REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

ENBANC

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 791

REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 7796)
Petitioner,

Present:
Acosta, P.J.
Castaneda, Jr.,
Bautista,
-versus- Uy,
Casanova,
Palanca-Enriquez,
Fabon-Victorino,
Mindaro-Grulla, and
INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ.
COMPANIES, INC.,
Respondent. Promulgated:

OCT 23 2012 tWJ~,~~

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CASTANEDA, JR., J.:

Before us is an appeal by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue

(''CIR" for brevity; respondent in the division case) of the February 21, 2011

Decision 1 and May 31, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Third Division of the Court of

Tax Appeals (CTA Third Division, for brevity) in CTA Case No. 7796 3 , entitled

"The Interpublic Group of Companies/ Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal fit--

1
Division Docket, pp. 520-539.
2
!d., pp. 625-627.
3
Decision and Resolution penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista and concurred in by Associate
Justices Olga Palanca-Enriquez and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas.
DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CTA Case No . 7796)
Page 2 of 18

Revenue/; which granted the claim for refund or issuance of tax credit

certificate (TCC) of respondent I nterpublic Group of Companies, Inc. ( "IGC"

for brevity; petitioner in the division case) in the amount of P12,338,921.00,

representing overpaid fi nal wit hholding tax (FWT) on cash dividends for

taxable year 2006. CIR prays that the assailed decision and resolution be set

aside and another one be rendered denying IGC's claim for refund for lack of

merit.

The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby

GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent4 is hereby ORDERED to
REFUND or to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of
petitioner5 in t he amount of TWELVE MILLION THREE HUNDRED
THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE
PESOS (P12,338,921.00), representing overpaid final withholding
tax on cash dividends for taxable year 2006.

SO ORDERED.

Likewise, the dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent6 's "Motion

for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED .

THE FACTS

The following are the facts of this case, as found by the CTA Third

Division: 7

The facts of the case, based on joint stipulations and evidence

on record, are as follows: ~

4
Refers to Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the division case, petitioner in this en bane case.
5
Refers to Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., in the division case, respondent in this en bane case.
6
Supra., Note 4.
7
Division Docket, pp. 520-523; Citations Omitted; " Petitioner" pertains to IGC, "respondent" refers to
CIR.
DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page 3 of 18

Petitioner is a non-resident foreign corporation duly organized

and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware,
United States of America, with principal place of business at 1114
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, USA.

Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau

of Internal Revenue (SIR), vested by law with authority to decide,
approve and grant claims for refund or tax credit of erroneously or
excessively paid taxes. She holds office at the 5th Floor, SIR National
Office Building, Diliman, Quezon City.

Petitioner owns 2,999,998 shares or thirty percent (30%) of

the total outstanding and voting capital stock of McCann Worldgroup
Philippines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "McCann''), a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines engaged in the general advertising business. Its principal
address is at 33F-35F GT Tower, 6813 Ayala Avenue corner H.V. dela
Costa St., Salcedo Village, Makati City.

In 2006, McCann's Board of Directors declared cash dividends

in the total amount of P205,648,685.02 in favor of its stockholders of
record. Petitioner received cash dividends from McCann in the
amount of P61,694,605.51, computed as follows:

Percentage
Shareholder Amount of Dividend
of Shares
Fintec Holdings, Inc. 70% P143,954,079.51
Interpublic Group of
Companies 30% 61,694,605.51
TOTAL P205,648,685.02

On June 15, 2006, McCann withheld a final withholding tax at

the rate of thirty-five percent (35%) on petitioner's cash dividends
and remitted the payment of the FWT in the amount of
P21,593,111.93 to respondent.

On September 27, 2007, petitioner established a Regional

Headquarters (RHQ) in the Philippines. On April 30, 2008, petitioner's
RHQ was converted into its Regional Operating Headquarters (ROHQ).

On March 5, 2008, petitioner fi led an administrative claim for

refund or issuance of tax credit certificate with the SIR, requesting
refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of
P12,338,921.00, representing the alleged overpaid FWT on dividends
paid by McCann to petitioner. In the said administrative claim,
petitioner averred that as a non-resident foreign corporation, it may
avail of the preferential FWT rate of fifteen percent (15%) on
dividends received from a domestic corporation under Section
28(8)(5)(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Jt:--
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79I (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page 4 of 18

Thereafter, on May 29, 2008, petitioner submitted to

respondent additional documents in support of its administrative claim
for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate.

Respondent failed to act on petitioner's administrative claim for

refund or issuance of tax credit certificate, prompting petitioner to file
with this Court a Petition for Review on June 16, 2008.

On February 21, 2011, the CTA Third Division granted IGC's petition for

review. Accordingly, CIR was ordered to refund or issue a tax credit certificate

in favor of IGC in the amount of P12,338,921.00, representing overpaid FWT

on cash dividends for taxable year 2006.

On March 14, 2011, CIR filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re:

Decision promulgated 21 February 2011). Said motion was denied for lack of

merit on May 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, CIR filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File

Petition for Review" which the Court en bane granted.

On July 7, 2011, CIR filed the Petition for Review.

On July 21, 2011 Resolution, the Court en bane directed IGC to file

comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the said resolution. Thereafter,

IGC filed a "Motion for Additional Time to File Comment" which the Court en

bane granted. On August 15, 2011, IGC filed its Comment (to the Petition for

Review) .

On September 1, 2011, the Court en bane granted the parties a period

of thirty (30) days from notice, within which to file their memoranda. On

October 7, 2011, IGC filed a "Motion for Additional Time to File Memorandum '~
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79 I (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 5 of IS

which the Court en bane granted. Within the period given, IGC filed its

Memorandum. CIR, however, failed to file her Memorandum

On January 11, 2012, this case was submitted for decision.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE

COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF P12,338,921.00
REPRESENTING OVERPAID FINAL WITHHOLDING TAX
ON CASH DIVIDENDS FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2006.

THIS COURT'S RULING

The petition is denied.

We find that the issue regarding IGC's entitlement to a refund of FWT

on cash dividends for taxable year 2006 and the arguments raised by CIR

have already been considered and exhaustively discussed by the CTA Third

Division in its assailed Decision and Resolution.

Unlicensed Foreign corporation

not doing business in the Philippines
can sue before Philippine courts

CIR alleges that IGC has no capacity to sue in Philippine courts

without the requisite license citing Sec. 133, Title XV of the Corporation

Code of the Philippines. On the other hand, IGC submits that it does not

need a license to maintain an action before Philippine courts because

mere investment in domestic corporation is not considered doing Je-

DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page 6 of 18

business. IGC pointed out that a foreign corporation not doing business in

the Philippines may sue in our courts.

This Court agrees with IGC.

In the case B. Van Zuiden Bros., Ltd. vs. GTVL Manufacturing

Industries, Inc. 8 , the Supreme Court categorically stated that Section 133

of the Corporation Code is clear that an unlicensed foreign corporation

doing business in the Philippines cannot sue before Philippine courts. On

the other hand, an unlicensed foreign corporation not doing business in

the Philippines can sue before Philippine courts. We quote pertinent

portions of the said case, as follows:

"Section 133 of the Corporation Code provides:

'Doing business without license. - No foreign corporation

transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its
successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in
any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of
the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded
against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid
cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.'

The law is clear. An unlicensed foreign corporation doing

business in the Philippines cannot sue before Philippine courts. On the
other hand, an unlicensed foreign corporation not doing
business in the Philippines can sue before Philippine courts. "

Clearly, a license is necessary only if it is "transacting or doing

business" in the country. 9

As to whether IGC is "doing business" in the country at the time

the dividends were declared, We rule in the negative. jk-

8
G.R. No. 147905, May 28, 2007, 523 SCRA 233.
9
Eriks pte., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, eta!., G.R. No. 118843, February 6, 1997, 267 SCRA 567.
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 7 of 18

Mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in domestic

corporations duly registered to do business shall not be deemed "doing

business" in the Philippines as provided under Section 3 (d) of Republic

Act No. 7042 (as amended by Republic Act No. 8179) as well as in Section

1(f)(1) of Rule I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7042

(as amended by RA 8179), as follow:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7042 10

)()()( )()()( )()()(

SEC. 3. Definitions.- As used in this Act:

