Court of Tax Appeals · Second Division

AG Counselors Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CTA Case No. 9329 October 25, 2019

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

SECOND DIVISION

AG COUNSELORS

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

-versus-

COMMISSIONER OF

INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent.

CTA CASE NO. 9329

Members:

Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson

Mindaro-Grulla, and,

Bacorro-Villena, JJ.

Promulgated:

OCT z 5 2019L

1: -x r·- .

)

-----------x

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

CASTANEDA, JR., J.:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P24,130,218.00, representing

AG

Counselors

Corporation's unutilized/excess creditable withholding taxes for calendar year ending December 31, 2013.

THE FACTS

Petitioner AG Counselors Corporation is duly organized under Philippine laws, with principal office at the Tower One & Exchange ~

CfA Case No. 9329

Plaza, Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue, Makati City.1 It is engaged in the business of providing advisory, consultancy, assistance and other allied services relating to the organization and operation of any productive enterprise, venture, or project of any business, industry or person.2 It is also registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) under Certificate of Registration No. 9RC0000354486 and Tax Identification Number (TIN) 007-202-045-000.3 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) vested by law with the authority to, inter alia, act upon and approve claims for refund or tax credit, pursuant to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and other tax laws. He holds office at the 5th Floor, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City.

In 2013, petitioner entered into various transactions with third parties that included, among others, the sale or provision of advisory, consultancy, assistance and other allied services. In making their payments, the third parties withheld a portion of the contract price as creditable withholding taxes (CWT) and remitted the same to the BIR.4 On April 10, 2014, petitioner filed its Corporate Annual Income Tax Return5 (ITR) for the calendar year (CY) ending December 31, 2013 reflecting the following:

Net Taxable Income

Income Tax Due (30%) other than MCIT

Less:

Prior Year's Excess Credits

Creditable Tax Withheld for 2013

(1st to 3'd quarters

Creditable Tax Withheld for 2013

(4th quarter)

Total Tax Credits/Payments

Net Tax Payable (Overpayment)

1 Exhibit "P-2".

2 Ibid.

3 Exhibit "P-1".

13 189 614 15,688,879 12,575,088 4 Exhibits "P-12", "P-13", "P-13-1 11 to "P-13-159", "P-14" and "P-15". 5 Exhibit "P-3".

P57,677,879.00 17 303 364.00 (41,433,581) p (24,130,218) }L

CIA Case No. 9329

On October 28, 2014, petitioner filed a letter-reques~ for refund or tax credit certificate with BIR Revenue District Office (RDO) 50 - South Makati in the amount of P24,130,218.00. Claiming inaction thereof, petitioner filed on April 8, 2016 the present Petition for Review7 with this Court. On February 22, 2017, respondent filed his Answers, interposing the following special and affirmative defenses, viz.: "6. Respondent reproduces and repleads all the foregoing allegations insofar as they are relevant to her defenses which are discussed hereunder and incorporates them herein by way of reference and, in addition thereto, most respectfully avers THAT: 7.

Petitioner's alleged claim for issuance of tax credit certificate is still subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by the respondent's Bureau.

Taxes paid and collected are presumed to have been made in accordance with law, hence, not refundable. 9.

Petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate, if any, in the amount of P24,130,218.00, representing unutilized/excess Creditable Withholding Taxes (CWT) for taxable year ending December 2013, were not substantiated by proper documents, such sales invoices, official receipts and others pursuant to Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 in relation to Section 113 and 237 of the 1997 Tax Code.

10.

In an action for refund credit, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish its right to claimed refund and failure to adduce sufficient proof is fatal to the claim for tax refund credit. 11.

It is incumbent upon the latter to show that it has complied with the provisions under Section 204 (c) in relation to Section 229 of the Tax Code. Otherwise, its failure to prove the same is fatal to its claim for refund.

12.

Claims for refund are construed strictly against herein petitioner since the same partakes the nature of exemption from taxation (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95) and as such, they are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp. vs. Commissioneroflnterna/ Revenue, 124 SCRA 1211)." ~

6 Exhibit "P-10".

7 Docket (vol. I), pp. 10-17.

8 !d., pp. 264-267.

