Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. ‘ Commissioner of Internal

DECISION

C.T.A. CASE NO. 5145 P353,116,152.59, hereinbelow:

Particulars (In Pesos) 992 dune 1992 Service Fee (SF) July 1992 SF August 1992 SF September 1992 SF Total for 1992 1993 Compensatory Damages Compensatory Damages October 1992 SF Compensatory Damages January 1993 SF February 1993 SF Nov/Deoember 1992 SF Waroh/April 1993 SF Way 1993 SF June 1993 SF July 1993 SF August 1993 SF August/September 1993 SF Gotober/Noveuber 1993 December 1993 SF Total for 1993 1994 Deceaber 1993 SF January 1994 SF February i904 SF March 1994 SF Apri tfay 1994 SF June 1994 St July 1994 SF the details Tax Base 119,658, 292.40 186, 772,227.80 63, 622,034.53 182,437, 444.67 552,689,999. 40 6,251,570.00 6,258, 239.00 130,956, 444.87 6,241, 780.87 126,740, 175.73 19,988, 108.60 116,922,996.47 81,795, 000.00 81,774, 000.00 192, 704,523.66 40,677, 739.87 103,673, 312.93 98,533,273. 60 42,690, 000.00 101,172, 107.09 147,249, 648.93 19,348, 000.00 |, 262,377, 121.62 49,958, 176.80 41,670, 000.00 27,446, 192.20 46,970, 276.73 61,499, 791.60 72,267, 047.67 59,856, 334.10 40, 230,000.00 46,647,111.87 66,165,666.27 4 Remittance Tax Paid 17,948,743, 86 ~ 26,015,834.17 9,573,308. 18 21, 365,616.70 82,903, 499.91 937,735.50 938,730.85 19,553, 466,73 936,267.13 19,011,026. 13 2,998, 216.29 17,596,449. 47 12,269, 250.00 12,266, 100.00 19,905,679.58 6,101, 660.98 15,560, 996.94 14,779, 991.04 8, 403,500.00 15,175, 616.06 22,087,477.34 2,902, 200.00 189,356,569. 24 7,493, 726.62 6, 250,500.00 4,116,928.83 1,046 ,641.36 9,224, 968.74 10,840,057. 15 8,978,450. 12 6,034, 600.00 7,027,076. 18 9,923,334. 94 ray of whioh Total Amount Renitted to Head Office 469, 786,499.49 1,673,020, 552,38 are shown Date Pald 09-04-92 11-06-92 12-17-92 12-18-92 11-05-93 12-03-93 12-16-93 12-27-93 1- 5-94 1-24-94 2- 4-94 3- 3-94 3-16-94 5- 5-94 6- 9-94 6-21-94

T- 4-94

1-15-94 Paneer ree DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5145 - 3 - August 1994 SF 26,140,000.00 a,U1,000.00 Hi·U Total for 1994 63&,040,558.24 10,868,0U.44 468,184,472.80 6rud Total 2,364,107,877.26 363,118,162.69 2100019i11524.67 The foregoing BPRT payments were computed based on petitioner's reported branch profits or branch profits appl led for remittance abroad.

In eight letters of different dates <Exhibits "VV-1" to "VV-8"), the Central Bank of the Philippines authorized petitioner to remit, thru an authorized agent bank, the foreign exchange equivalent of Its net remittable Income (service fee) ool leoted from NAPOCOR sub j ect to compl lance with the documentary requirements attesting payment of the profit remittance tax.

Starting Apr i I, 1994, the Central Bank foreign exchange I lberal lzatlon took effect and the petitioner was no longer required to secure approval from the Central Bank on the remittance of Its branch profits to the Head Off loe <TSN, p.

21, August 16, 1995).

On September 1, 1994, petitioner, through Its tax adviser, SGV & Co., fl led with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a olalm for refund <Exhibit "RR") In the sum of P46,058,629.40 at legedly representing overpaid BPRT for the period covering June 1992 to August 1994, Invoking the rut lng of the Supreme Court In the oase of Bank of America vs.

the Court of Appeals, G.R.

4'71 Nos.

103092 and DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

6145 - 4 - 103106 dated July 21 , 1994 whic h held th at the 1 5 \ t ax on br anch pr ofits remi tted abroad Is Impos ed on the profit ac tu a lly remitted and not on the a moun t of profits a ppl led for remittanc e.

