CTA Case No. 5099

DECISION

Fa

cr Or on

DECISION -

C.T.4. CASE WO. 5999 Lor slit able Tax With Tax Credit fo succeeding taxable year.

However, the Income Tax Return for 1492 showed a refundable as follows: (Exh DT eso: Deductions 1.495, 10% 00 Het Less PAGS POS.)

Hac}

Tax Dune -HIL-

nee a ay lEehs. E E~ 9, Ea: & BF fi - c) Créeditable Tax Withheld * Tax Refundable P25 108.00 7 sine taxable year.

cn

OF

on te

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO. 5099 - 3 - representing the alleged overpaid income faz for Log) to its income tax for the succeeding tazable year (1992), petitioner filed a written claim for refund on February 23, 1994 fExh. E-1) asking for the refund of the aggregate amounts of P18,.003.00 and and 1992, respectively (Exh. E).

Respondent did not act on such claim for refund. Hence, 1994, in order to enforce by way of judicial action its claim for refund. The petition is however limited only to the amount of P1S,606.00, allegedly representing excess creditable withholding P16,603.00 is not properly documented In an action for refund case, petitioner failed to submit its 1990 Income Tax Return to Petitioner replied that ite 1990 Income Tax Return was attached te its 1991 Income Tax Eeturn when it filed said (1991) Tax Returns with attachments, consisting of its Third Quarter ~ }

Cm

Co

DEC ISIAH -

C.T.4. CASE NO. 5099 PS 120.00 (Exh. B) and its Certificate of Creditable Income Tax Withheld At Source in the amount of P6,500.00, withheld by Paseo Realty & Development Corporation (Exh. €) and also its 1992 Income Tax Return (Exh. D) for the proper evaluation of this Ceurt.

Is petitioner entitled to the refund of P 14,604.00, covering the allesed overpaid income tax for 1991, resulting from excess cr

Be

The BIR records forwarded to this Court form parf of the records of this case. In said BIR records, it showed the original 1991 Income Tax Return of petitioner, filed on April 15, 1992. The feliowing documents were attached te said return, namely:

(1) Audited Financial Statements; (2) Schedule of Taxes and

Ag

(4) Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld (Esh. ©): and (5) is correctly put by petitioner, respondent has a copy eof its 1990 Inceme Tax Return. The original is in the custedy and We, therefore, ses no cogent reason why petitioner should still submit a copy of its 1990 Income Taz Return when the same respondent, P14,608.00, it appears that petitioner although if suffered a loss eed cn on om

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE WO. 5099 - 5 - Tax Return. Emphasis should be made on the mark Cf) indicating income tax liability for the year 1993 or whether if suffered a of petitioner's claim for refund having opted to use the remedy of 21, 1993, in a Motion fer Reconsideration presented by the Cormmissioner of Internal Revenue in the case of Paseo Realty Development Corporation ¥. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4693, pertinent. portion of which are quoted as follows:

A) indicated that the amount of P54,194.00 subject of petitioner's claim for refund has already been included as part and parcel of the F172,477.00 which the petitioner automatically applied as tax Hote should be taken that the ameunt of

DECISION -

(.T.4. CASE WO. 5099 - 6 - Piv2,a77.00 which presumptively was already aE lied as tax credit to the succeeding taxable year _ lich presumption, of course, could have been overturned had the petitioner submitted its 1940 Corporate Income Tax Return showing that it did nat automatically credit the said amount for the said taxable year 1990. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to submit that vital document which could have unlocked his entitlement for the elusive claim for refund sought for. Failure on fhe part of the following the time-tested doctrine that claims for refund are construed strictly against claimant (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v¥s.

Ledesma, GR. No. L-17509, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 95).

As correctly put by the Respondent, to grant ont refund despite the fact that said amount as applied as tax credit by petitioner in the taxable year 1990, is detrimental te the interest of the petitioner twice the refund of the same amount.”

It a more recent case decided by the Court of Appeals, it ‘It is incumbent upen the petitioner to show proot that it has not credited to ifs 1990 Annual Income Tax Return, the amount of P2oy,4y92.00 fineluding F112,491.00), so as te refute its previous declaration in the 1969 Income Tax Return that the applied as a tax credit in the succeeding year of 1990. Having failed to submit such requirement, (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., vs. Hon. Court of Tax Appeals, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CA-G.2. SP No. 34240, March 31,

DECISIOH-

C.T.A. CASE HO. 5099 - 7 - denied by the Court of J.LJ..ppe::1ls in a Resolution .. da.t.ed ·r 1 .·, l(~J( __ ·,.t:_.· .• ).

r~ove.r.n ::.e.r ·), : - _ Thus. the Court Ulnnot l)e left t(:. speculate as to 'qhether credited or not to the succeeding taxable year ( 199_3.). For if so, then the amount of P U}.60;}00 c:::HU10t be granted in favor of petitioner F:3.ilure on the p::).rt. of the taxpayer to su.st:1.in hi:; claim i:; L1.tal to its c::tuse of action. T:::txe:::: are presumed to have been collected in ;;:l_ccordance Vv'"ith lavls a.nd regulations. (Caltex (PhiL) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. CTA Case No. 2871, January 29, 1986.1 A refund partakes of tl1e nature of an exernption.. and the sa.me are construed strictly again:;t t11e claimants. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ledesma.

31 SCRA 95J

WHEREFORE, in vievl of the foregoing_. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Accordingly, petitioner':; claim for refund is hereby DENIED.. v~~"it11out. speci:::tl

DECISIOH-

C.T.A. CASE HO. 5099 - 8 -

WE CONCUR:

c;L~(Q~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

Presiding Judge

~<:4.~ MANUEL K. GRUBA A::;<;cc,.j;.:tte Judge

CERTIFICATION

! h>:>rebv certifv tllat. this decision Vla::: re::J.ched :3.fter due ' ' consu.lt3.tion ::;.mong the members of the Court of T::u~ Appeals in ac(:ordance w1th Se(:tion 1 J. iH"tide VI II of the Constitution.

~Q'-~

ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

Presiding Judge

(.(:ru.rt c·f T:;.x Appeals