erA Case No. 9329

Then, in the Resolution9 dated March 20, 2017, the case was set for pre-trial conference on June 22, 2017. Accordingly, a Pre-Trial Brief (for the Respondent)10 was filed on June 20, 2017 while Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief11 was filed, through registered mail, on June 16, 2017. On July 7, 2017, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues12 (JSFI). Subsequently, a Pre-Trial Order13 was issued by this Court on August 9, 2017 which approved and adopted the parties' JSFI, and afterwards deemed the pre-trial terminated. Meanwhile, on July 21, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion for Commissioning of an Independent Certified Public Accountant14 (!CPA). Petitioner prays that Ms. Ma. Milagros F. Padernal, Managing Partner of Uy, Singson, Abella & Co., be appointed as the !CPA for the present case. Finding merit thereon, this Court in the Order15 dated August 17, 2017, granted petitioner's motion and commissioned Ms. Ma. Milagros F. Padernal as the !CPA for the present case. During the trial, petitioner presented the following witness, Ms. Katrina R. Piacente, 16 petitioner's Finance Specialist; Ms. Victoria Frejas, 17 its Deputy Chief Finance Officer; and Ms. Ma. Milagros F. Padernal, 18 the court-commissioned !CPA, who all testified on direct by way of judicial affidavits. Thereafter, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence19 on March 7, 2018. In the Resolution20 dated September 10, 2018, this Court admitted petitioner's exhibits and, in view of the parties' stipulation21 that respondent will no longer present evidence for the present case, also ordered the submission of the parties' respective memoranda within thirty (30) days. }t--

9 !d., p. 273

10 Docket (vol. IV), pp. 1804-1805.

11 !d., pp. 1818-1833.

12 !d., pp. 1840-1842.

13 !d., pp. 2105-2111.

14 !d., pp. 2090-2094.

15 !d., pp. 2117-2118.

16 Exhibits "P-40" and "P-40-1"; Judicial Affidavit of Katrina R. Piacente dated June 16, 2017, docket (vol. III), pp. 1054-1069.

17 Exhibits "P-41" and "P-41-1"; Judicial Affidavit of Victoria D. Frejas dated July 11, 2017, docket (vol. IV), pp. 1850-1858.

18 Exhibits "P-39" and "P-39-1"; Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Milagros F. Padernal (In Question and Answer Form) dated November 22, 2017, docket (vol. IV), pp. 2142-2151.

19 Docket (vol. IV), pp. 2189-2215.

20 !d., pp. 2231-2232.

21 Witnesses to be Presented, JSFI, docket (vol. IV), p. 1841.

cr A Case No. 9329

Complying thereon, petitioner filed on October 22, 2018 its Memorandum22, while respondent, on the other hand, failed to file his as per Records Verification23 dated November 5, 2018. Accordingly, in the Resolution24 dated November 16, 2018, the present case was deemed submitted for decision.

ISSUE

The sole issue25 stipulated by the parties for this Court's resolution is, whether petitioner is entitled to its claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P24,130,218.00, representing unutilized/excess CWT for calendar year ending December 31, 2013.

THE COURT'S RULING

This Court shall first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the present Petition for Review in relation to petitioner's claim for refund of the unutilized/excess creditable withholding tax for CY 2013. Verily, jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy. It is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits.26 Perforce, the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is conferred by Section 7(a)(1) and (2) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA Nos. 9282 and 9503, which provides that: ~

22 Docket (vel. IV), pp. 2234-2241.

23 !d., p. 2242.

24 !d., p. 2243.

25 Stipulated Issue, JSFI, docket (vel. IV), p. 1840.

26 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 185666, February 4, 2015.

CfA Case No. 9329

"SEC. 7. Jurisdiction.- The erA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;" (Emphases supplied) Indeed, the CTA shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, as well as the inactions thereof, by the BIR Commissioner in cases involving refund of internal revenue taxes. In cases where the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides for a specific period for action, the BIR Commissioner's inaction shall be deemed a denial.27 Relative thereto, Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides for the period when to file an administrative claim for refund with the BIR and judicial claim for refund with the CTA for recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected, to wit: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may-

XXX

(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the 9-t.--

27 Commissionerof/nterna/Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013.

purchases, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer filed in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." "SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax 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 authority, of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) 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 Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, the administrative and judicial remedy of filing a claim for refund of erroneously or excessively paid tax must be done within two years from the date of payment of the tax. In actions for refund of excess corporate income tax, the Supreme Court ruled that the two-year prescriptive period should be counted from the filing of the Final Adjustment Return, because it is only during that date that the exact tax liability or refundability of the tax can be determined.28 Moreover, in the case of Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 29 the Supreme Court held that it is only logical to reckon the two-year prescriptive period from the time the Final Adjustment Return or the Annual Income Tax Return was filed, since it is only at that time that it would be possible to r 28 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX sates, Inc. and the Court Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992; ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, eta!., G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991.

29 G.R. No. 182582, April 17, 2017.

CfA Case No. 9329 determine whether the corporate taxpayer paid an amount exceeding its annual income tax liability. In the present case, petitioner filed its annual ITR30 for CY 2013 on April 10, 2014. Counting two (2) years therefrom, petitioner had until April 10, 2016, within which to file both administrative and judicial claims for refund of its unutilized/excess CWT for CY 2013. Accordingly, by filing its administrative claim31 for refund on October 28, 2014, and thereafter the judicial claim, via Petition for Review, 32 on April 8, 2016, both petitioner's administrative and judicial claims for refund clearly falls within the two-year prescriptive period mentioned by law. That having been settled, this Court shall now proceed to determine the merit of petitioner's claim. Also pertinent in the resolution of the present case is Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which speaks of final adjustment return, thus:

"SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.- Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable 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 balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor." Jv 30 Exhibit "P-3".

31 Exhibits "P-10", "P-10-a", and "P-10-b". 32 Supra No. 7.

erA Case No. 9329

Apparently, the above provision prescribes two options to a taxable corporation whose total quarterly income tax payments in a given taxable year exceed its total income tax due. The taxpayer may either ( 1) file a claim for refund (either in the form of cash or tax credit certificate) or (2) carry over the same to the succeeding taxable quarters/years until it is fully utilized. However, once the carry-over option is taken, actually or constructively, it becomes irrevocable for that taxable period.33 The phrase "for that taxable period" refers to the taxable year when the excess income tax, subject of the option, was acquired by the taxpayer.34 In exercising its option, the corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return (by marking the option box provided in the BIR form) its intention, whether to carry over the excess credit or to claim a refund. To facilitate tax collection, these remedies are in the alternative and the choice of one precludes the other. 35 Perusal of petitioner's annual ITR for CY 2013 shows that petitioner had an income tax due of P17,303,364.00. The said amount was paid using its income tax credits of P41,433,581.00, which consisted of prior year's excess credits in the amount of P13,189,614.00 and accumulated CWT during the four quarters of CY 2013 in the amount of P28,243,967.00. Therefore, leaving a balance of the Creditable Tax Withheld in CY 2013 in the aggregate amount of P24,130,217.00 which remained unutilized as of December 31, 2013, as shown below:

Income Tax Due other than MCIT P17,303J364

Less: Tax Credits/Payments36

Prior Year's Excess Credits Other

P13,189,614

Than MCIT

Creditable Tax Withheld from P15,668,879 Previous Quarter/s Creditable Tax Withheld for the 4th 12,575,088 28,243,967 41,433,581

Quarter

Net Tax Payable (Overpayment)

(P24,130,217)37 33 Phi/am Asset Management, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 156637 & 162004, December 14, 2005; Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 176290, September 21, 2007. 34 Commissioner oflnternal Revenue vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 178490, July 7, 2009.

35 Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, eta!., G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999 36 As reflected in Schedule 7, Exhibit "P-3". 37 P24,130,218 per actual return (difference of one peso). ~

From the above, the Prior Year's Excess Credits in the amount of P13,189,614.00 represents the balance of petitioner's income tax credits for the CY 2012. As indicated in its annual ITR for CY 2012, the said amount arose from its Prior Year's Excess Credits in the amount of P6,111,056.00 and creditable tax withheld in the amount of P16,355,564.00,38 which totals to P22,466,620.00, minus the income tax liability for the same taxable period of P9,277,006.00. Apropos, to prove the existence of the Prior Year's Excess Credits of Pl3,189,614.00, petitioner presented the following: its Annual ITR39 for CY 2012; Schedule40 and Summary41 of Creditable Taxes Withheld for CY 2012; and, Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Forms No. 2307)42 for CY 2012; which reflected CWT in the amount of P16,355,561.95. However, this Court notes that petitioner did not submit any BIR Form No. 2307 for its Prior Year's Excess Credits in the amount of P6,111,056.00, as declared in its annual ITR for CY 2012. Upon examination of the CWT supported by BIR Form No. 2307 for the four quarters of CY 2012 in the amount of P16,355,561.95,43 this Court finds that a total amount of P2,540,469.74 was supported by CWT certificates indicating a TIN different from petitioner's registered TIN 007-202-045-000,44 to wit:

Exhibit

Period

Payor

TIN indicated in

Amount of CWT

No.

Covered the Certificate

Withheld

P-30-14

4th quarter

Ayala Automotive

003-500-656-000 p 8,355.00

of CY 2012

Holdings Corp.

P-30-32

4th quarter Ayala Land, Inc.

