Case Digest (G.R. No. 182582)
Facts:
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182582, April 17, 2017, First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Metrobank sought judicial refund of taxes from respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) after the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division and CTA En Banc denied its claim as prescribed.In 1997 Solidbank Corporation loaned Luzon Hydro Corporation (LHC) US$123,780,000; under the loan agreement LHC agreed to withhold and remit all internal revenue taxes on interest. Metrobank acquired Solidbank on September 1, 2000 and stepped into its rights and obligations. LHC paid Metrobank interest-related amounts on March 2, 2001 and October 31, 2001; LHC withheld 10% final tax on those interest payments and remitted them to the BIR (total US$106,178.69; peso equivalent P5,296,773.05).
Metrobank inadvertently included the same withheld amounts in its own Monthly Remittance Returns and remitted them to the BIR as well. Metrobank sent an administrative claim for refund to the BIR on December 27, 2002 and filed a petition for review with the CTA on September 10, 2003 (CTA Case No. 6765). The CIR raised defenses including prescription and the taxpayer’s burden of proof.
The CTA First Division, in a Decision dated August 13, 2007, denied Metrobank’s refund claims: it found the March 2001 claim prescribed because the tax was remitted by Metrobank on April 25, 2001 (thus the two-year period ended April 25, 2003), whereas the judicial claim was filed on September 10, 2003; the October 2001 claim was denied for insufficiency of evidence. A November 14, 2007 Resolution partially granted reconsideration to allow further evidence on the October 2001 payment but affirmed prescription as to March 2001. Metrobank sought partial review before the CTA En Banc (C.T.A. EB No. 340).
The CTA En Banc, in a Decision dated April 21, 2008, affirmed the CTA Division, holding that the March 2001 payment was a 10% final withholding tax and that the two-...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CTA En Banc correctly rule that Metrobank’s claim for refund of the March 2001 10% final withholding tax had prescrib...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)