Case Digest (G.R. No. 240163)
Facts:
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (DOF), through the Secretary, and the BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), through the Commissioner, promulgated Revenue Regulations No. 4-2011 on 15 March 2011 prescribing an allocation method of costs and expenses between Regular Banking Units (RBU) and FCDU/EFCDU or OBU of banks. Several banks filed petitions for declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 57, Makati), which on 25 May 2018 declared Revenue Regulations No. 4-2011 null and void and made preliminary injunctions permanent.Issues:
- Did the RTC have jurisdiction to entertain the petitions attacking Revenue Regulations No. 4-2011?
- Is Revenue Regulations No. 4-2011 a valid regulation issued by the DOF and BIR?
Ruling:
The Court held that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the revenue regulation because the Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality or validity of revenue issuances; accordingly, the RTC’s order was void. N Case Digest (G.R. No. 240163)
Facts:
- Parties and instruments at issue
- Department of Finance (DOF), represented by its Secretary, and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), represented by its Commissioner, filed the petition for review on certiorari.
- Respondents are numerous banks and financial institutions including Asia United Bank, BDO Unibank, Inc., Bank of America, Bank of Commerce, BDO Private Bank, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Philippine Branch, China Banking Corporation, Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation, Deutsche Bank AG, Manila Branch, EastWest Banking Corporation, ING Bank N.V., Manila Branch, Philippine Bank of Communications, Philippine National Bank, Philippine Veterans Bank, PNB Savings Bank, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Security Bank Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank, Philippine Branch, United Coconut Planters Bank, Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited–Philippine Branches, HSBC Savings Bank (Philippines), Inc., Korea Exchange Bank, Manila Branch, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Philippine Branch, United Overseas Bank Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines, Development Bank of the Philippines, Bank of the Philippine Islands, BPI Direct Savings Bank, Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, UnionBank of the Philippines, and BDO Capital and Investment Corporation (and others who intervened).
- Administrative instrument challenged: Revenue Regulations No. 4-2011 (RR 4-2011), issued by the DOF on March 15, 2011, prescribing rules on the "proper allocation of costs and expenses amongst income earnings of banks and other financial institutions for income tax reporting purposes."
- Content and operative provisions of RR 4-2011
- RR 4-2011's objective was to set rules on allocation of costs and expenses between a bank's Regular Banking Unit (RBU) and its Foreign Currency Deposit Unit/Expanded Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU/EFCDU) or Offshore Banking Unit (OBU), noting differing income taxation regimes under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended.
- RR 4-2011 prescribed that only costs and expenses attributable to RBU operations are deductible against RBU taxable income; costs related to FCDU/EFCDU or OBU are not deductible from RBU taxable income.
- RR 4-2011 required allocation of expenses by: (a) specific identification for expenses uniquely attributable to a unit; and (b) allocation for common expenses based on the percentage share of gross income of a unit to total gross income (including income subject to regular tax, final tax, and exempt income).
- RR 4-2011 contained a penalty clause for willful false declarations and a repealing clause; it stated immediate effectivity.
- Procedural history in the RTC and antecedent filings
- On April 1 and April 6, 2015, respondent banks filed petitions for declaratory relief and injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Civil Case Nos. 15-287 and 15-291), seeking to enjoin enforcement of RR 4-2011.
- The RTC issued writs of preliminary injunction on April 25, 2015 and February 28, 2018, enjoining petitioners from enforcing RR 4-2011 against respondents.
- Petitioners challenged the RTC's jurisdiction and sought dismissal; respondents alleged RR 4-2011 was unconstitutional, beyond statutory authority, contravened tax provisions (Sections 27(A), 28, 34, 43, 50 of the Tax Code), infringed taxpayers' accounting choices, deprived property without due process, lacked prior consultation/notice, and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Jurisdictional question presented
- Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain respondents' petitions for declaratory relief and to declare RR 4-2011 invalid, or whether exclusive jurisdiction to rule on constitutionality or validity of tax laws, rules, and administrative issuances lies with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
- Merits question presented
- Whether RR 4-2011 is a valid exercise of delegated rulemaking authority by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or whether the regu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)