007-115-940-000 2,530,058.24 ofCY 2012

P-30-58

4th quarter Honda Cars Cebu, 007-002-045-000 2,056.50

of CY 2012

Inc.

Total

P2,540,469.74 As such, the above total amount of P2,540,469.74 shall be deducted from petitioner's CWT for CY 2012 in the amount of P16,355,561.95. Thus, only the CWT in the total amount of Pl3,815,092.2145 for CY 2012 shall be deemed as properly supported Jc-- 38 1>10,387,706 plus P5,967,858, lines 33F and 33H, Exhibit "P-5". 39 Exhibit "P-5".

4o Exhibit "P-29".

41 Exhibit "P-30".

42 Exhibits "P-30-1" to "P-30-128". 43 Exhibit "P-30".

44 Exhibit "P-1".

45 Pl6,355,561.95 less 1>2,540,469. 74.

erA Case No. 9329 by Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Forms No. 2307).

Moreover, the valid CWTs for CY 2012 in the amount of P13,815,092.21 do not represent petitioner's excess CWT for CY 2012 since petitioner reflected an income tax due of P9,277,006.0046 in its annual ITR for CY 2012. Deducting this income tax liability of P9,277,006.00 from the valid CWT of P13,815,092.21 yields only an amount of P4,538,086.21 as excess tax credits as of the end of CY 2012. Hence, the Prior Year's Excess Credits declared in petitioner's annual ITR for CY 2013 in the amount of P13,189,614.00 shall be further reduced to P4,538,086.21, computed as follows:

Income Tax Due for CY 2012

p 9,277 006.00

Less: Valid CWT for CY 2012

13,815,092.21 Net Tax Payable (Overpayment) to be (P4,538,086.21) carried-over in CY 2013 Accordingly, the foregoing findings shall affect petitioner's total CWT claim for CY 2013. Since the Prior Year's Excess Credits is reduced to P4,538,086.21, a bigger portion of the creditable taxes withheld in CY 2013 shall be used to cover the income tax due for the same taxable period.

Consequently, only the amount of P15,478,689.21 remained unutilized as of December 31, 2013, computed below as follows:

2013 Income Tax Due

p 17,303,364.00

Less: Total Tax Credits/Payments

Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT

4,538,086.21

Creditable Tax Withheld for CY 2013

28,243,967.00

Total

32,782,053.21

Total Amount Payable (Overpayment)

(P15,478,689.21) Notably, petitioner clearly manifested its intention to claim refund of CWT by marking the box for the said option as provided in its 2013 annual ITR.47 Furthermore, perusal of petitioner's annual ITR for CY 201448, as well as the quarterly ITR49 for CY 2014, shows that no amount was declared under the line "Prior Year's Excess Credits", proving that the claimed CWT for CY 2013 were not carried-over in the succeeding taxable period/s. For foregoing reasons, petitioner's ;z-

46 Line 32, Exhibit "P-5".

47 Exhibit "P-3-c".

48 Exhibit "P-6".

49 Exhibits "P-7", ''P-8", and ''P-9".

CWT in the amount of P15,478,689.21 may be the proper subject of a claim for refund under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Based on relevant jurisprudence and BIR Revenue Regulations, in order for a taxpayer to be entitled to a refund of or an issuance of TCC for unutilized/excess CWT, three (3) basic requisites must be sufficiently established, to wit:

1. The claim for refund must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period as provided under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the Tax Code, as amended;

2. The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and,

3. The income upon which the taxes were withheld must be included in the return of the recipient. 5° The first requisite was already discussed wherein this Court found that both the administrative and judicial claims were seasonably filed within the two-year period required under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. With regard to the remaining requisites, Section 2.58.3(8) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 02-98,51 as amended, states that: "Sec. 2.58.3. Claim for tax credit or refund.-

XXX

(B) Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditable income tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course only when it is shown that the income payment has been declared as part of the gross income and the fact of ;r- 50 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation), G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015; United International Pictures AB vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168331, October 11, 2012; Citibank N.A. vs. Court of Appeals, eta!, G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997; ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, eta!, G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991; Section 2.58, Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended. 51 "Implementing Republic Act No. 8424, 'An Act Amending The National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended' Relative to the Withholding on Income Subject to the Expanded Withholding Tax and Final Withholding Tax, Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation, Withholding of Creditable Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes".

withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom." (Emphasis supplied) As to the second requisite, to prove the fact of withholding of the CWT for CY 2013 in the amount of P28,243,967.00, petitioner presented CWT certificates issued by various clients showing CWT in the aggregate amount of only P24,129,080.52, detailed as follows:

Exhibit

Period

Payor

Income

Taxes Withheld

No.

Covered

Payments

P-13-1

4th Quarter

AC Energy GP Corporation

p 27,560.00 p 4,134.00

P-13-2

1st Quarter AC Energy Holdings, Inc.

1,874,830.00 281,224.50 (formerly Michiqan Power Inc.)

P-13-3

2nd Quarter AC Energy Holdings, Inc.

2,625,900.00 393,885.00 (formerly Michigan Power Inc.)

P-13-4

4th Quarter AC Energy Holdings, Inc.

3,377,922.50 506,688.38 (formerly Michigan Power Inc.)

P-13-5

4th Quarter AC Energy Holdings, Inc.

1,960,195.00 294,029.25 (formerlY Michiqan Power Inc.)

AC Infrastructure Holdings

P-13-6

2nd Quarter Corporation (formerly Liveit 1,362,500.00 204,375.00 Solutions Inc.)

AC Infrastructure Holdings

P-13-7

3rd Quarter Corporation (formerly Liveit 809,390.16 121,408.52 Solutions Inc.)

AC Infrastructure Holdings

P-13-8

4th Quarter Corporation (formerly Liveit 2,184,377.50 327,656.63 Solutions Inc.)

AC Infrastructure Holdings

P-13-9

4th Quarter Corporation (formerly Liveit 647,915.00 97,187.25 Solutions Inc.)

P-13-10

2nd Quarter Affinity Express Philippines, Inc. 99,850.00 14,977.50

P-13-11

3rd Quarter Affinity Express Philippines, Inc. 81,351.12 12,202.66

P-13-12

4th Quarter Affinity Express Philippines, Inc. 53,372.40 8,005.86

P-13-13

4th Quarter

Affordable Private Education

30,030.00 4,504.50

12,107,466.68 1,816,120.00 Jj- cr A Case No. 9329

Exhibit

Period

No.

4th Quarter

Payor

Ayala Corporation

Ayala Land, Inc.

Azalea Technology

Investments Inc.

Azalea Technology

Investments Inc.

Azalea Technology

Investments Inc.

Balabatican Realty Corporation

Capa Property Holdings, Inc. Corullon Holdings, Inc.

Corullon Holdings, Inc.

Darong Agricultural &

Development Corporation

Darong Agricultural &

Development Corporation

Darong Agricultural &

Develo_Qment Corporation

Darong Agricultural &

Development Corporation

Darong Agricultural &

Development Corporation

FBC Holdings, Inc.

FBC Steps Realty, Inc.

Fercat Holdings, Inc.

Gilmon Holdings, Inc.

GlobaiBridge Resources

Corporation

Globe Telecom, Inc.

Gracie Holdings, Inc.

Gracie Square Holdings, Inc.

Income

Taxes Withheld

Payments

561,111.72 84,166.76 7,989,643.17 1,198,446.48 7,989,643.17 1,198,446.48 10,300,619.91 1,545,092.99 16,849,213.84 2,527,382.08 8,217,893.17 1,232,683.98 13,911,003.17 2,086,650.48 7,989,643.17 1,198,446.47 8,618,643.17 1,292,796.48 18,373,098.89 2,755,964.83 20,709,560.71 3,106,434.11 100,800.00 15,120.00 101,764.64 15,264.70 74,593.92 11,189.09 850.00 127.50 850.00 127.50 8,450.00 1,267.50 4,950.00 742.50 46,001.25 6,900.19 51,630.00 7,744.50 17,050.00 2,557.50 16,600.00 2,490.00 44,280.00 6,642.00 78,842.50 11,826.38 107,992.50 16,198.88 850.00 127.50 36,918.75 5,537.81 2,700.00 405.00 8,925.00 1,338.75 1,102.50 165.38 36,918.75 5,537.81 2,700.00 405.00 36,918.75 5,537.81 2,700.00 405.00 15,000.00 2,250.00 197,001.00 29,550.51 197,001.00 29,550.15 394,002.00 59,100.30 28,300.00 4,245.00 36,918.75 5,537.81 ljz-

CfA Case No. 9329

Exhibit

Period

No.

Covered

P-13-63

1st Quarter

P-13-64

1st Quarter

P-13-65

2nd Quarter

P-13-66

4th Quarter

P-13-67

3rd Quarter

P-13-68

4th Quarter

P-13-69

2nd- 4th

Homeowners Association, Inc

Hacienda Balabatican

Homeowners Association Inc

Hacienda Balabatican

Homeowners Association Inc

Honda Cars Cebu, Inc.

Honda Cars Makati, Inc.

