CTA Case No. 3780

DECISION

- 2 - Tax due per return P 179~ ~ d/. ~ O Total creditab le ta:-:es withheld _L+. ... ,..Jl1Q . ,;I,Zl...!....~.~-1 Overpayment On April 23~ 1984, petitioner, through its external auditor SGV & CO.~ filed a formal claim for refund. To cia te ~ the ,,..esponden t ~ Commissioner of In ter-n a 1 F\evenue ~ has not granted said claim for refund. Hence, this present Petition for Review. The only issue presented in this case is whether or not petitioner has in fact overpaid its income tax for the taxable year 1982. Petitioner~ on his part~ presented the corr-esponding Quarterly and Annual Income Tax Returns, Certificates of Tax Withheld at Source and Central Bank Confirmation Receipts to prove its claim for refund. Respondent on his part did not present any testimonial nor documentary r2vi dences to dispr·ove this claim but merely admitted, denied and objected to some documents either for lack of information, as mere opinion on t he part of petitioner~ hearsay and self-serving. As can be shown by the documents and evidences presented dur·· ing the hearing ;:md a dmit ted by this petitioner is trying · to prove a total refundable amount of F'1,660,184.32 which coniist 4R4

- 3 - mainly of excess creditable withholding tax.

However~ petitioner merely produced exhibits evidencing withholding to a total of P927~892 . 46 with the following breakdown: G, G-.1 to G-57 ;

G- 61 to G-67;

H, H-1 to H-58 H- 55- b to I-43 Total Statement or P602,097.11 Certificate of Ta:< Withheld (B I R Form 1743) Central Bank 287~547.96 Confirmation Receipts Certification by 38,247.39 Withho l ding Agent and other second- ary evidence E:.9..:.;;.?..!L~.9.. ;:; .. ~ .1-l.?.. An analysis of the exhibits shows that not all have probative value. The statement of withholding tax covered by Exhibits G- 54 , H-52, H- 53 & H-54 in the total amount of P5,086.35 should be excluded as the recipient named in the statement is not the pet.i. tioner but, other entities. All the Cen t ral Bank confirmations receipts (Exhs. H- 55 to 1-43) s hould like~J ise be excluded as it fai l ed to prove for- ~~hat kind of tax payment those receipts were issued.

Other evidences such as the BIR Tax payment order accompanying all CB Confirmation r-eceipts or the corresponding vii thholding tax DECISION CTA CASE NO . 3780 - 4 - r-eturns indicating the inclusion of the petitioner-'s v-Ji thholding ta:-:

should have been presented.

Further·more, E}:hibi ts Q 8( T covering certi f .ications of vJi thholding taxes in the total amount of P5~689.57 should also be excluded because they may have been included already as part of Exhs.

H- 51

and N~ Certification of withholding taxes iss ued respective l y by Group Developers, Inc. and Perla Campania de Seguros. So that, under the third type of exhibits only Exhibits M~ N, 0, P, S, l.J and W in the tota 1 amount of P32, 557.82 ha·-.re evidentiary value.

Thus, the allowable creditable withholding tax should on 1 y be P629, 568. 58, recomputed as fo 1 J · !S : Total amount of Exhs. pt-esented Less:

E:-:hs. G- 54,

H - 52~ H- 53

8; H- 54 H-55 to I-43 Q 8.( T p 5,086.35 287,547.96 .................. -~~-~1?..~~--~.I Creditable withholding tax P927,892.46 Accordingly~ the refun dable amount is likewise reduced as follows :

Tax Due Per Return Less:

Creditable Wi thho 1 ding Ta:-:

Refund~b l e Amount P179,987.00 ...... f::>..'?..9. .. !1 .. ~.~-§ .. ~ ... ~§.

WHEREFORE, respondent i s hereby orderP~ t o / /

- 5 - refund or issue the corresponding tax credit certificate to petitioner in the amount of P449 ~ 581.58 pursuant to Section 292 (now Section 230) of the National Internal Revenue Code. No pronouncement as to costs.

WE CONCUR:

~~ Judge CONS

• ROAQUIN

~sociate Judge <;,._.~ Q .. ~ ...

ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Associate Judge CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this dec ision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Ta}:

Appeals in accordance with Section 13~ Article VIII of the Constitution. Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals