Sankyu Logistics Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J. :

This is a Petition for Review filed on April 14, 2010 by Sankyu Logistics Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) pursuant to Section 4(a) of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), in relation to

Rule 4

thereof, to review by appeal the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue over petitioner's administrative claim for issuance of lax credit certificate for its alleged excess creditable withholding tax (CWT) for taxable years 2007 and 2008 in the aggregate amount of P6,299,797.00.

THE FACTS

Petitioner Sankyu Logistics Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation du ly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at 8th Floor, Salamin /--

Building, Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. 1 Petitioner is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and was issued Tax Identification No. 205-657-646-000-VAT.2 Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue vested by law with the power to enforce and implement the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), related statutes, and their implementing rules and regulations. She holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road , Diliman, Quezon City.

On March 9, 2009, petitioner's Board of Directors issued a resolution approving the cessation of commercial operations of petitioner effective March 31, 2009 and the liquidation effective Jun e 30, 2009. 3 On ,July 31, 2009, petitioner filed an application for closure a nd for cancellation of its BIR registration with the BIR due to cessation of commercial operations as per the above resolution of petitione r's Board of Dircctors.tJ On March 2, 2010, petitioner filed with the BI R its short period Income Tax Return (ITR) for the period covering ,January 1 to ,June 30, 2009, pursuant to its cessation of commercial operations.s On April 13, 2010, petitioner filed with the BIR Revenue District Office (ROO) No. 47-East Makati an administrative claim for issuance/

of lax credit certificate for excess creditable withholding lax for taxable years 2007 and 2008 m the amounts of Pl ,689,921.00 and P4,609,876.00, respectively, or an aggregate amount of ?6,299,797.00.6 On April 14, 2010, petitioner filed this Petition for Review due to respondent's inaction over its administrative claim for issuance of tax credit certificate for ils excess CWT for taxable years 2007 and 2008 in lhe aggregate amount of P6,299,797.00, pursuant lo Section 229 of lhe NIRC of 1997.

In respondent's Answcr7 filed on April 30, 2010, she interposed lhe following special and affirmative defenses: "SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5) Assuming without admitting that Petitioner filed a claim for refund, the same is subject to investigation by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

6) Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the tax, which is the subject of this case, was erroneously or illegally collected; 7) Taxes paid and collected arc presumed to have been made in accordance with the laws and regulations, hence, not refundable;

8) It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to show that it has complied with the provisions of Section 204(C) in relation to Section 229 of the Tax Code, as amended upon which its claimed for refund is premised;

9) In an action for tax refund the burden is upon the taxpayer to prove that he is entitled thereto, and failure to discharge said burden is fatal to the claim (Emmanuel & Zenaida Aguilar u. Commissioner, CA-GR No. Sp. 16432, March 30, 1 990 cited in Aban, Law of Basic Taxation in the Philippines, 1 st Edition, P. 206); lr 6 Par. 10, Admitted Facts, JSFI, docket, p. 47. ·7 Docket, pp. 16- 18.

10) Claims for refund are construed strictly against the clajmant, the same partake the nature of exemption from taxation (Commissioner of Internal Revenue us. Ledesma, 3 7 SCRA 95) and as such, these are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp.

us.

Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, 124 SCRA 121) ."

On November 15, 2010, petitioner moved for the commissioning of Atty. Ma. Cecilia C. Katigbak as Independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to perform the following functions: 1.

Conduct

the examination and audit of the voluminous documents, and thereafter; and 2.

Issue and file with this Court a Formal Report attesting to the correctness of the contents of the Summary jies and compliance with substantiation requirements under pertinent tax laws, regulations and jurisprudence after making such examination, evaluation and audit.s In a Rcsolution9 dated December 13, 2010, the Court granted petitioner's motion to commission Atty. Ma. Cecilia C. Katigbak as Independent CPA.

During trial, petitioner presented as witnesses Ms. Aida V . Magampon, petitioner's former Finance and Administration Manager from March 29, 2004 until August 31, 2009, and Atty. Ma. Cecilia C. Katigbak, the duly appointed Independent CPA.

During

the scheduled hearing on

February

27, 2012, petitioner's counsel failed to appear, despite notice.lO This prompted respondent to move that petitioner be deemed to have waived its right to present further evidence, which the Court denied. s Docket, pp. 59 -63 .

9 Docket., p. 80.

10 Docket, p. 121 .

In a/-

CTJ\ CASE NO. 8080

Resolution 11 dated March 7, 2012, the Court warned petitioner's counsel that if he failed to appear again on March 26, 2012, petitioner's right to present further evidence shall be deemed waived . During the March 26, 2012 hearing, counsel for petitioner again failed to appear despite notice. The Court, upon motion of respondent and considering the warning given in the Resolutionl 2 dated March 5, 2012, declared that petitioner's right to present further testimonial evidence has been deemed waived.l 3 On May 3, 2012, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence 1\ and respondent filed no comment/ opposition to such offer. In the Resolution 15 dated June 1 1, 2012, this Court admitted Exhibits "¹", "I- 4", "1-5" and '\J", described as follows:

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION

Revised

Report on

the

Result of the

"I"

Procedures Performed for the Claim for

Refund/Tax Credit Certificate for taxable - - years 2007 and 2008 __ - --.

"1 -4 "

Summary of Creditable Withholding Tax for

----· taxable years 2007 and 2008 "1-5"

Summary of Certificates of Creditable Tax

Withheld not Signed by the Payor for taxable years 2007 and 2008 "\.]"

,Judicial

Affidavit

of Ally.

Ma.

Cecilia

------ Katigbak dated May 24, 20 1_1

"J"

JudiciaJ Affidavit of Ms. Aida V. Magampon dated November 17, 2011

CTA CASE NO . 8080

The Court denied Exhibits "1 - 1", "1-2", "1 -3", a nd the sub- markings of "1-4" due to petitioner's failure to submit the duly ma rked exhibits.

On cJune 21, 2012 , respondent ma nifested that she will no longer present a ny evidence a nd moved for a period of thirty (30) days to submit memorandum, which this Court granted. 16 On Septe mbe r 11 , 201 2, this ca se wa s deemed submitted for decision considering respondent's Memorandum filed on August 23, 201 2 a nd the Report dated August 28 , 2012 of the Court's Judicia l Records Division slating tha t petitioner fa iled to file a Memora ndum .

THE ISSUES

The following a rc the pa rties' jointly stipula ted issuesl7 submitted for this Court's consideration: "1 . Whe ther or not Petitioner's cla im for lax refund or credit for excess CWT for ta xa ble years 2007 a nd 2008 in the aggrega te a mount of P6,299,797.00 wa s filed within the two (²)-year prescriptive period for filin g claims for tax refunds or credits; 2.

Whether or not the income paym ents from which the a bove excess CWT being cla imed we re withheld we re decla red by Petitioner in its ITR a s pa rt of its gross m comc;

3.

Whether

or not the fact of withholding were established by a copy of the Ce rtificates of Credita ble Tax Withheld a t Source (BIR Form No. 2307) duly issued by the income payor (i.e., custome rs) to the payee (i .e., claima nt Petitione r) showing the a mount/-

CT/\ CASE NO. 8080 of mcome paid a nd a mount of lax withheld there from;

4.

Whether or nol the a bove excess CWT being claimed are duly substantia ted with documents;" The foregoing issues can be summarized as follows: "Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a n issuance of lax c redit certificate for its a lleged excess credita ble withholding lax for taxa ble years 2007 a nd 2008 in the aggrega te a mount of P6,299,797. 00."

THERUUNGOFTHECOURT

Petitioner must satisfy the following requisites lo be entitled to a refund of its purported excess credita ble withholding lax for taxable years 2007 a nd 2008:

1.

The c la im for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period as provided under Section 204(C) in rela tion lo Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as a mended;

2 .

The fact of withholding is established by a copy of a slalemcnl duly issued by the payor (withholding age nt) lo the payee, showing the a mount paid a nd the a mount of lax withheld therefrom; a nd 3.

The income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in the retu rn of the recipient. IS Be fore discussing whethe r petitioner was a ble lo comply with the three requisites, it is imperative to discuss first whether petitioner was able lo comply with the Best Evidence Rule 19 in relation to the 2005 Revised Rules of lhc Court of Tax Appeals a nd the doctrine laid f,- 111 Section 2.58, l<cvcnue l<egu lat.ions No. 2-98, as amended; Citibank N.A. us. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997; 1\CCRA In vestments Corporation us. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991.

