Case Summary (G.R. No. 194065)
Applicable Law
The primary statutes under consideration include the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) and Revenue Regulations No. 7-92 and No. 05-97, which govern the payment and refund procedures of the DST. The relevant sections include Section 229 concerning the recovery of erroneously or illegally collected taxes and Section 200, concerning the payment of DST.
Facts of the Case
The Bureau of Internal Revenue issued Certificate No. 08-0434 on July 31, 2001, permitting the petitioner to operate a documentary stamp metering machine. The petitioner purchased documentary stamps and executed multiple repurchase agreements with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) between March 23, 2004, and December 23, 2004. It imprinted the documentary stamps on Confirmation Letters related to these agreements and subsequently filed for a tax credit certificate on May 12, 2006, claiming erroneous payment of DST amounting to P11,063,866.67. Following the BIR's inaction on the claim, the petitioner sought recourse with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
CTA Second Division Ruling
The CTA's Second Division determined that the repurchase agreements executed with the BSP were exempt from DST based on Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9243, which amends the NIRC. Although the petitioner originally claimed P11,063,866.67, the Division found that only P10,633,881.20 was substantiated, with P3,072,521.60 barred by prescription. It ruled that the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund was computed from the Confirmation Letters of the repurchase agreements.
CTA en banc Ruling
The CTA en banc disagreed with the Second Division regarding the starting point for the prescriptive period. It concluded that the DST was considered paid upon the purchase of documentary stamps and filing of a DST Declaration under BIR Form No. 2000, thereby redefining the two-year prescriptive period's commencement. This effectively narrowed the refundable amount further to P5,238,495.40.
Legal Issue
The primary legal question revolved around whether the date stamps were imprinted on documents or the date of purchase and loading of stamps onto the metering machine should be used to commence the two-year prescriptive period for filing a tax refund claim under Section 200(D) of the NIRC.
Court's Ruling
The Court emphasized that the DST is an excise tax imposed on transactions rather than documents. It recognized that for the purpose of determining prescription, actual payment must be treated as falling due upon the occurrence of the taxable transaction, in this case, the execution of agreements with the BSP. Thus, the date of imprinting the documentary stamp must be seen as the effective date of payment for refund purposes.
The Court also interpreted that while the filing of the DST Declaration Return and the load
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194065)
Introduction
- This syllabus details the case G.R. No. 194065 decided on June 20, 2016, involving the Philippine Bank of Communications (petitioner) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent).
- The case revolves around a Petition for Review filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, contesting the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA en banc).
Background of the Case
- The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Certificate No. 08-0434 on July 31, 2001, authorizing the Philippine Bank of Communications to operate an On-line Electronic Documentary Stamp Metering Machine (DS metering machine), Serial No. SN363 1711.
- Petitioner purchased documentary stamps from the BIR and utilized these stamps on Confirmation Letters for several repurchase agreements executed with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) between March 23, 2004, and December 23, 2004.
- The petitioner claimed that these repurchase agreements were not subject to the documentary stamp tax (DST) and filed an administrative claim on May 12, 2006, for a tax credit certificate for erroneously paid DST amounting to P11,063,866.67.
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Second Division Ruling
- The CTA Second Division acknowledged that the petitioner executed valid repurchase agreements with the BSP and indicated that these agreements were exempt from the DST