)()()( )()()( )()()(

d) the phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, service

contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or
branches; appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in
the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the country for
a period or periods totalling one hundred eighty (180) days or
more; participating in the management, supervision or control of
any domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in the
Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that
extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some
of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive
prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of
the business organization: Provided, however, That the phrase
"doing business" shall not be deemed to include mere
investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in
domestic corporations duly registered to do business,
and/or the exercise of rights as such investor; nor having a
nominee director or officer to represent its interests in such
corporation; nor appointing a representative or distributor
domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in its own
name and for its own account; (Emphasis Supplied)

)()()( )()()( )()()(

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF RA 7042

(AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8179) jt:--

10
"Foreign Investments Act of 1991", as amended by RA 8179.
DEC ISION
CT A EB No . 79 1 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 8 of 18

RULE I

Definitions

SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. - For the purposes of these

Rules and Regulations.
XXX XXX XXX

f. Doing Business shall include soliciting orders, service contracts,

opening offices, whether liaison offices or branches; appointing
representatives or distributors, operating under full control of
the foreign corporation, domiciled in the Philippines or who in
any calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods
totalling one hundred eighty (180) days or more; participating
in the management, supervision or control of any domestic
business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any
other act or acts that comply a continuity of commercial
dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the
performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to and in progressive prosecution
of commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the
business organization. The following acts shall not be
deemed "doing business" in the Philippines:

(1) Mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign

entity in domestic corporations duly registered to
do business, and/or the exercise of rights as such
investor; (Emphasis Supplied)

XXX XXX XXX

Based on the foregoing, a foreign corporation not doing business in the

Philippines may sue even without a license, as correctly ruled by the CTA

Third Division in the assailed Decision 11 , as follow:

Based on established facts, the final withholding tax imposed

against the cash dividends issued in favor of petitioner was a result of
a mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in domestic
corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the exercise of
rights as such investor. The phrase "doing business" shall not be
deemed to include mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign
entity in domestic corporations duly registered to do business, and/or
the exercise of rights as such investor.

In Columbia Pictures, Inc., eta!. vs. Court of Appeals, eta!., it

was held that: c;v
11
Division Docket, pp. 534-535; Citations Omitted.
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79 I (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page 9 of 18

"The obtainment of a license prescribed by Section

125 of the Corporation Code is not a condition precedent
to the maintenance of any kind of action in Philippine
courts by a foreign corporation. However, under the
aforequoted provision, no foreign corporation shall be
permitted to transact business in the Philippines, as this
phrase is understood under the Corporation Code, unless
it shall have the license required by law, and until it
complies with the law in transacting business here, it shall
not be permitted to maintain any suit in local courts. As
thus interpreted, any foreign corporation not doing
business in the Philippines may maintain an action in our
courts upon any cause of action, provided that the subject
matter and the defendant are within the jurisdiction of the
court. It is not the absence of the prescribed
license but 'doing business' in the Philippines
without such license which debars the foreign
corporation from access to our courts. In other
words, although a foreign corporation is without license to
transact business in the Philippines, it does not follow that
it has no capacity to bring an action. Such license is not
necessary if it is not engaged in business in the
Philippines." (Emphasis Supplied)

CIR also argues that the proper claimant in this case should have

been the Regional Operating Headquarters (ROHQ) and not IGC. CIR

reasoned out that IGC posits that its Regional Headquarters (RHQ) was

converted into ROHQ on April 30, 2008. However, the subject of the claim

for refund was filed on March 5, 2008. Thus, ROHQ should be the proper

claimant.

IGC commented that investments in McCann were made directly by

IGC and not its ROHQ, thus, IGC should be considered as a separate

taxable entity from its ROHQ citing Marubeni Corporation vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenuc! 2 .

CIR's argument lacks merit. ~

12
G.R. No. 76573, September 14, 1989, 177 SCRA 501.
DEC ISION
CT A EB No . 79 1 (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page 10 of 18

In the case . Marubeni Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue13, the Supreme Court adopted the argument of the Solicitor

General that when the foreign corporation transacts business in the

Philippines independently of its branch, the principal-agent relationship is

set aside. The transaction becomes one of the foreign corporation, not of

the branch. Pertinent portions of the said case provide:

The Solicitor General has adequately refuted petitioner's

arguments in this wise:

''The general rule that a foreign corporation is the same juridical

entity as its branch office in the Philippines cannot apply here. This rule is
based on the premise that the business of the foreign corporation is
conducted through its branch office, following the principal-agent relationship
theory. It is understood that the branch becomes its agent here. So that
when the foreign corporation transacts business in the Philippines
independently of its branch, the principal-agent relationship is set
aside. The transaction becomes one of the foreign corporation, not
of the branch. Consequently, the taxpayer is the foreign
corporation, not the branch or the resident foreign corporation.