ICJ Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

CTJ\ CASE NO. 8080 down by the Supreme Court in the case of Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue20 {Atlas case).

The Best Evidence Rule as provided in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court slates that "when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than th e original document itself."

While the above-quoted provision does admit exceptions, absent the clear showing that it falls under any of those exceptions, the originals of the documents should be submitted. However, this Court has its own rules lo compliment the Best Evidence Rule, which specifically cater to the voluminous documents or long accounts that taxpayer-claimants submit as evidence to substantiate their claim for a lax refund. As provided, the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals allows and ad mits the reproduction or copy of the original. Section 5 of Rule 12 of the RRCTA stales: "SEC. 5. Presentation of voluminous documents or long accounts. - In the interest of speedy administration of justice, the following rules shall govern the presentation of voluminous documents or long accounts, such as receipts, invoices and vouchers, as evidence to establish ccrtajn facts:

(a) Summary and CPA certification. - The party who desires to introduce in evidence such voluminous documents or long accounts must, upon motion and a pproval by the Court, refer the voluminous documents to an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) for the purpose of presenting:

( 1) a summary contllining, among other matters, a chronological listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by the invoices or receipts and the amount(s) of taxes paid; and 1r-

(2) a certification of an independent CPA allesting to the correctness of the contents of the summary after making an examination , evaluation and audit of voluminous receipts invoices or long accounts.

The name of the Certified Public Accountant or partner of a professional partnership of certified public accountants in charge must be slated in the motion . The Court shall issue a commission authorizing him to conduct an audit and , thereafter, testify relative to such summary and certification.

(b) Pre-marking and availability of originals. - The receipts, invoices, vouchers or other documents covering the said accounts or payment lo be introduced in evidence must be pre-marked by the party concerned and submillcd to the Court in order to be made accessible lo the adverse party who desires to check and verify the correctness of the summary and

CPA

certification. The original copies of the voluminous receipts, invoices or accounts must be ready for verification and comparison in case of dou bl on its authenticity is raised during the hearing or resolution of the formal offer of evidence."

In rclalion to the above-quoted provision, Section 2 of Rule 13 of the RRCTA, as amended, enumerates the duties of an Independent CPA, to wit:

"SEC. 2. Duties of independent CPA. - The independent CPA shall perform audit functions in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles, rules and regulations, which shall include:

(a) Examination and verification of receipts, mv01ces, vouchers and other long accounts;

(b)

Reproduction

of, and comparison of such reproduction with, and certification that the same are faithful copies of original documents, and pre-marking of documentary exhibits consisting of voluminous documents;

(c) Preparation of schedules or summaries contajning a chronologicaJ listing of the numbers, dates and amounts covered by receipts or invoices or other relevant documents and the amount(s) of taxes paid; /r DJ.<:CISION CT/\ C/\SE NO. 8080

Page 10 of 20

(d)

Making

findings substantiation requirements regulations and jurisprudence;

as to compliance under pertinent tax with laws,

(e) Submission of a formal report with certification of authenticity and veracity of findings and conclusions in the performance of the audit;

(f) Testifying on such formal report; and

(g) Performing such other functions as the Court may direct ." (Emphasis supplied) One of lhc important duties of the Court-commissioned Independent CPA is lo certify that the documents submitted as evidence before the Court are faithful reproductions or copies of the original.

ll is a lso lhc duty of the Independent CPA to dete rmine whether the taxpayer-claimant complied with substantiation requirements under pertinent lax laws, regulations and jurisprudence.

While this Court gives weight to the Independent CPA's findings and conclusions derived from lhc examination and verification of the documents submilled as evidence, it is not bound by such an assessment or report.

The Supreme Court emphasized in the Atlas case21 lhal the Independent CPA's certification, findings, a nd conclusions arc not enough lo substantiate petitioner's claim for tax refund and il is incumbent upon the taxpayer to submit the supporting documents.

The Highest Tribunal explained that the supporting documents arc necessary lo determine the authenticity and veracity of the Indcpcndcnl CPA's conclusions. The pertin e nt~

portions of Lhe Atlas case decision arc quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"Also worth noting in the same decision is the weight given by this Court to the certification by the independent certified public accountant (CPA), thus -

XXX

XXX

XXX

There is nothing, however, in CTA Circular No. 1- 95, as amended by CTA Circular No. 10-97, which either expressly or impliedly suggests that summaries and schedules of input VAT payments, even if certified by an independent CPA, suffice as evidence of input VAT payments.

XXX

XXX

XXX

The circular, in the interest of speedy administration of justice, was promulgated lo avoid the lime-consuming procedure of presenting, identifying and marking of documents before the Court. It does not relieve respondent of its imperative task of pre- marking photocopies of sales receipts and invoices and submitting the same to the court after the independent CPA shall have examined and compared them with the originals. Without presenting these pre-marked documents as evidence - from which the summary and schedules were based, the court cannot verify the authenticity and veracity of the independent auditor's conclusions.

There is, moreover, a need lo su bjecl these invoices or receipts lo examination by the CTA in order to confirm whether they are VAT invoices. Under Section 21 of Revenue Regu lation No. 5-87, all purchases covered by invoices other than a VAT invoice shall not be entitled lo a refund of input VAT.

XXX

XXX

XXX

While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are nol ends in themselves but are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the presentation of the purchase receipts and/or invoices is not mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the lru lh of the respondent's claims. J.-

The records further show that respondent miserably fai led to substantiate its clajms for input VAT refund for the first semester of 1991. Except for the summary and schedules of input

VAT

payments prepared by respondent itself, no other evidence was adduced in support of its clrum.

As for respondent's claim for input VAT refund for the second semester of 1991 , it employed the services of ,Joaquin Cunanan & Co. on account of which it (,Joaquin Cunana.n &, Co.) executed a certification that: We have examined the information shown below concerning the input tax payments made by

the Makati Office of Manila Mining Corporation for

the period from ,July 1 to December 31, 1991 . Our examination included inspection of the pertinent suppliers' invoices and official receipts and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. xxx As the certification merely stated that it used 'auditing procedures considered necessary' and not auditing procedures which arc in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles and standards, and that the examination was made on 'input tax payments by the Manila Mining Corporation,' without specifying that the said input tax payments are attributable to the sales of gold to the Central Bank, this Court cannot rely thereon and regard it as sufficient proof of the respondent's input VAT payments for the second semester.

As for the Petition in G.R. No. 141104, involving the input VAT of petitioner corporation on its zero-rated sales in the first quarter of 1992, this Court already found that the petitioner corporation failed to comply with Section 1 06(b) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, imposing the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of the application for refund/credit thereof. This bars the grant of the application for refund/credit, whether administratively or judicially, by express mandate of Section 1 06(c) of the same Code. Granting arguendo that the application of petitioner corporation for the refund/credit of the input VAT on its zero- rated sales in the first quarter of 1992 was actually and timely filed, petitioner corporation still failed to present together with its application the required supporting documents, whether before the SIR or the CTA. As the Court of Appeals ruled- /r-

CTA CASE NO . 8080

In actions involving claims for refund of taxes a ssessed a nd collected , the burden of proof rests on the taxpayer. As clearly discussed in the CTA's decision , petitioner failed lo substantia te its claim for lax refunds .

Thus:

'We note, however, lha l in the cases a l bar, petitioner has relied totally on Revenue Regula tions No. 2-88 in determining compliance with the documenta ry requirem ents for a successful refund or issuance of lax credit.

Unmentioned is the a pplicable and specific a m endment later introdu ced by Revenue Regula tions No. 3-88 da ted April 7 , 1988 (issu ed ba rely a fter two months from the promulga tion of Revenu e Regula tions No . 2-88 on February 15, 1988) , which amended Section 16 of Revenue Regulations No. 5-87 on refunds or tax credits of input lax. x x x.

XXX

XXX

XXX

'A thorough exa min a tion of the evidence submitted by the petitione r before this court revea ls outright the fa ilure to satisfy documenta ry requirements la id down under the above-cited regula tions. Specifica lly, petitioner wa s not able to present the following documents, to wit: 'a) sales invoices or receipts;

'b) purch a se invoices or receipts;

'c) evidence of actual receipt of goods; 'd) 801 statem ent showing the amount a nd description of sale of goods, etc.