Hence, the r efun dable a moun t w as b ased by the petitioner on the following c o mpu t a tlon a Total amount appl led for remlttanoe to Head Office P2,354,107,677.26 Total Amount of BPRT paid to the BIR P 353,116,152.59 Lessa Correct Amount of BPRT P2,364,107u77.2v 1.15

X 15\

307,057,523.19 Overpaid BPRT p 46,056,629.40 The deta l led schedule showing the refundable BPRT is as fol lowsa Rnittance Particulars Tax Base Tax Paid Should be tax --- ---- 1992 June 1992 Servloe Fee ISfl 119,668,292.40 17,948,743.86 15,607,603.36 July 1992 Sf 186,772,227.80 28,015,834.17 24,361,594.93 Augut 1 Q92 SF sa,8n,034.53 9,573,305.18 8,3l4,613.2.0 Septeaber 1992 SF 182,437,444.67 27,365,616. '/0 23,796,188.44 Total for 1992 652,689,999.40 82,903,499.91 72,089,999.93 1993 Coapeftaatory Oaaages 6.251,570.00 937,735.50 815,422..17 CoapeAaatory Oaaages 6,258,239.00 938,735.85 816,2i2.04 Ootober 1992 Sf 130,356,444.87 19,553,466.73 17,003,014.50 Coapentatory Daaages 6,241, 780.87 936,267.13 814,145.33 Jnuary 1993 SF 126,740,175.73 19,011,026.36 16,531,327.27 Febr1ary 1993 SF 19,988,108.60 2,998,216.2i 2,607,144.60 Nov/Deotlber 1992 SF 116,922,996.47 17,538,449.47 15,250,825.63 ll&rot/Apri I 1993 Sf 81,795,000.00 12,2U,250.00 10,668,913.04 81,774,000.00 12,266,100.00 10,666,173.91 132,704,523.66 19,906,87t.6ti 17,309,285.69 llay 19B& SF 40,677,739.87 6,101,880.98 5,306,792.18 Jut 1993 SF 103,673,312.93 15,5&0,986.84 13,622,606.13 July 1993 SF 98,533,273.60 14,179,991.04 12,852,166.12 4?2 abovestated 0 i ffereace Date Paid 2,3411140,60 09-04-92 3,654,239.24 11-06-92 1,248,691.98 12.-17-92 3,669,428.26 12-18-92 10,813,499.98 122,313.33 2- 1-93 122,443.81 2- 9-93 2,560,452.18 2-11-93 122,121.80 3-17-93 2,479,699.09 4- 2-98 391,071.69 5-31-93 2,287,623.84 6-01-93 I ,600,336.96 6-23-93 t,59&,9a.os 6-25-94 2,596,393.86 6-30-H 795,868.82 7-23-94 2,028,390.81 8-19-94 1,927,824.92 9- 2-93 DECISION C.T.A. CASE August 1993 SF Auguat/September 1993 Sf October/November 1993 December 1993 SF Total for 1993 Particulars 1994 December 1993 SF danuary 1994 SF February 1994 SF Maroh 1994 SF Aprti/May 1994 SF June 1994 SF July 1994 SF August 1994 SF Total for 1994 Grand Total NO.

5145 42,690,000.

101,172,107.

147,249,646.

19,846,000.

1,262,377, 121.

Tax Base 49,958,176.

41,670,000.

27,446,192.

46,970,275.

61,499,791 72,267,047.

59,656,334.

40,230,000.

46,047,171 66,155,566, 26,140,000.

539,040,556.

00 09 93 00 62 60 00 20 13 .60 67 10 00 67 21 00 24 2,354,107, 677.26 pa Ree BOO DAR tn order to preserve judicial Code, as on the same date, On petitioner has administrative claim for were filed giving her violative of the dootrine of remedies.

action amended, November on the {n aooordance with Section 230 11, petitioner September '1, 1994, 5 - 6, 403,600.00 15, 175,816.06 22,067, 477.84 2,002, 200.00 189, 356,669.24 fenittance Tax Paid 7,493, 726.62 ~ 6,250, 500.00 4,116,928.83 7,045,541.36 9,224, 968.74 10,040,057.18 8,978, 450.12 6,034, 500.00 7,027,075. 78 9,023, 334.94 4,921 ,000.00 80,656,083. 44 53,116, 152.59 ptectnat RoBi Matic its right no oause of action same day, the opportunity Respondent further refund and the to act on beg ~ ud filed the 1994.

6,668, 260.67 18,198, 361.79 19,206, 502.08 2,528, 652.17 164,657, 885.50 Should be tax 6,516, 263,03 6,435, 217.39 3,570,998. 11 6,126,557.70 8,021, 711.95 9,426, 136.65 7,807,347.93 5, 247,391.30 6,110,500. 68 8,626, 986,90 3, 400,565.22 10,309,637. 76 307 ,057,523.19 to pursue respondent September 1, Instant Instant 1994, the claim, 035,280.13 1,979, 454.27 2,060, 975.31 378,547.83 24,698,688.74 Difference 977,442.59 815,202.61 536,990.72 918,983.66 1,203, 256.79 1, 413,920.50 1,174,102.19 787,108.70 916,575.10 1,204, 348.04 511,434.78 10,546, 445,68 46, 058,629.40 answered against her since averred that sinoe the 11-05-98 12-03-93 12-16-98 12-27-98 Date Paid 1- 5-94 1-24-94 a- 4-94

J- 3-94

3-16-94 5- 5-94 6- 9-94 6-27-94

T- 4-97

1-15-94 6-19-94 a refund by of the Tax petition that the petition without hence, exhaustion of administrative BPRT DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO.

5145 - 8 - Is Imposed and ool leoted at souroe, neoessarl ly the tax base should be the amount aotual ly appl led for by the branoh with the Central Bank of the Phi I lpplnes as profit to be remitted abroad.

On Deoember 5, 1994, respondent manifested that slnoe the olalm for refund of the petitioner Is stl I I being Investigated, the only BIR records aval table are the petitioner 's letter to the BIR claiming a refund of overpaid BPRT, dated August 31, 1994, and the attaohment thereto which Is Annex "A" of the present petition. The Issues to be resolved In this case area { 1 ) whether or not petitioner aotual ly remitted branch profits to its head office to make It fall within the purview of Seo.

25(a)(5) of the tax Code, as amended;

(2) whether or not the administrative and j udicial claim for refund can be filed simultaneously or on the same date and (3) whether or not the BPRT shal I be oomputed based on the profits actually remitted abroad or on the total branch profits out of which the remittance Is made.

In her Memorandum fl led on September 25, 1998, respondent asserted that there Is no showing that petitioner remitted branch profits to Its head office, maintaining that since petitioner Is a oorporatlon organized and existing under the laws of the State of I, DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5146 - 7 - California, U.S.A., petitioner's head offloe Is Philippine Geothermal, lno., U.S.A.

and not UNOCAL.

The oontentlon of the respondent Is untenable.

Inasmuch as UNOCAL has assigned oapltal to petitioner, the former can also be regarded as the head office of the latter .

Even assuming arguendo that petitioner has remitted profits to a foreign company abroad, I. e.

UNOCAL, which Is not its head office and therefore there are no "branch profits" to speak of, the evidence presented are nonetheless replete proving that petitioner has paid BPRT for remittance of Its branch profits abroad, ergo with more reason that It Is entitled to olalm a refund, and for that matter, not only to the extent of the amount sought as overpaid BPRT but the whole amount It paid as BPRT because In such a case, there was Indeed an erroneous payment of the said tax.

Moreover, the eight letters of the Central Bank of the Phi I lpplnes to the petitioner (Exhibits "VV-1" to "VV-8", Inclusive) authorizing the latter to remit Its net remittable Income <service fee) co I I acted from Napocor to UNOCAL petitioner to remit abroad.

In addition, In effect recognizes the right of Income to said foreign company the Monthly Remittance Returns of Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Forms 1743W, Exhibits "K" to "PP", Inclusive> sufficiently establIsh payment by the '4 ·1 r.:

! d DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5145 - 8 - petitioner of branoh profits remittance taxes to the government.

Notably, the respondent posed no serious objection to the admission of petitioner's documentary evidence when the same were presented before this Court and duly Identified by petitioner's witnesses.

On the other hand, respondent disputed some returns of lnoome taxes withheld abovementioned on the ground that they do not show the nature of lnoome payment and the kind of tax paid, namely1 Exhibit y z BB DD FF GG

I I

NN TOTAL At this juncture, Amount of Tax p 6,403,500.00 14,779,991.04 6,101,660.98 12,266,100.00 17,538,449.47 2,998,216.29 936, 2tH. 13 9,573,305.18 P70,597,490.09 respondent's assertion Is not entirely devoid of merit.

However, We take exception to exhibits "FF", "GG" , and "NN" because We bel leve that In spite of the objections made by respondent, the amounts corresponding to these exhibits should be Included In the final computation as said amounts are mentioned In some of the letters of authority Issued by the Central Bank to herein petitioner and presented as evldenoe (see exhibits "VV-3" , "VV-6", and "VV-8").

4 ··; c:

.• I...J The other exhibits DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

6145 - 9 - speolfJ oal ty exhibits "Y", "Z" , "BB", "DD" , and

" I I "

as oorreotly pointed out by respondent should not be Included In the computation because these monthly remittance returns fa I I to Indicate the nature of Income payment to whloh It refers as wei I as the kind of tax It was being paid and therefore the same cannot be refunded as overpaid BPRT.

This Court has no cogent reason to consider the same as pertaining to the payment of branch profit remittance taxes for remittance of profits abroad.

This Court has no authority to base mere presumptions of fact.

Its conclusions on With raspect to the rest of the Monthly Remittance Returns of Income Taxes Withheld <Exhibits "I<" to "PP", excluding the foregoing), the kind of tax for which the amounts Indicated on the face thereof were paid appeared at the back portion of the tax returns, contrary to the declaration In the BIR Certification <Exhs.

"flO", "QQ-1", "QQ-2" , and " QQ - 3 " ) that "the kind of tax paid Is not Indicated In the source documents. " It Is unmistakable that one of the sources used by the Revenue Accounting Division of the BIR Is petitioner 's tax returns.

Be& Ides, the respondent had the opportunity to examine the relevant exhibits offered by the petitioner and was able to compare them with the originals and found the same to be faithful reproductions thereof 4' -, ' ( I CTSN, March 15, DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5146 - 10 - 1995).

In suoh a oase, any otoud of doubt as to the authenticity of the said returns whloh point out at the baok thereof the kind of tax <BPRT) and the oorrespondlng amount paid thereon has been removed.

Furthermore, In her "Reply to Request for Admission" fl led on August 1, 1995, respondent refused to admit payment of the following amounts since they allegedly do not appear from the records of the BIR's Revenue Accounting Division, to wit a Amount A I I eged Date of Payment p 27,365,616.70 12-18-92 6,4oa,5oo.oo 11-05-93 22,087,4'77.34 12-16-93 1, 493, ·r2e. 52 1-05-94 6,250,500.00 1-24-94 8,978,450.12 6-09-94 9,923,334.94 7-15-94 3,921,000.00 8-19-94 The statement of the respondent is self-defeating.

The aforesaid amounts were verified to have been remitted per CROC and Central Bank Credit Advice as stated In the Certification Issued and signed by Ms.

Carmel Ita SJ.

Pascual, Chief, Revenue Accounting Division (Exhs.

"OQ- 1", "00-2", and "OQ-3").

On the second Issue, the fact that petitioner filed Its olalm for refund with the BIR on the same date that It filed a judicial aotlon with this Court is of no consequence.

Petitioner's witness, Mr.

Heynaldo T.

Anoos, 4,. , ( I t 1 DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5145 - 11 - test If t_ed that prior to the month of June 1992, petitioner also remitted branch profits to Its head office and paid the corresponding BPRT, using the multlpl loatlon of the remittable amount by 16% but the same was not included in the present claim for the reason stated In his testimony given during the hearing of this case on July 19, 1995, thus1 a.

In that case, Mr.

Witness, why did petitioner then decide to file a claim for refund for the period covering June 1992 to August 1994?

A.

z.because of the two year prescriptive {od.

a.

Mr.

Witness, did petitioner fl le or remit branch profit remittance tax for the month of June 19921 A.

Vas, sir.

XXX XXX XXX .

a.

And what was the amount of branch profit remittance tax paid for this period?

A.

Sir, the amount Is P17,948,743.86.

a.

And when was this tax remitted and paid to the government?

A.

Sir, It Is September 4, 1992."

( TSN.

pp.

10-11 I

J lJ I y

19 I

1995) Apparently from the foregoing, the petitioner would I Ik e to seek the recovery of overpaid BPRT corresponding to the branch profits It remitted abroad as of September 4'?'- .

J DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

6 146 - 12 - 4, 1992, even though It could olalm the other amounts of the same tax whloh It paid prior to said date were It not for the two-year prescriptive period.

If petitioner had to wait for the action of the respondent on Its claim before It oould fl le an action with this Court, then the amount of petitioner 's refundable claim would furthermore be reduced as there would be some payments made In some or several months that might not at alI be a I I owed or taken into aocount by reason of prescription.

The two-year period In Section 230 of the Tax Code, as amended Is mandatory.

It the Commissioner of Internal Revenue den t es the olalm for refund, t here Is no question that the t a x paye r can appeal to this Court.

But If the Commissioner fai Is to act and the two-year period Is about to lapse, the taxpayer should lnstityte the appeal to this Court, without waiting for the decision of the Commissioner .

This Is so because of the positive requirement of Section 230 and the doctr i ne that delay of the Commissioner In rendering the decision does not extend the peremptory period fixed by the statute (Gibbs vs.

Col l eotor , l-13453 February 29, 1960).

Likewise, the Court of Appeals expounded the matter In the following wordsr "x x x The law fixed the same period two years - for fl I lng a claim for refund with the Commissioner (Seo.

204, par.

3), and for 480 DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

6145 - 13 - filing suit In court (Seo.

230), unlike In protests of assessment under Section 229 whloh ffxed the period (thirty days from receipt of decision> for appeal lng to the Court, thus clearly Implying that the prior decision of the Commissioner Is necessary for the oourt to take cognizance of the oase.

Whl le It may be true that the Court of Tax Appeals Is essentially an appellate court, and should aot only upon claims for refund that are unfavorably decided by the Commissioner, the remedy Is addressed to the legislature.

"The taxpayer cannot be faulted for taking advantage of the ful I two-year period prescribed by law in fl I lng his claim for refund.

The Court of Tax Appeals Itself acknowledges that the claim for refund with the Commissioner can be pending simultaneously with a suit for refund fl led with said oourta" (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.

Bank of the Phil.

Islands, et.

al., CA-G.R.

SP No.

34102, Sept.

19, 1994) Finally on the third Issue, the law on the matter Is very clear and unequivocal.

Section 25(a)(5) of the Tax Code, as amended, provides In part:

"Sec.

25.

Rates corporations.

- (a) Rates of tax corporations.

XXX XXX of tax on foreign on resident foreign XXX (5) Tax on branch profits remittances.

- Any profit remitted by a branoh to Its head office shal I be subject to a tax of 15% (except those registered with the Export Processing Zone Authorlty)a Provided, That any profit remitted by a branch to its head offloe authorized to engage In petroleum operations In the Philippines shall be subject to tax at 75\. In both oases, the tax shal I be ool leoted and paid In the j DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5145 - 14 - same manner as provided In Seotlona 51 and 52 of this Code1 and Provided, further, That Interests, dividends, rents, royalties, lnoludlng remuneration for technical services, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual, periodical or casual gains, profits, Income and capital gains received _ by a foreign corporation during each taxable year from all sources within the Phil ipplnes shall not be considered as branch profits unless the same are effectively connected with the conduct of Its trade or bus I ness In the Philippines."

The Issue has been finally resolved In the decision of the High Court in the case of Bank of America NT and SA vs.

The Commissioner of Honorable Court of Appeals and Internal Revenue, 234

SCRA 302

which the Is in alI fours with the present case, the pertinent portion of which Is quoted hereunder, to wit:

"In the 15% remittance tax, the law specifies its own tax base to be on the "profit remitted abroad."

There Is absolutely nothing equivocal or uncertain about the language of the provision.

The tax Is imposed on the amount sent abroad, and the law (then In force) cal Is for nothing further.

The taxpayer Is a single entity, and it should be understandable If, such as In this case, It Is the local branch of the corporation, using its own local funds, whloh remits the tax to the Phi I lpplne Government.

"The remittance tax was conceived in an attempt to equalize the· Income tax burden on foreign corporations maintaining, on the one hand, local branch offices and organizing, on the other hand, subsidiary domestic corporations where at least a majority of at I the latter's shares of stock are owned by such foreign corporations.

Prior to the amendatory provIsIons of the Revenue Code, I ooa I branches DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

6146 - 15 - were made to pay only the usual corporate lnQome tax of 25%-35% on net Income <now a un i form 35%) appl loable to resident foreign corporations (foreign corporations doing business In the Philippines).

While Phi llpplne subsidiaries of foreign corporations were sub j ect to the same rate of 25%-35% <now also a uniform 35%) on their net lnoome, dividend payments, however, were additionally sub j ected to a 15% (withholding) tax <reduced conditionally from 35%).

In order to avert what would otherwise appear to be an unequal tax treatment on sucn subsidiaries vis-a-vis local branch offices, a 20%, later reduced to 15%, profit remittance tax was imposed on local branches on their remittances of profits abroad.

But this Is where the tax par/passu ends between domestic branches and subsidiaries of foreign corporations. " In said decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Bank of America NT & SA vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No.

3799, October 29, 1986, which declares in parta "On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing In Section 24(b)(2)(11), supra, which Indicates that the 15% tax on branch profit) remittance Is on the total amount of profit to be remitted abroad which shall be collected and paid in acoordance with the tax withholding , devloe provided in Sections 53 and 54 of the Tax Code.

The statute employs 'Any profit remitted abroad by a branch to Its head office shal I be sub j ect to a tax of fifteen per cent (15%)' - without more.

Nowhere Is there said of base on the total amount actually applied for by the branch with the Central Bank of the Phi I lpplnes as profit to be remitted abroad, whloh shall be collected and paid as provided in Sections 53 and 54 of this Code. ' Where the law does not qual lfy that the tax is imposed and collected at source based on profit to be remitted abroad, that qual lflcatlon should not be read Into the law.

It Is a basic rule of statutory oonstruotlon that there Is no safer 48:)

DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO. 6146 - 16 - nor better oanon of Interpretation than that when the language of the law Is olear and uri amblg uoua, It shoul d be appl ied as written.

And to our mlrid, the term •any profit remitted abroad' can only mean suoh profit as is ' f or warded , sent, or transmitted abroad' as the word 'remitted' Is commonly and popularly accepted and understood. To say therefore that the tax on branch profit remittance Is Imposed and cal lected at source and necessarl ly the tax base should be the amount actually appl led for the branch w ith the Central Bank as profit to be remitted abroad is to ignore the unmistakable meaning or plain words. "

In the I l ght of the above considerations, It Is clear that for purposes of compu t i ng the 15% branch profit remittance tax, the tax base should be "the profit remitted abr·oad" ,

i. e . , the net profit actually remitted abroad, net ot the !3PRI ltsel·t.

Accordingly, as the 15% tax Is profit r· (:Hit I t t e d , t hat por·t I on impo sed only on the o-t the profits o or r e s pond I n g t o t h e pro ·r I t r e 111 i t t a n o e t a x I t s e I f w h I c h Is not r·ernltted abroad <as it rs paid to t he government> s h o u I d not f o t'lll p a r· t o t t he t a x base f o r· p u ,vposes of computing the b r anch profit remittance tax (Citibank N.A.

vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No.

602.3, August 3 • 1995).

A careful scrutiny of the evidence presented has led this Court to conclude that the petitioner Is entitled to the tul I amoun t of P46,058,629.40.

484 I i l DECISION C.T.A.

CASE NO.

5145 - 17 - WEREFORE, In vIew of the 1 or ego I ng, the petition Is hereby GRANTED.

Aooordlngly, respondent Is hereby ORDERED to REFUND or Issue in favor of the petitioner a tax credit certificate In the amount of P46,058,629.40 representing overpaid branch profit remittance tax for the period covering June 1992 to August 1994.

SO ORDERED.

Q EHNESTO 0.

ACOSTA Presiding Judge

CERTIF ICATION

hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members ot the Court of Tax Appeals In accordance with Section 13, Article

VI I 1

of the Constitution.

 CQ. ERNESTO D.

ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals I I l ]