Title
Aegis PeopleSupport, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 216601
Decision Date
Oct 7, 2019
Aegis PeopleSupport, Inc. sought a tax refund for excess income tax paid in 2007, claiming forex gains from hedging were integral to its PEZA-registered BPO operations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor, affirming hedging as essential to its activities and qualifying for tax incentives.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216601)

Case Background

The case revolves around Aegis PeopleSupport, Inc., a domestic corporation in the Philippines, engaged in providing customer support services, which is registered with the Board of Investments (BOI) and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). It filed a claim for a tax refund amounting to ₱66,177,830.95, asserting that its foreign exchange gains should qualify for tax exemptions under its income tax holiday (ITH) benefits due to its PEZA registration.

Procedural History

The petitioner submitted its annual income tax return and subsequently filed an amended return claiming an excess payment. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) inaction on the claim led to a petition for review filed by Aegis in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA Division denied the claim citing insufficient evidence, reasoning that the petitioner failed to establish that the foreign exchange gains came from activities eligible for ITH.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the foreign exchange gains resulting from hedging contracts with Citibank were integral to its operations as a contact center providing services to foreign clients. Therefore, they argued that these gains should be similarly exempt from taxation as they stemmed from revenues necessary to support its registered activities. They referenced relevant regulations and previous BIR rulings to substantiate their claims for tax exemption on the grounds that all income linked to their operations should be exempt.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, CIR, defended the CTA's ruling, asserting that the foreign exchange gains derived from hedging were not connected to the registered activities of the company and thus were subject to normal corporate income tax. The CIR argued that taxpayers claiming refunds bear the burden of proof in establishing the legitimacy of their claims and that the gains from hedging did not meet the criteria for exemption.

Court's Determination

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the foreign exchange gains realized through currency conversions were indeed related

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.