Case Digest (G.R. No. 206362)
Facts:
Rhombus Energy, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 206362, August 01, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Rhombus Energy, Inc.; respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.From October 1998 to July 2007 Rhombus was under Revenue Region No. 8, RDO No. 50; after a change of address it was transferred on July 18, 2007 to RDO No. 47. On April 17, 2006 Rhombus filed its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for taxable year 2005 showing total tax credits/payments of P34,682,511.00 and an overpayment (excess creditable withholding tax, CWT) of P1,500,653.00, and it indicated on the 2005 Annual ITR the box “To be refunded.”
In 2006 Rhombus filed Quarterly ITRs (1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters) which reflected “prior year’s excess credits” of P1,500,653.00. On December 29, 2006 Rhombus filed an administrative claim for refund of the alleged excess/unutilized CWT for 2005 in the amount of P1,500,653.00, and on December 7, 2007 it filed the judicial petition for refund before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
After trial, the CTA First Division, in a decision dated March 23, 2011, granted Rhombus’s petition for refund, finding that Rhombus complied with the requisites for refund (timeliness under Section 229 of the NIRC, declaration of income in the ITR, and proof of withholding via withholding tax certificates). The First Division denied the CIR’s motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2011.
The CIR appealed to the CTA En Banc which, in a decision promulgated October 11, 2012, reversed the First Division and dismissed Rhombus’s petition, applying the irrevocability rule under Section 76 of the NIRC — reasoning that Rhombus’s reporting of prior-year excess credits in ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Rhombus barred by the irrevocability rule in Section 76 of the NIRC from claiming a refund of its excess/unutilized creditable withholding tax for 2005?
- Did Rhombus prove entitlement to the refund by meeting the requisites for a tax refund claim (timeliness under Section 229, declaration on ITR,...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)