Republic of Hie Pllllippines Cour R of Tax Appeals Uuezon City Standard a-~Rtered Bank <Phil. Branch vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION -

C.T.R. CASE NO. 5063 - 3 - credit of an alleged overpaid income tax for the year 1991.

Respondent in her special and affirmative defenses stated that.:

5.

The claim for refund filed by the petitioner is undergoing review/investigation. E..

Petitioner, by .indicating in its lncome Tax Return for 1992 that it opted to apply the alleged 1991 overpaid income taxes in the amount of P9E.0,347.00 "as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year <1993>", in effect forfeited its right to claim for the refund of the aforesaid amount. 7.

Thet~e is no showing that is entitled to the refund. petitioner 8.

Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of the nature of exemption from taxation <CIR v. Ledes•a, 31 SCRA 95; Resins v.

Auditor General, 25 SCRA 754>. In support to its case, petitioner presented in evidence various documents which, among others, consist of [1J the annual income tax returns for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 <Exhs.

"A"' "E"' and "H"J;

[2J the audito~'s report which accompanies the annual income tax returns and financial statements <Exhs.

"B", and "F">;

[3) the Central Bank Confirmation Receipt and the Bureau of 1 nt et~nal Revenue Payment Order <Exhs.

"C" and "D">;

and [4) the letter claim for refund with the respondent <Exh. "G" >.

On the other hand, respondent presented only 1284

- 4 - one dQcument which is the 1992 income tax return of petitionel~ <Exh. "1">. Both parties failed to submit their respective memoranda.

Petitioner alleged that under Sec~ion 69 of the Tax Code it is entitled to the refund for the overpaid income tax as of December 31, 1991 which was not applied or utilized in the succeeding taxable year <1992). Section 69 of the tax Code reads as follows: Sec.

69.

Final adjustment return.

Every corporation liable to tax under Section 24 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year.

If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year the corporation shall either: (a) Pay the excess tax still due; or (b) Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year.

<Underlining supplied> ~ Respondent contends otherwise. Petitioner, by indicating in its Income tax Return for 1992 that it opted to apply the alleged 1991 overpaid income taxes in the amount of P960,347.00 "as tax credit to succeeding taxable year 12P~ - 5 - <1993>", in effect fot~feited its t~ight to claim for the t~efund.

After a careful examination of the records of the case, this Court is convinced that petitioner was able to substantiate its claim for refund.

The burden of proof by the petit i onet~.

The 1991 income tax payments which petitioner indicated in the 1992 income tax return "to be applied as tax credit to succeeding taxable year" remain unutilized.

Petitioner did not automatically apply said payments in 1993 as shown in its 1993 amended income tax ret urn <see Ex h. "H").

It also clear that the payments made by petit i onet~ are in deed excessive and well supported by evidence <Exhs. "C" and "D").

Further, the claim for ref1..md ( f Ol~ both administrative and judicial level> was f i 1 ed · by petitioner within the two-year period as prescribed under Section 230 of the Code: Sec. 230.

Recovery of taM erroneously or illegally collected.

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without auth~rity, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but s\lch s1..d t ot~ proceeding may be maintained, 1286

- & - whether or not such tax, penalty, been paid under protest. or duress. or su• has In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment:

Provided, however, that the Comm iss ione\'~ may, even without a written claim therefqr, refund or credit any tax, where on face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid.

<Underlining supplied) Thus, finding the petitioners claim for refund meritorious We grant petitioner's prayer.

WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby ordered to refund or, in the alternative, issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner the sum of P9G0,347.00 representing overpaid income tax for the year 1991.