Title
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Benguet Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 145559
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2006
Benguet Corp. relied on BIR rulings for zero-rated gold sales to Central Bank; retroactive VAT reclassification denied, tax credit upheld due to prejudice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145559)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework is found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), particularly those dealing with value-added tax (VAT).

Background and Facts

Respondent Benguet Corporation was registered for VAT and sought zero-rating for its sales of mine products. VAT Ruling No. 378-88 and subsequent rulings from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) affirmed the zero-rate status for sales of gold to the Central Bank, treating them as export sales. The respondent sold gold during the taxable periods specified and incurred input VAT on these sales.

However, a subsequent VAT Ruling (No. 008-92) issued on January 23, 1992, reclassified these sales as domestic transactions subject to a 10% VAT. Respondent's application for tax credit based on the zero-rating principle was subsequently denied, which prompted it to seek recourse in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

Court of Tax Appeals Proceedings

The CTA initially dismissed Benguet Corporation's consolidated petitions for tax credits, concluding that the retroactive application of the VAT ruling did not unduly prejudice the corporation. The decision was later contested by the respondent, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA first affirmed the CTA's decision but later reversed its position upon a reconsideration motion filed by the respondent, granting a tax credit amounting to P131,741,034.22, with a specific emphasis on $49,749,223.31 related to sales made to the Central Bank. The CA determined that the retroactive application of VAT Ruling No. 008-92 would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent due to reliance on prior rulings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the CA erred by rejecting the retroactive application of VAT Ruling No. 008-92 and argued that the retroactive adjustment would not prejudice the respondent since alternative remedies were available for recovering the input VAT.

Key Legal Principles Discussed

The Court underscored the principle that tax rulings and regulations should not be applied retroactively if it prejudices taxpayers. Section 246 of the NIRC asserts that no alterations to tax rulings shall have retroactive effect if they negatively affect the taxpayer, except under specific circumstances such as misstatements in tax returns or bad faith.

Assessment of Prejudice

The Court determined that retroactively applying the new VAT ruling would indeed prejudice the respondent. The inability to pass on the 10% VAT to the Central Bank, combined with the denial of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.