o havE~ movf.~d b <::\l'.f?ly at idl.irHJ s peed. To lx:

r·f~l<:\t.i.vE•ly qu:i.e s cc~ nt fen- ~-;o rne four (4) years on a claim of suc h a s imple nature ·::tr·tcl n ot S!J c::nnsicler·able a stake which no longer incites controversy n~r excites a queasy sen se of expectation~ creates but a n unwarranted bureaucra tic:

.inertia of :i.nact . .i.on.

Re;;tcl .i.ly a legal c on c lusion can he sdf!~ ly r · · E~achE~cl.

F'f.~tition!~?r or any ~;i m i J. ar- J. y c: i r·r:ums tanc e el ta :·( pa yt~r fot-· t.ha t matter d eserves a measure of fair dealing in a more expeditous and competently r·espons i Vf.~ ~:u: t ion. "

(Commonwealth Pacific Cun s u.J.tant.<::;~ l .... t.c:l.

v.

Commissioner· of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 2953, May 120

·- 8 .....

15~ 1982.)

The circumstances obtaining in the case at bar compel us to sustain the tenability of petitioner's right to the refund based on the evidence and pl~.:~adings.

·.• And~ in Commonwealth Management and Service Cor··· por·;.I tion '1 '::5.

The Commissioner of In ten1a l Revenue, CTA Case No.

3232, June 26~ 1985, Cour-t he-~ 1 d:

"To prov(~~ these £-?:.:cess income.;!

ta:.:

payments, petitioner presented in evidence its income tax returns for the years involved, the corresponding official r eceipts for its i ncome tax payments, as well as the various withholding tax c ertificates i s sue d to pe titioner.

No controverting eviden c e wa:;

presented by r-E:·spnndent..

As a matt:.er·· of fact., as s tate d above, res pondent submitted this C: dS E' fo r· dr.;~c : l . <;; :i. on on thf~ haf:;;is of the plea ding s and the record s after petitioner has presented a nd offer·ed its evidence.

Sin CE' n n e-' \··Jho fH .. <::'.ys for· judgment on the plf~<:l.::linu s \'!.i t.hut.tt nfff.;!rintJ pt-nof i:'.s to the truth of his allegations, must be ut l ( ] (~'r ·<;; toocl t.n h<:tVE·' ;;,,dmitt.E~d the tt-uth of a ll the mate rial and relevant allegations uf the opposing party, and to rest his mo tion for judgment on these allegations t a ken together with such of his own as are a dmitted (Ba u e rmann vs . Casas, 10 Phil.

386; Ev angelista vs . DelaRosa, et. al., 7 6 F'hil .

.1..15), n7~·:; pcmd c-mt, ,:\s pointed out IJy p c~t. :l. tion e r·, fTl <':l'/ bP con~;ider- ed as not ques tioned s er·iousl y petitioner's f~nt.

.i. t : lE~rnent. t.o .i. t.s c laim for· refund. (p.

86, CTA records).

nccmm I 1\!GL Y, r ·e s; pon cl en t.

Commissioner this of is hen,~by order· E~d to gr-ant. a ta:< 121 ..•

DECIS ION --

-- 9 ·- credit to petitioner Jardine Fleming (Ph i lippines ) Inc.

in the amount of P19,798.98 representing petitioner's overpaid a nd unapplied creditab l e withholding t ax on income as of December, 1982. SO OFWERED.

Quez o n City, Metro Manila , January 20, 1988. l.JE CONCUR:

..........__

• ROAQUIN

Jud~}e z.~ Associate ,Judge 122.

AMANTE FILLER

Pr·esid .ing ~J udg e ...

. .

-· 10 --· C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N I hereby certify that thi s decision was reac hed after due cons ultation a mong the members of t he Court of Tax Appeal s in accordance with Section 13, Articl e VIII o f the Constitution. AMANTE F'r·esi.d ing Judge Court of Tax Appeal s