G.R. No. 204687 - United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The petitioner, United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
UCPB challenged the Decision dated August 23, 2012, and the Resolution dated November 21, 2012, of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc.
The CTA denied UCPB's claim for a tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate amounting to P43,484,162.00, representing unutilized creditable withholding taxes for the calendar year 2004.

UCPB, engaged in banking, disposed of real properties acquired from defaulting clients during the taxable year 2004.
The bank's Tax Management and Compliance Department Head, Donabel R. Aala, stated that these sales were subject to 6% creditable withholding taxes.
UCPB's clients included BIR-designated Top Ten Thousand Corporations, which were required to deduct 2% creditable withholding tax on payments to UCPB.
Rental income from leases was also subject to a 5% creditable withholding tax.
UCPB did not have taxable income for 2004, resulting in unutilized creditable taxes withheld.

On April 15, 2005, UCPB filed its original Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for 2004 but encountered difficulties, leading to an incomplete filing.
UCPB refiled the ITR on the same day, which was captured as an amended return.
Subsequent amended ITRs filed on May 19, 2005, and October 13, 2006, reflected losses and excess tax credits.
UCPB claimed it was not liable for income taxes in 2004 due to net losses, categorizing withheld taxes as erroneously collected.

On March 20, 2007, UCPB filed a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for unutilized creditable withholding tax for 2004.
The claim was filed with the BIR before the expiration of the period to file a judicial claim for refund.
UCPB subsequently filed a Petition for Review with the CTA Division on April 16, 2007, due to the CIR's inaction.

The CIR argued that UCPB's claim was subject to administrative investigation and lacked proper documentation.
The burden of proof rested on UCPB to establish its right to a refund, and failure to do so was fatal to the claim.
The CIR contended that UCPB's petition was premature as it did not submit complete documents, and the 120-day period for the administrative claim had not yet expired.

UCPB maintained that it incurred creditable withholding taxes in 2004 and indicated its option for a refund in its amended ITR.
UCPB argued that the amount was not carried over as "prior year's excess tax credits" in subsequent years, thus entitling it to a refund.

The CTA Division denied UCPB's Petition for Review, stating that allowing a claim for refund would contradict Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997.
The CTA emphasized that once a portion of the excess amount was carried over, the remaining amount could not be claimed for refund.
UCPB's later amendments did not negate the legal consequences of carrying over excess amounts.

UCPB filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was initially reversed by the CTA Division regarding the irrevocability rule.
However, the Motion was ultimately denied due to UCPB's failure to prove that the income payments subjected to withholding tax were declared in its 2004 ITR.