HRMall, Inc.

Iconic Dealership, Inc.

Integrated Micro-Electronics, Inc.

Integreon Managed Solutions

Phils. Inc.

Integreon Managed Solutions

Phils. Inc.

Isuzu Automotive Dealership, Inc.

Income

Taxes Withheld

Payments

2,700.00 405.00 700.00 105.00 5,550.00 832.50 4,725.00 708.75 15,000.00 2,250.00 9,725.00 1,458.75 93,000.00 13,950.00 301,050.00 45,157.50 102,600.00 2,052.00 25,400.00 508.00 31,450.00 629.00 132,650.00 2,653.00 18,060.00 361.20 7,440.00 148.80 56,857.50 1,137.15 16,680.00 333.60 560,450.00 11,209.00 147,390.00 22,108.50 6,000.00 900.00 790,650.00 118,597.50 412,350.00 61,852.50 6,000.00 900.00 265,300.00 39,795.00 708,250.00 106,237.50 661,450.00 99,217.50 6,000.00 900.00 523,042.50 78,456.38 113,137.50 16,970.63 17,197.68 2,579.65 4,058.08 608.71 239,700.00 35,955.00 251,800.00 37,770.00 62,640.00 9,396.00

Jz-

Exhibit

Period

No.

1st Quarter

P-13-115

1st- 4th

Quarter

P-13-116

4th Quarter

P-13-117

1st- 4th

P-13-129

1st- 4th

Quarter

P-13-130

1st Quarter

Payor

Income

Taxes Withheld

Payments

Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 128,850.00 19,327.50 Inc.

Isuzu Cebu, Inc. - Mandaue 9,000.00 180.00

Branch

Isuzu Cebu, Inc. - Mandaue 9,153.66 183.07

Branch

Isuzu Cebu, Inc. - Mandaue 692,437.50 13,848.75

Branch

Matic Hydro Power Corporation

5,000.00 100.00 Mermac, Inc.

12,000.00 1,800.00 Mermac, Inc.

3,850.00 577.50 Mermac, Inc.

7,500.00 1,125.00 Mermac, Inc.

16,668.75 2,500.31 Mermac, Inc.

3,000.00 450.00 Michigan Holdings, Inc.

136,952.50 20,542.88 Michigan Holdings, Inc.

138,600.00 20,790.00 Pameka Holdings, Inc.

60,850.00 9,127.50 Pameka Holdings, Inc.

1,000.00 150.00

Philnew Hydro Power

17,400.00 348.00

Corporation

Philnew Hydro Power

15,420.00 308.40

Corporation

Philnew Hydro Power

14,920.00 298.40

Corporation

Philnew Hydro Power

9,410.00 188.20

Corporation

3,000.00 300.00 ~

CfA Case No. 9329

Exhibit

Period

No.

4th Quarter

P-13-155

1st- 4th

Quarter

P-13-156

2nd Quarter

P-13-157

2nd Quarter

P-13-158

1st Quarter

P-13-159

4th Quarter

Payor

Income

Taxes Withheld

Payments

PSi Technologies Inc.

119,400.00 11,940.00 PSi Technologies Inc.

125,450.00 12,545.00 PSi Technologies Inc.

158,460.00 15,846.00 PSi Technologies Inc.

140,855.00 14,085.50 PSi Technologies Inc.

36,918.75 5,537.81 Reinosa Holdings, Inc.

2,700.00 405.00 San Puente Holdings, Inc. 36,918.75 5,537.81 San Puente Holdings, Inc. 2,700.00 405.00 Sonoma Services, Inc.

54,450.00 8,167.50 Sonoma Services, Inc.

88,800.00 13,320.00 Sonoma Services, Inc.

4,725.00 708.75 Sonoma Services, Inc.

40,890.00 6,133.50

South Luzon Thermal Energy

14,150.00 2,122.50

Corporation

South Luzon Thermal Energy

180,900.00 27,135.00

Corporation

South Luzon Thermal Energy

457,615.07 68,642.26

Corporation

Technopark Land, Inc.

9,000.00 1,350.00 Technopark Land, Inc.

16,560.00 2,484.00 Water Capital Works, Inc. 62,850.00 9,427.50 Asticom Technology, Inc.

1,589,500.00 238,425.00

Bonifacio Global City Estate

126,000.00 2,520.00

Fort Bonifacio Development

385,934.53 57,890.18

Corporation

Ayala Corporation

2,395,833.00 23,958.33 Total P165,114,950.96 P24,129,080.5252 ----------------- However, after a careful examination of the above enumerated Certificates, this Court finds that the amount of P52,880.63, broken down below, shall be denied because the period covered by the corresponding BIR Forms No. 2307 thereof are for the first quarter of 2014, which is outside the period of claim, thus: %-

52 1"24,129,080.47 per Exhibit "P-13" (difference of 1"0.50).

