Facts:

The case involves AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) as the appellant and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent). The events leading to this case began on January 1, 1999, when the petitioner, a domestic corporation engaged in providing information and promotional services, entered into a Service Agreement with AT&T Communications Services International, Inc. (AT&T-CSI), a non-resident foreign corporation. Under this agreement, compensation for services rendered was paid in US Dollars. Additionally, the petitioner had an Assignment Agreement with AT&T Solutions, Inc. (AT&T-SI), which involved providing services to Mastercard International, Inc., and later to Lexmark International, Inc., with payments also made in US Dollars.

For the taxable year 2003, the petitioner filed its Quarterly VAT Returns with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the periods ending March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Subseque...

Facts:

Background of the Parties and Transactions

• Petitioner AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. is a domestic corporation principally engaged in providing information, promotional, supportive, and liaison services.
• The petitioner entered into a Service Agreement on January 1, 1999, with AT&T Communications Services International, Inc., a non-resident foreign corporation, whereby compensation for the services was paid in US Dollars.
• The petitioner secured an Assignment Agreement with AT&T Solutions, Inc. (AT&T-SI) for the performance of services originally meant for Mastercard International, Inc. under a Virtual Private Network Service Agreement; payment for these services was similarly in US Dollars and remitted inwardly.
• A subsequent Assignment Agreement was executed with AT&T-SI to perform services for Lexmark International, Inc. (also a non-resident foreign corporation) for its affiliates in the Philippines, which are registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). Payment for these services was likewise made in US Dollars via telegraphic transfer.

Filing of VAT Returns and the Administrative Claim

• The petitioner duly filed its Quarterly VAT Returns with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the taxable year 2003, covering:
• 1st Quarter – Filed on April 22, 2003
• 2nd Quarter – Filed on July 23, 2003
• 3rd Quarter – Filed on October 22, 2003
• 4th Quarter – Filed on January 26, 2004
• Subsequent to the initial filing, amended returns were submitted:
• An Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the Fourth Quarter was filed on February 5, 2004.
• A consolidated filing for all quarters was made on April 26, 2004.
• On April 13, 2005, the petitioner filed an administrative claim with the BIR seeking a refund and/or the issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of P3,003,265.14, which represented the alleged excess or unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales of services during 2003.
• In light of no action being taken on the administrative claim, a Petition for Review was filed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on April 20, 2005 to suspend the operation of the prescriptive period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended.

Proceedings Before the Court of Tax Appeals

• The CTA in Division rendered a Decision on December 12, 2007 (in C.T.A. Case No. 7221) that dismissed the refund claim, finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the necessary substantiation requirements mandated by law and regulations.
• Specifically, the court noted that for revenue derived from services rendered, the petitioner was required to submit valid VAT official receipts instead of mere sales invoices.
• Without these valid receipts, the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove eligibility for zero-rating of the service transactions.
• On March 12, 2008, the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
• The petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the CTA En Banc (docketed as C.T.A. EB No. 381), contesting the earlier rulings and arguing on various grounds including:
• The interchangeable use of invoices and receipts as evidence for VAT purposes.
• The requirement for proving the validity of inward remittances should not diminish the significance of VAT official receipts.
• The sufficiency of the evidence presented to demonstrate the existence of zero-rated transactions.
• That, in civil cases such as refund claims, a mere preponderance of evidence should suffice.

Refined Contentions and the Evidence Presented

• The petitioner maintained that the NIRC of 1997 does not limit the substantiation of input or output VAT to a single document, and that there is no differential evidentiary value between invoices and official receipts.
• Furthermore, the petitioner contended that it had provided substantial evidence proving its zero-rated transactions for the entire taxable year 2003, and that under civil pleading standards, the evidence should be adequate for the issuance of the TCC.

Issue:

The Central Issue

• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a refund or the issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of P3,003,265.14, representing unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the period from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003.

Subsidiary Issues

• Whether the petitioner’s failure to submit the required valid VAT official receipts (substituting them with sales invoices and bank credit advices) complied with the substantiation requirements mandated by law.
• Whether the administrative claim, particularly for the First Quarter of 2003, was filed within the prescribed two-year period as stipulated under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.
• How the proper interpretation of the prescriptive periods, including the 120-day and additional 30-day periods, affects the timeliness and jurisdiction of the petitioner’s refund claims.
• Whether the petitioner’s reliance on alternative evidence and subsequent judicial filings sufficiently meets the statutory requirements for tax refund or credit claims.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)