"Corollarily, if the business transaction is conducted through the

branch office, the latter becomes the taxpayer, and not the foreign
corporation." (Emphasis Supplied; Citation Omitted).

Applying by analogy the above jurisprudence, considering that

investments in McCann was made directly by IGC, it is just proper that the

claimant is IGC.

The claim for refund

is based on Section 28 (B) S(b)
of the 1997 NIRC

CIR argues that IGC failed to follow the requisites for filing an

administrative claim for refund. CIR asserts that IGC invokes the RP-US

Treaty as basis for the reduced rate of tax for dividends resulting in

overpayment of FWT. CIR alleges that IGC failed to adduce evidence to the r
13 Id.
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79 I (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page II of I8

effect that it filed a tax treaty relief application with the International Tax

Affairs Division of the BIR in accordance with Revenue Memorandum Order

No. 1-200014 ("RMO No. 1-2000", for brevity).

IGC commented that contrary to the allegations of CIR, its claim for

refund is not anchored on a tax treaty provision or relief, thus, RMO No. 1-

2000 is irrelevant.

IGC is correct.

In this case, as found by the CTA Third Division, IGC, consistently,

based its administrative and judicial claims for refund or issuance of tax credit

certificate of allegedly overpaid final withholding tax (FWT) on cash dividends

under Section 28 (B) (5) (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997

(1997 NIRC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9337, which provides

that:

SEC. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations.-

)()()( )()()( )()()(

"(B) Tax on Nonresident Foreign Corporation. -

)()()( )()()( )()()(

"(5) Tax on Certain Incomes Received by a Nonresident

Foreign Corporation. -
)()()( )()()( )()()(

"(b) Intercorporate Dividends. -A final withholding tax at

the rate of fifteen percent (15°/o) is hereby imposed on the
amount of cash and/ or property dividends received from a
domestic corporation, which shall be collected and paid as
provided in Section 57 (A) of this Code, subject to the condition
that the country in which the non-resident foreign
corporation is domiciled, shall allow a credit against the tax
due from the non-resident foreign corporation taxes deemed ?t-
14
Procedures for Processing Tax Treaty Relief Application.
DECISION
CTA EB No. 791 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 12 of 18

to have been paid in the Philippines equivalent to twenty percent

(20%), which represents the difference between the regular income
tax of thirty-five percent (35%) and the fifteen percent (15%) tax on
dividends as provided in this subparagraph: Provided, That effective
January 1, 2009, the credit against the tax due shall be equivalent to
fifteen percent (15%), which represents the difference between the
regular income tax of thirty percent (30%) and the fifteen percent
(15%) tax on dividends;" (Emphasis supplied).

Based on the foregoing provision, intercorporate dividends received by

a nonresident foreign corporation from a domestic corporation shall be

subject to 15% final withholding tax, subject to the condition that the country

in which the non-resident foreign corporation is domiciled, shall allow a tax

credit against the tax due from the non-resident foreign corporation taxes

deemed to have been paid in the Philippines equivalent to 20%. However, in

2009, the credit against tax due shall be equivalent to 15%.

Thus, the findings and conclusion of the CTA Third Division 15 is

reiterated with approval:

Consequently, dividends received from a Philippine

corporation by a corporation incorporated outside of the
Philippines and domiciled in the U.S. are subject to the
preferential tax rate of 15°/o, considering that the U.S. allows
a credit against the tax due from the non-resident foreign
corporation taxes deemed to have been paid in the
Philippines, as confirmed in Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing
Corp., et al} 6 , particularly, Sections 901 and 902 of the U.S.
Internal Revenue Code. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, if it
will be subjected to the tax rate of 35% instead of the 15%
preferential rate based on the said cash dividend, it will be a
departure and contrary to the intention of the RP-US Tax Treaty;
which clearly provided the contracting parties specific preferential
rates other than the 35% tax rate.