'c) original or attested copies of invoice or receipt on ca pital equipment loca lly purcha sed; and 'D photocopy of import entry document and confirma tion receipt on imported capital equipment. 'There is the need to examine the sa les invoices or receipts in order lo a scertai n the actual amount or qu antity of goods sold and their selling price. Without them , this Court cannot verify the correctness of petitioner's claim inasmu ch as the regula tions require th a t the input taxes being sought for refund should be limited to the portion tha t is directly a nd entirely a ttributa ble lo the pa rticular zero-ra ted tra nsaction. In this instance, the best evidence of such transaction are the s aid sales invoices or receipts.

Also , even if sales invoices are produced, there is the furth er need lo submit evidence tha t such goods were acluall received b the bu er, in this case, by CBP, Philplhlos and PASAR.

CT/\ C/\SE NO. 8080

XXX

XXX

XXX

Laslly, this Court cannot determine whether there were actual locaJ and imported purchase of capitaJ goods as well as domestic purchase of non-capitaJ goods without the required purchase invoice or receipt, as the case may be, and confirmation receipts. There is, thus, the imperative need to submit before this Court the originaJ or attested photocopies of petitioner's invoices or receipts, confirmation receipts and import entry documents in order that a full ascertainment of the claimed amount may be achieved. Petitioner should have taken the foresight to introduce in evidence aJl of the missing documents abovementioned. Cases filed before this Court are litigated de novo. This means that party litigants should endeavor to prove at the first instance every minute aspect of their cases striclly in accordance with the Rules of Court, most especiaJly on documentary evidence. xxx" (Emphasis supplied) In this case, what remams of petitioner's evidence are the following:

1. Revised Report on the Result of the Procedures

Performed

for the

Claim

for

Refund/Tax Credit

Certificate for taxable years 2007 and 200822;

2. Summary of Creditable Withholding Tax for taxable years 2007 and 200823;

3. Summary of Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld not Signed by the Payor for taxable years 2007 and 200821;

4. Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Ma. Cecilia Katigbak dated May 24, 20 11 25; and

5. ,Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Aida V. Magampon dated November 17, 201 ]26.

In light of the foregoing, the duly admilled pieces of evidence of petitioner after being measured and weighed are found wanting./- 22 Exhibit "I".

23 Exhibit "1-4".

24 Exhibit "1-5".

2s Exhibit '\J".

As laid down m the Atlas case27 , a bsent the supporting docume nts, there 1s no other way this Court can determine the a uthenticity a nd veracity of the Inde pendent CPA's conclusion. Petitioner's evidence consists only of a report, summa ries , a nd judicia l a ffid a vits of its witnesses .

There is no iota of evide nce that would support petitione r's conte ntion tha t it wa s a ble to comply wi th substa ntia tion require ments.

The Court is una ble to determine whe ther petitioner complied with the three requisites la id down in the ca se of Citibank N.A. us. Court of Appeals, et al.2B due to the a bsence of supporting documents.

Aside from failing to submit supporting documents to prove that petitione r wa s a ble to comply with the three esse ntia l requisites to be entillcd to a tax refund , petitioner a lso fa iled to submi t evidence to support its a llegation that it ha s a lready ceased commercia l opera tions.

A corpora te taxpayer that ceased commercia l opera tions, a s a rule, IS allowed to cla im refund of its excess CWT even though it ca rried over to the succeeding year sa id excess tax credit or ove rpa id tax.

The sa id circumsta nce se rves a s a n exception to the "irrevoca bility rule". /-- 27 Supra.

In the case of Raytheon-Ebasco Overseas Ltd. -

Philippine

Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue29 (Raytheon-Ebasco case) , this Court has reiterated the prevai ling jurisprudential principle that the "irrevocability ru le" docs not apply to a company that has already dissolved its corporate existence, to wit: "(A) company that has already dissolved its corporate existence can be refunded its unutilized lax credits or overpaid income lax within the two-year prescription period reckoned from the dale of payment of the lax. The SIR cannot deny the claim on the basis of Section 76 of the Tax Code, which prescribes that a taxpayer's option to carry over the excess tax credits or overpaid tax is irrevocable and bars him from applying for cash refund or issuance of a lax credit certificate in the future. It would be unjust if a company that has aJready dissolved its corporate existence cannot be refunded such unutilized taxes.

XXX

XXX

XXX

As earlier mentioned, only those companies that have already dissolved its corporate existence can be refund ed their unutilized lax credits or overpaid income lax. xxx" Nevertheless, mere allegations that a corporation has dissolved its corporate existence arc not sufficie nt for this Court to recognize that the corporation indeed dissolved. This Court also pointed out in the Raytheon-Ebasco case that for a dissolving corporation to be dee med legally dissolved, it must comply with the following provisions

of the NIRC of 1997:

"SEC. 52. Corporation Returns. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

(C) Return of Corporation Contemplating Dissolution or

Reorganization. - Every corporation shaJl , within thirty (30) days after the adoption by the corporation of a resolution or/--

CTA CASE NO . 8080 plan for its dissolution, or for the liquidation of the whole or any parl of its capital stock, including a corporation which has been notified of possible involuntary dissolution by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or for its reorganization, render a correct return to the Commissioner, verified under oath, setting forth Lhc terms of such resolution or plan and such other information as the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of Lhe commissioner, shall, by rules and regulations, prescribe.

The dissolving or reorgantztng corporation shall, prior to the issuance by the Securities and Exchange

Commission

of the

Certificate

of

Dissolution

or Reorganization, as may be define d by rules and regulations prescribed by the

Secretary

of Finance , upon recommendation of the Commissioner, secure a certificate of tax clearance from the Bureau of Internal Revenue which certificate shall be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission." (Emphasis supplied) "SEC. 235. Preservation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

(e) In the exercise of Lhe Commissioner's power under Section 5(8) lo obtain information from other persons in which case, another or separate examination and inspection may be made. Examination and inspection of books of accounts and other accounting records shaJl be done in Lhc taxpayer's office or place of business or in the office of Lhc Bureau of Internal Revenue. All corporations, partnerships or persons that retire from business shall, within len ( 10) days from the dale of retirement or within such period of Lime as may be allowed by the Commissioner in special cases, submit their books of accounts, including Lhe subsidiary books and other accounting records lo the Commissioner or any of his deputies for examination, after which they shall be returned. Corporations and partnerships contemplating dissolution musl notify the Commissioner and shall nol be dissolved until cleared of any Lax liability."

In addition, Section 136 of the Corporation Code provides: "SEC. 136. Withdrawal of foreign corporations. - Subject to existing laws and regulations, a foreign corporation licensed lo lransacl business in the Philippines may be allowed lo withdraw from Lhe Philippines by filing a petition for withdrawal of license. No ccrlificale of withdrawal shall be issued by Lhc Securities and Exchange Commission unless all Lhe following requirements are mel: ~ l . All claims which have accrued in the Philippines have been paid, compromised or settled;

2. All taxes, imposts, assessments, and penalties, if any, lawfully due to the Philippine Government or any of its agencies or political subdivisions have been paid; and

3. The petition for withdrawal of license has been published once a week for three (³) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of gencraJ circulation in the Philippines." Based on the above-mentioned provisions of Jaw, a company or corporation that wishes to cease commercial operations and be deemed legally dissolved, must satisfy these requirements:

1. Secure a Certificate of Tax Clearance from the 81 R; and

2. Submit the same to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the issuance of the Certificate of Dissolution. Here, petitioner never submitted any evidence to prove that it has ceased its commercial operations.

ll merely relied on its bare assertion that petitioner's Board of Directors issued a resolution approvmg the cessation of commercial operations effective March 31, 2009 and the liquidation effective ,June 30, 2009. There was neither a Certificate of Dissolution from the SEC nor a Certificate of Clearance from the SIR.

This Court cannot determine whether or not petitioner has dissolved its corporate existence, which m turn would excuse petitioner from the application of the irrevocability rule.

Bare

allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under our Rules of Court.30 [ 30 Manzano vs. }Jerez, et al., G.R. No. 112485, August 9, 2001; Coronel vs. Constantino, et al., G.R. No. 121069, February 7, 2003.

CTA CASE NO . 8080

Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer.31 Petitioner, as a taxpayer-claimant, has the burden of proving whether or not it is en titled to a tax refund through the submission of necessary supporting documents to establish the factual bases of the claim for refund. Petitioner's failure to overcome the burden of proving its entitlement to a tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate leaves this Court with no other choice but to deny the claim.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for insufficiency of evidence.

WE CONCUR:

L

~/-/~/#- AMELIA R. COTANGCO- MANALASTAS

Associate Justice

(Retired)

OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached m consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. (L~c..~,~ gUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR.

Acting Presiding Justice