Exhibit

Period

No.

Covered

FBC Holdings, Inc.

FBC Steps Realty, Inc.

Fercat Holdings, Inc.

Gilman Holdings, Inc.

Gracie Square Holdinqs, Inc. Iconic Dealership, Inc.

Income

Taxes

Payments

Withheld

p 51,630.00 p 7,744.50 2,700.00 405.00 1102.50 165.38 2,700.00 405.00 2,700.00 405.00 2 700.00 405.00 147,390.00 22,108.50

P-13-98

1st Quarter Isuzu Cebu, Inc. - Mandaue Branch 692,437.50 13 848.75 P-13-114 1st Quarter Mermac, Inc. 3,000.00 450.00

P-13-142

1st Quarter Reinosa Holdings, Inc. 2,700.00 405.00 P-13-144 1st Quarter San Puente Holdinqs Inc. 2 700.00 405.00

P-13-148

1st Quarter Sonoma Services, Inc. 40,890.00 6,133.50

Total

P952,650.00 p 52,880.63 Apparently, only the amount of P24,076,199.8953 representing petitioner's cwr for CY 2013 is validly supported by BIR Forms No. 2307. Henceforth, the remaining cwr that may be the proper subject of petitioner's claim for refund shall be further reduced to P11,310,922.10, computed as follows:

2013 Income Tax Due

p 17,303,364.00

Less: Total Tax Credits/Payments

Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT

p 4,538 086.21

Valid CWT for CY 2013

24,076,199.89 28,614,286.10 Net amount of Creditable Taxes Withheld in (P11,310,922.10) CY 2013 that may be subject for refund Finally, with regard to the third requisite that the income upon which the taxes were withheld must be declared as part of the gross income of the recipient, the report54 of the court-commissioned ICPA, Ms. Ma. Milagros F. Padernal, states that some customers were not ableto settle their 2009 and 2012 accounts due to financial difficulty. As a result, certain project and retainer fees billed to these payors in CYs 2009 and 2012 were only collected in CY 2013, for which the cwr certificates were issued in the same year. 55 )l- 53 P24, 129,080.52 less P52,880.63.

54 Exhibit "P-37"

55 See page 9 of 24 of the !CPA Report, first paragraph, Exhibit "P-37".

erA case No. 9329

Per petitioner's prepared Schedule of Revenue for the CYs 2009,56 2012,57 and 2013,58 the total revenues for the said years are in the amounts of P41,648,410.00, P119,016,643.84, and P178,193,147.25, respectively. Accordingly, the said amounts tally with the amounts of revenues/receipts declared in the annual ITRs for CYs 2009,59 2012,60 2013.61 From the said declared revenues in CYs 2009, 2012, and 2013, the related income payments collected from which the CWT of P24,129,080.52 in CY 2013 has been withheld are detailed as follows, viz.: 62

Income Payments per

Amount of Taxes

CWT Certificates

Withheld

Project and Retainer Fees

CY 2013

p 159,524,821.71 p 23,648 327.70

CY 2009

1,589,500.00 238 425.00

CY 2012

1,604 796.25 218 369.44

Subtotal

p 162,719,117.96 p 24,105 122.14

Sale of Transportation

Equipment

CY 2013

p 2,395,833.00 p 23 958.33

Total

P165,114,950.96 P24,129,080.4763 More so, as determined by the !CPA, the total income payments of P165,114,950.96 can be traced to petitioner's name as submitted in its Statement of Accounts (SOA), 64 which is either from related income payments or from Out-of-Pocket Expenses.65 Thus, upon comparison thereof, a difference of P600,111.77 is noted, computed below as follows: 66 <p-- 56 Exhibit "P-16-1".

57 Exhibit "P-16-2".

58 Exhibit "P-16-3".

59 Exhibit "P-27"

60 Exhibit "P-5"

61 Exhibit "P-3".

62 Exhibit "P-13"

63 P24,129,080.52 per actual BIR Forms No. 2307 (difference of P0.50). 64 Exhibits "P-15-1" to "P-15-199". 65 Mere reimbursements of costs chargeable to the customers.

66 Exhibit "P-15".

Per CWT Certificates Per SOA (which is traced to) Income Amount of Related Income | Out-of-Pocket Total Difference

Payments Taxes Withheld Payments Expenses

Retainer Fees

CY 2013 P 159,524,821.71 | P 23,648,327.70 | P 151,596,003.52 | P 7,328,706.42 | P 158,924,709.94 | P 600,111.77 cy 2009 1,589,500.00 238,425.00 1,589,500.00] - | 1,589,500.00 cy 2012 1,604,796.25 218,369.44 1,587,901.72 16,894.53 1,604,796.25 24,105,122.14 600. 119,006. f f .

Subtotal 162,719,117.96 154,773,405.24 | __7,345,600.95 | 162,119,006.19 | 600,111.77

Sale of

Transportation

Equipment

Cy 2013 2,395,833.00 23,958.33 2,395,833.00| - | _2,395,833.00 P157,169,238.24 P165,114,950.96| P24,129,080.47 P7,345,600.95| P164,514,839.19 | P600,111.77 In her report, the ICPA traced the difference of P600,111.77 as pertaining to the incorrect amount of income payment reflected in the CWT certificate issued by Isuzu Mandaue Branch (ExAibit P-13-98). Per CWT certificate, the amount of tax withheld was P13,848.75 for income payment of P692,437.50. However, the related income payment should have been P92,325.00 based on a 15% CWT rate. Hence, the correct income payments from which the creditable taxes were withheld are P164,514,839.19.

Also, the related income payments pertaining to project and retainer fees in the amount of P154,773,405.24 can be further traced to petitioner’s General Journal Book (GJB)*’ for CYs 2009, 2012, and 2013. Upon comparison, there is no noted inconsistencies except for rounding-off difference, as shown below, to wit:

Per Petitioner

Cavendar Prepared Schedule ei eo eek Pee

of Revenue®®

2009 P-16-1 P-18-1

2012 119,016,643.84 to

2013 P-18-30

Total | P338,858,201.09| —s|_-P338,858,200.82, | P 0.27,

Difference

67 Exhibit “P-18”, 68 From which the P154,773,405.24 is included.

With regard to the income payments in the amount of P7,345,600.95 related to out-of-pocket expenses, the same were verified by the !CPA as shown in the "Summary of Income Payments Traced from SOA to Summary of Expenses Accounts to Out-of-Pocket Expenses CYs 2012 and 2013".69 As a result of the examination of the !CPA, there is a noted difference of P2,121,038.17, computed as follows: 70 Exhibit No.

Income Payments

Per SOA - Out-of-Pocket Expenses

P-15

p 7,345,600.95

Per Summary of Expense Accounts

Related to Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Project Cost - Contracted Services

p 951,645.00

Project Cost - Supplies

P-19

1,806,700.64

Project Cost - Others

480,444.14

Contracted Services

813,665.00

Supplies

1,172,108.00

Total

p 5 224,562.78

Difference

P2,121,038.17 Thus, this Court finds the !CPA report of Ms. Padernal proper. As such, the difference of P2,121,038.17, with an equivalent creditable tax withheld of P318,135.75, which cannot be traced to various expense accounts, shall be disallowed and therefore deducted from petitioner's claim for refund. As to the sale of transportation equipment of P2,395,833.00, the same is properly recorded as part of the declared income in CY 2013 in the amount of P178,193,147.25 as evidenced by the related GJB71 and the Deed of Absolute Sale72 entered into by the petitioner and Ayala Corporation.

All told, based on the foregoing discussions, petitioner sufficiently proved that it is entitled to a refund of excess CWT for CY 2013 but, however, only to the reduced amount of P10,992,786.35, as computed below, to wit: ~

69 Exhibit "P-20".

70 See !CPA Report, page 10 of 24, Exhibit "P-37"

71 Exhibit "P-21-2".

72 Exhibit "P-21-1".

Net Creditable Taxes Withheld in CY 2013

P11,310,922.10 (as previously computed) Less: CWT where the related income payments cannot be traced from the declared income/expense in 318,135.75 the period claim

Total Refundable CWT

P10,992,786.35

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of Ten

Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand Seven Hundred

Eighty-Six and 35/100 Pesos (P10,992,786.35), representing petitioner's excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2013.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

~o..-c.<' ·c; G . c...v-.,_..."'-d../ :J.., JU~NITO C. CASTANEDA, l'R. . .

Associate Justice

CUJj: N. M~~- G'~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA

Associate Justice

....

JEAN MARIE/K. ~CORRO-VILLENA ~ssocicjte Justice erA Case No. 9329

ATTESTATION

I attest 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's Division. Q..~~ c.~""'~~ J&'ANITO C. CASTANEDA, fR ..

Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and 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.