Court of Tax Appeals
0Geophysical Services Inc., et al. vs. ~ the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
GEOPHYSICAL SERVICES INC.,
Fetitioner,
- versus ~ CTA CASE NO. 3727
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, : alele Y
Respondent.
yw
os
oe
D F&F @ &k§ Ss &F Oo WN
This case involves a claim for refund of the
sum of F24é,256.52 representing alleged overpaid
income tax fur the taxable year 19681.
The facts upon which petitioner relies in
claiming a refund are as follaws: |
Petitioner is a foreign corporation engaged in
petroleum operatians under Fresidential Decree No.
1254 in the Philippines.
For the taxable year ended December 31, 1981
petitioner filed its corporate income tax return
(Exh. B) with the respondent’s bureau on April 15,
1982 (Exh. B-1) declaring therein a gross income of
P4,647,725.90 (Exh. Be2) as its 1981 earnings.
DECISION --·
CTA CASE NO . 3727
-
2 -
The
income
tax due
thereon
was
P371,818.00
(Exh.
B-3 ).
After cr·edi ting the total amount of
P85,000.00 (Exhs. Band 0), representing the 8% t ax
withheld
by its withholding agents,
petitioner 's
f ina 1 income ta:-: return showed a ta:-: sti 11 due in
the amount o f
P286,818.00
(E:-:hs.
8 - 4
and B- 4-a ),
which
amount
was
paid
on
April
15,
19B2
as
evidenced
by
BIR
Revenue
Tax
Re c e ipt
A-919B4B9
(Exh.
C
and
C-1)
and
Central
Bank
Confirmation
Receipt A- 952 6723 (Exhs . D, D-1 ) .
On
J a nuar-y
29,
.19B2,
Whitestone
Philippines
Inc. ,
as one of petitio ner· · s
wi t hho 1 d i ng agents,
likewise
remitted
to
the
bureau
t he
a mount
of
P24·6, 256. 52 r··epr·esen ting thE? 8%
wi t ho 1 ding ta:-: o n
its payme nt to t he petitione r of P7 ,078, 206 . 66 Exh.
,J --1), evidenced by
CE~rtificate o ·f
t.a:·: withheld a t
S OI.lr"Ce
( E:·: h.
cJ) •
The withheld tax was ~aid through
Interport Resources Corporation, Whitestone ' s joint
venture partne r- ,
as evidenced by BIR Revenue Ta x
Receipt
No .
8 306131
(Exh.
L)
and
Central
Bank
Confirmation Receipt No. A- 8775905 (Exhs. M, M- 1).
It
however
that
petitioner
was
apprised of s uch payment by the withholding agent
only on July 9, .1982.
DECISION -
- 3 Posited thus, "In view of the fact that Whitestone Philippines, Inc.
had withheld and r-emitted the amount of P246,256.52, which r-epr-esents 8'1. withholding ta:·: of the gr-oss income of P3,078,206.66, to the gove r-nment fr-om its payment to the petitioner-, an over-payment r-esulted when petiti oner· included in its gr-oss income ta}:
t he said amount. of P3,078,206.66 and accor-dingly paid the ta:·: due, without the benefit of the ta>: c r-edit for- P246,256.52 F'hi 1. ippines, Inc.". Computed this wise:
Gr-oss Incc:lll'e Total Ta:-: I:X.te L€.."SS:
Wi tht-olding ta:·:
at sa..tr·ce under- withhe l d by P37l., 818. (X)
p. D. 1354 85, CX::X). 00 Wi.thtulding ta:-:
.pc:'\id by Inter-por-t Rescx .. tr-c:es C.,or-por-aticn/ Whites tcne Phi 1 s.
E~46.1 b~..!~:?
A'no...tnt of ta:-: still due P 40, ~'\61.48 Less:
~ro..tnt of ta:-: paid EXCESS TAX PAVJvENT (Petitioner-'s br-ief, pp. 2 and 6) Whitestone F'4,647, 725.(X)
- 4 - On August 24, 1982 (Exh. A- 1) petitioner filed with the respondent's office a claim for the refund of the amount of P246,256.52 (E:·:h.
A) which the respondent neither had granted nor otherwise acted upon as the date of filing the in s tant petition for review on January 25 , 1984. It not appe~r-- that the respcmdent disputes the n ;: latively si mpl e mater .. ial facts but for the legal presumption that the a mount sought to be re·funded has been collected in accordance with law an d that the burden of proving entitlement therefor if otherwise erroneously collected lies with the taxpayer.
The s o 1 f?
issue presented is whether the petitioner has esta b 1 ished a va 1 id c 1 aim to the r"efund of a n a 11 eged overpaid income ta:·: for the taxable year e nded December 31, 1981. The case before us hardly presents a gripping question.
As thus s hown the basi s for the claim is not short of s pec: if ic s upport in '?rms of tractable data openly laid and fully di s closed, as such deserves the credence normally accorded in the a bsence of contrary evi dence. Res pondent points to no far.: tua 1 er-ror-s nor super f 1 ui ties that need be - -
DECISION ···
_ ..
5
N NO
abr-idged.
Neither- was ther-e any de ·f ic .iency assessment issued.
And the r-ecor·d s make it c 1 ear- that the r-equisite statements and c e r-tifications of the income tax paid ~nd r-emitted upon which tacked the claimed r-efund for· the over-payment could r-eadily fur-nish the basis for· a definite r-esolve but off ic ia 1 action appear-s to ha ve r-emain e d at idling speed so to speak. Su f f .ice it ther-efor-e, upon the r-ec or-d s both the cir-cumstances obtaining and the r-elevant legal standar-ds compel the conclusion that ' petitioner- has pr-oved entitl e ment to a favor-able d e ter-mination.
WHEREFORE, finding th E~ petitinl1(?. r .. ' s c l;:lim well taken the n-:~ fund cJ'f the a mount sought i s he r-eby gr·anted.
No cos t s.
SO ORDERED.
Quez on City, Met~o Manila, November- 15, 1988.
DECISION --
- 6 -
· WE CONCUR:
UIN
C E R T I F
I
C A T I 0 N
I he r eby certify t hat thi s decision was reached after due c onsultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appea l s in accordance with Section 13, Article VI II of the Con s ti t ution. c AMANTE Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appea l s