BPI Faki Ly Savings Bank, et al. vs. Commissioner of Intern~ Revenue

DECISION

This case is a claim for refund in the amo unt of P112,490.81 , as alleged overpaid i ncome tax f or 1989. Petiti oner is a domestic c orporation duly organized and existi ng under the laws o:f the Philippines.

For t he year 1989, Petitioner rec ei v e d rental inc ome :for leasing s paces in its Aead Bffice a nd branch offices, from which Petitioner's lessees withheld the a mount o:f P112, 490.81 under the expanded withholding tax regulations.

The withheld amount was decl a r ed by t he Petitioner as rental income in its income tax return for t he y ear 1989 <Exhibit A) . . The aforesaid income tax return showed that Petitioner al legedly suffered a net loss of P8,286,960.00 f or that year.

Hence, according to the Petitioner, the e ntire a mount 1 'L1. ,

- 2 - o£ P112,490.81 under creditable withholding shoul~be ~ re.funded to it.

On October 11, 1990, Petitioner £iled with Respondent a written claim £or re£und o£ the said amount <Exhibit "D" and "D-1">. Without waiting for Respondent to act on the claim and to interrupt the running o£ the prescriptive period, Petitioner £iled the instant petition for review on December 27, 1991, seeking the re£und o£ the a£oresaid amount.

The sole issue is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to the re£und o£ P112,491.81 as alleged overpaid income tax £or 1989. Reproduced, hereunder, is the Petitioner's 1989 Corporate Annual Income Tax Return <Exh. A> which shows the following computations: Income Deductions Loss Tax Due Less~ Prior Year's Excess Credit P185,001 Various 112,491 Total Amount Refundable P1,017,931,831.00 1, 026, 218, 791. 00 <P 8,286,960.00 > NIL 297,492.00 <P297,492.00>• • To be applied as tax credit to succeeding Taxable Year.

<Emphasis supplied) _,

DECIS ION -

- 3 - Note should be taken that the amount o:f P112, 491.00 being claime d :for re:fund is part and parcel o:f P297,492.00 which pr esumpti vel y was already applied as t a x c r edit to the s ucc eedi ng taxable year 1~\o.

Such presumption, o:f course, could h a ve been overturned had the Petitioner submitted. its 1990 Corporate Annual Income Tax Return showing that it did not automati cally credit the said amount to the s aid ta xab~e ye~r 1990.

Un:fortunately, ~titioner :failed to s ubmi t t his vital document.

Fa "lure on the part o:f the Petitioner to sustain i ts claim is :fatal :following t he time- tested doctrine that claims :for re:fund are construe d s t r ictly against claimant <Commissi oner o:f Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95) . Thus, to grant Petitioner's re:fund despite the :fa c t that said amount was applied a s tax c redit by Pe t iti oner i n the taxable year 1990, is de t rimental to the interest o:f the Government as the same is tantamount t o granting Petitioner twice the r e:fund o:f the same amount.

(see Resol ution, Paseo Realty Development Corporation vs. Commissioner o:f Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4693 , October 21, 1993).

WHEREFORE, in all the :foregoing, Petitioner's claim :for re:fund is hereby DENIED a nd this Petition :for Re view i s DISMISSED :for lac k o:f mer it.

1J 4~

- 4 -

WE CONCUR:

~cQ,~ ERNESTO A. ACOSTA Pr esiding ~.GRUBA Associa-e Judge ~ er 24, 1993.

"' ~ ~~,J..,~ RAftON 0. DE VE A Associate Ju e CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accor d a nce with Section 13 Article VII of the Constitution. ~a .. C2~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals )