Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team Energy Corporation

AMENDED DECISION

COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J.:

For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration 1 fi led by respondent on May I 0, 20 12, with petitioner's Comment2 fil ed on July 2, 20 12. The Assailed Decision dated April 13. 201 2, disposed ofthe case, as follows: "WH EREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Former Second Division dated April 28, 20 I 0 and the Reso lution dated September 17, 20 I 0 are hereby REVERSED and SET AS IDE. The claim for refund/tax credit of respondent's unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for the years 2004 and 2005 are hereby DEN I ED for insuffi ciency of evidence."-' V 1 Rollo, C.T.A. EB Case No. 694, pp. I 02- 11 5.

2 Rollo, pp. 133- 139.

' Rollo, p. 89.

AMENDED DECISION

CT A EB No. 694 (C.T.A. Case No. 7603) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TeaM (Philippines) Energy Corp. As grounds for its motion, respondent raises the following issues: I.

Jurisprudence is to the effect that the Court may still consider the respondent's quarterly income tax returns for 2005 and 2006 even if the same are presented only after trial .

II.

In a refund of excess creditable withholding taxes, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the submission of quarterly returns for the subsequent years is unnecessary. III.

Respondent sufficiently proved its entitlement to refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P25,571 ,495.99, representing excess and unutilized creditable taxes withheld for taxable years 2004 and 2005.4

Page2of4

Respondent submitted the original computer printouts of its quarterly income tax returns for the year 2005 and 2006 as Annexes "A" to " F" of its motion for reconsideration.

In its comment, petitioner argues that she was not given sufficient time and information to evaluate respondent's administrative claim for refund, nor was she given sufficient facts to evaluate the administrative claim. Furthermore, petitioner argues that respondent failed to present the quarterly income tax returns. In the instant case, all that was left for respondent to prove its entitlement to income tax refund/credit was to show that it had not carried over any of the unutilized creditable withholding taxes in the subsequent quarters. Thus, for failure to submit its quarterly income tax returns for calendar years 2005 and 2006, this Court could not fully ascertain whether actual carry-over was made by the respondent. As such, respondent's claim for tax refund/credit was denied. Respondent. in its Motion for Reconsideration, now submits the computer printouts of its quarterly income tax returns for the years 2005 and 2006, which were initially filed through the BIR's EFPS. V

CTA EB No. 694 (C.T.A. Case No. 7603) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TeaM (Phi lippines) Energy Corp.

In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Perf Realty Corporation5, the Supreme Court considered and gave effect to the income tax return merely attached to a motion for reconsideration, ruling that the same formed part of the records of the case and could not simply be ignored. Applying the foregoing to the instant case, respondent's quarterly income tax returns6, upon examination, clearly reveal that no actual carry-over of the unutilized creditable withholding taxes was made.

Considering that the Former Second Division has already made a finding that respondent has complied with the requisites for a claim for tax refund/credit and ordered that the same be granted, and considering further that it has been shown that no actual carry-over of the creditable withholding tax was made, there is, therefore, no legal obstacle for the grant of said tax refund.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration 1s hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision, dated April 13, 20 12, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Fonner Second Division, dated April28, 2010, and the Resolution, dated September 17,20 10, ordering the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P25 ,57 1 ,495.49, are hereby AFFIRM ED.

Associate Justice

AMENDED DECISION

CT A EB No. 694 (C.T.A. Case No. 7603) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TeaM (Philippines) Energy Corp.

WE CONCUR:

L-~, o~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

Presiding Justice

~~c . ~~~ G . .

.R:fANITO c. CASTANEDAyJR.

Associate Justice

• ERL~.UY Ass~!~tice tv-,~~~

OLGA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ

Associate Justice

~N.M~·~ .. C~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA

Associate Justice

Page 4 of 4

Justice