Title
KEPCO Phil. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 179356
Decision Date
Dec 14, 2009
KEPCO sought a VAT refund for purchases used in rehabilitating a power plant, claiming they were capital goods. Courts denied the claim, ruling the purchases were recorded as inventory, not depreciable assets, failing to meet tax regulations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179356)

Background of Claims

KEPCO filed a series of claims with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) beginning on September 30, 1998, for tax refunds totaling P22,172,003.26. This amount comprised unutilized input VAT payments for the third and fourth quarters of 1996 and involved unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sale transactions with NPC. The two claims before the CTA were consolidated, and a court-commissioned audit report substantiated P20,550,953.93 of the claimed amount as valid for VAT refund purposes.

CTA's Decision and Subsequent Developments

In a Decision dated March 18, 2003, the CTA granted a partial refund of P8,325,350.35, corresponding only to specific unutilized input VAT payments. KEPCO filed a motion for reconsideration for an additional P5,012,875.67, which was denied on July 8, 2003, on the basis that part of the claim pertained to purchases made in 1997 and that other amounts were not recorded under depreciable asset accounts, thereby disqualifying them as capital goods.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

KEPCO subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, seeking a refund for P3,455,199.54, claiming that the disallowed items were used in rehabilitating the Malaya Power Plant and should be classified as capital expenses. The appellate court affirmed the CTA's decision in a December 11, 2006 ruling, noting that the purchases were recorded under inventory accounts rather than depreciable asset accounts.

Legal Definition of Capital Goods

The pertinent definition of capital goods is outlined in Section 4.106-1 (b) of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95, which requires that such goods must possess an estimated useful life exceeding one year, be treated as depreciable assets under Section 34 (f) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), and be utilized in the production or sale of taxable goods and services. KEPCO's failure to demonstrate that the goods qualified as capital assets according to these criteria led the courts to deny the full refund.

Evaluation of Evidence

Despite KEPCO's assertions that its general ledger included the disallowed purchases as capital goods, the supporting account vouchers indicated that these items were categorized under inventory rather than any depreciable asset account. The variance between the general ledger and the source documents—specifically the account vouchers—resulted in the source documents being favore

...continue reading

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