Title
Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 175707
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2014
FBDC claimed VAT refunds for real property sales, asserting entitlement to an 8% transitional input tax credit under NIRC Section 105. The Supreme Court ruled in favor, invalidating restrictive BIR regulations and granting refunds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139907)

Nature of the Case

The Supreme Court consolidated three petitions involving the same parties and common questions of law regarding the value-added tax (VAT) refunds claimed by the Petitioner. The disputes revolve around the interpretation of tax provisions related to transitional input tax credits under Section 105 of the NIRC.

Background Facts

FBDC is a domestic corporation engaged in real estate development, specifically in the Fort Bonifacio Global City area. It acquired the land under a VAT-free transaction with the National Government pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227. The legal questions stem from claims for refunds related to VAT payments made by FBDC between 1996 and 1998, asserting they are entitled to transitional input tax credits available to them under existing tax regulations.

Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims its right to transitional input tax credits based on the value of the entirety of its inventory (including land). FBDC contends that the relevant laws and regulations do not limit this credit only to improvements but encompass the real properties intended for sale or lease. Specifically, they argue against Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 which restricts the transitional input tax credit to improvements on the land rather than the land itself.

Respondents’ Position

The respondents consistently denied the claims for refunds, asserting that the transitional input tax credit is valid only when based on previous VAT or sales tax payments made in regard to improvements. They reference the validity of the Revenue Regulations and claim the taxpayer's inventory does not include real properties sourced under VAT-exempt circumstances.

Primary Legal Issues

  1. Is the transitional/presumptive input tax credit under Section 105 applicable solely to improvements on real properties?
  2. Must there be a prior payment of sales tax or VAT by the taxpayer before claiming input tax credits under Section 105?
  3. Is Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 a valid implementation of Section 105?
  4. Did the respondents overstep the bounds of separation of powers by interpreting tax laws in a manner that effectively alters the statutory provisions?

Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Decisions

The CTA initially ruled against the Petitioner, emphasizing that the transitional input tax credit was conditional upon prior VAT supply, effectively limiting eligibility to improvements rather than the land itself. This reasoning conflicts with numerous elements of tax jurisprudence and the statutory design of Sections 100 and 105 of the NIRC.

Court of Appeals Rulings

The Court of Appeals upheld the CTA's ruling, but also indicated that recognizing the limitations imposed by Revenue Regulation No. 7-95 contradicts the intended benefit of transitional input credits as laid out by the legislative framework.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. It recognized that the legal framework did not contain language limiting the transitional input tax credit to improvements alone and found that the definition of "goods" w

...continue reading

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