@Epurlic of the Ettintepies Court of Tax 4ppeals Qvls, et al. vs. ~ Commisstoner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

C. T. A. CASE NO . 3934 Suit for recovery of the amount of ~31 , 527 . 22 paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue as profit remittance tax on the ground that the profit upon which the remittance ta x was paid was not remitted. Petitioner Yardley International, Ltd ., filed its claim for refund or tax credit with respondent Com- missioner of fnternal Revenue, but since no action thereon was seaso nably taken by respondent , peti- tioner brought this case to this Court. The f ac ts are not in dispute, the partie s having s ubmitt ed this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and evide nc e presented by petitioner . Petitioner is a for eig n corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and with Philippine

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3934 - 2 - address at c/o its resident agent , Mr . Alonzo Q. Ancheta, 706 Don Pablo Building, 114 Amorsolo St . , Legaspi Village , Makati, Metro Manila . On May 9 , 1983 , petitioner paid the 15% profit remittance tax of e31,527.22 on branch profit of e210,181 . 44 which it intended to remit to its head office in London .

"D-1".)

( Exhibit s "C"

"C 1"

"D" and

' - ' It appears that petitioner , through the Chartered Bank , filed with the Central Bank an application to purchase foreign exchange for remittance of profits worth e210 , 181 . 44 .

(t.s . n . , pp . 13 - 14 , November 25, 1985; Exhibits "D" and "D-1" . )

However , because of certain requirements petitioner was not able to comply , approval was not immediately obtained . (t . s . n. , pp .

15 - 16 , November 25 , 1985.)

Be that as it may, the evidence shows that the intended remittance was not effected because of losses 'SUbsequently incurred by petitioner . (t.s . n ., p . 16 , November 25 , 1985; Exhibits "E" and "F" . ) On July 23 , 1984, petitioner therefore filed with respondent a claim for refund or tax credit for its unused profit remittance tax of e31 , 527 . 22 .

I)ECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3934 - 3 - (t . s . n., p . 18 , November 25, 1985 . ) No action , how- ever, was taken by respondent upon said claim . (t , s . n , , p . 18 , November 25 , 1985 . )

Meanwhile , petitioner stopped , as shown by the record , its operations in the Philippines . (t . s . n. , p . 18 , November 25, 1985; Exhibits "H" and "I" . ) Hence , the i nstant petition for review , Is petitioner Yardley International , Ltd . , entitled to a tax refund of 831 , 527 . 22? At the outset , it should be stressed that res- pondent did not present any evidence controverting the correctnnss of the material facts stated above . As a factly matter , respondent simply submitted this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and the records after petitioner has presented and offered its evidence .

It may suffice that "Since one who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of his allegations , must be understood to have admitted the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party , and to rest his motion for judgment on these allegations taken together with such of his own as are admitted" (Ba uermann vs . Casas , 10 Phil , 386;

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3934 - 4 - Evangelista vs . De la Rosa , et al ., 76 Phil . 115) , respondent may be considered as not questioning seriously petitioner r s entitlement to its claim for refund .

More so when the evidence prese nted , which was not disputed by respondent , s ufficiently estab- lishes petitioner ' s right to the refund .

(Common-

wealth Mana~ n ment and Service Corporation vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C. T. A. Case No . 3232 , June 26 , 1985 . )

We hesitate to further fashion an issue into a satisfactorily settled r ule .

(Common-

wealth Management and Service Corporation vs . Commis- sioner of Internal Revenue , C. T. A. Cases Nos . 3754 and 3794 , July 31 , 1987.)

Even in his special and affirmative defenses in his answer , respondent does not dispute that no profit was actually remitted to petitioner ' s head office . As a matter of fact , respondent did not even ~other to file a memorandum in support of his case although he was given ample time to do so . That petitioner did not remit any profit and that it in fact inc urred a net loss is shown in peti- tioner ' s Statement of Assets and Liabilities dated September 30 , 1984 .

(Exhibit "E" . )

And on September

601

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3934 - 5 - 30 , 1984 , petitioner retired from business and its license to do business cancelled , and petitioner ceased operatio ns in the Philippines . As observed by Judge Alex z. Reyes in Common- wealth Manage ment and Service Corporation vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue , C. T. A. Cases Nos . 3383 and 3578 , June 30 , 1987 , the case before us hardly presents a "gripping question or require a tortured ratiocination.

As thus shown the basis for the claim(s) are (is) not short of specific support in terms of tractable data openly laid and fully disclosed .

XXX

XXX

xxx .

Respondent points to no factual errors nor superfluities which need be abridged . "

The profit remittance tax of e31 , 527 . 22 involved in this appeal was paid by petitioner to respondent ' s office as tax on branch profit which petitioner in- tended to remit abroad.

Due to losses subsequently incurred by petitioner, no profit however was actually remitted .

It is thus clear beyond doubt that no pro- fit remittance tax became due and payable to the Bureau of Internal Rev e nue .

601

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3934 - 6 -

WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to grant the refund to petitioner Yardley International, Ltd., the amount of 831,527.22 representing e rroneously paid profit remittance tax .

No costs.

WE CONCUR:

(on official le a ve ) CONSTANTE C. ROAQUIN

Associate Judge

60~

AMANTE

Presidi g Judge