In view of the foregoing, this Court finds petitioner, as a

foreign corporation incorporated and domiciled in the U.S., entitled to ~

15
Division Docket, pp. 531-532.
16
G.R. No. 66838, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 377.
DECIS ION
CTA EB No. 791 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 13 of 18

the 15% preferential tax treatment of dividends pursuant to Section

28(B)(5)(b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 9337.
(Emphasis Supplied).

We, thus, agree with the decision of the CTA Third Division 17 , as

follows:

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, RMO No. 1-2000 is

irrelevant considering that the basis of claim for refund is Section
28(B)(5)(b) of the NIRC. XXX XXX XXX

When the claim for refund/TCC

with the Commissioner has not yet
been acted upon and the two-year period
is about to prescribe, judicial claim
should be filed

CIR asserts that IGC's claim for refund is subject to administrative

investigation/examination because claims for refund partake the nature of

exemption, thus, pending the closure of this investigation, no grant of refund

may be given to IGC based on the filed claim.

IGC argues that it presented sufficient evidence to support its claim

and complied with all the statutory and jurisprudential requirements entitling

it to a refund. In addition, since CIR failed to act on the claim for refund, her

inaction was appealed to the CTA pursuant to Section 229 of the 1997 Tax

Code. IGC concludes that there is no basis to insist that the refund is subject

to further investigation by CIR.

CIR's assertion deserves scant consideration.

As correctly ruled by the CTA Third Division, "To be granted a refund,

petitioner18 , in addition to being able to point to some positive provisions of ~

17
Division Docket, p. 534.
DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 I (CT A Case No. 7796)
Page I4 of I8

law creating such right, must also be able to establish the fact of payment of

the tax sought to be refunded as well as the filing of the claim for refund

within the reglementary period."

As regards proof of payment of FWT, pertinent portion of the assailed

Decision 19 provides:

"As borne out by the evidence submitted to this Court, in the

Resolution 20 dated May 18, 2006, the Board of Directors of McCann
Worldgroup Philippines, Inc. declared cash dividends of
P205,648,685.02 in favor of all its stockholders, including the
petitioner who owns 30% of McCann's outstanding shares at the time
the dividends were declared 21, to wit:

'RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of McCann

Worldgroup Philippines, Inc. (the 'Corporation'), declare,
as it hereby declares, a cash dividend of
PhP205,648,685.02 in favor of all stockholders of record of
the Corporation as of the close of business on May 18,
2006, which cash dividend shall be payable as soon as the
approvals of any concerned government agencies have
been obtained.'

The cash dividends accruing to petitioner amounted to

P61,694,605 .51, computed as follows:

Cash Dividends declared p 205,648,685.02

x percentage of ownership 30%
Cash Dividends to Petitioner p 61,694,605.51

In order to prove that on June 13, 2006 McCann withheld final

withholding tax on such dividends at the rate of 35% or in the amount
of P21,593,111.93, and remitted the same on June 15, 2006,
petitioner submitted in evidence the Monthly Remittance Return of
Final Income Taxes Withheld 22 of McCann, and the accompanying
Payment Transaction 23 • Such remittance was also certified by the
BIR's Large Taxpayers Document Processing and Quality Assurance
24
Division. " Jt--
18
respondent IGC, in this en bane case .
19
Division Docket, pp. 532-533.
20
Exhibit "0"
21
Exhibit " P", page 2; Exhibit "D", page 4
22
Exhibit "G"
23
Exhibit "G-1".
24
Exhibit " H".
DECISION
CTA EB No. 79I (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 15 of 18

Based on the foregoing, it was proven that the fact of payment of FWT

on cash dividends was on June 15, 2006.

As to the prescriptive period of administrative and judicial claims,

respectively, for refund of erroneously paid tax, these claims must be filed

within two (2) years from the date the tax was paid pursuant to Sections 204

(C) and 229 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, as

follow:

"SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise,

Abate, and Refund or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may-

XXX XXX XXX

(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or

penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal
revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the
purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps
that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon
proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties
shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the
Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2)
years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided,
however, That a return filed showing an overpayment shall be
considered as a written claim for credit or refund.
XXX XXX xxx"

"SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected.

No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the
recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to
have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any
penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any
sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully
collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the
Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained,
whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest
or duress.

In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed

after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of
payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause
that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the
Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or ~
DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CTA Case No . 7796)
Page 16 of 18

credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment
was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously
paid." (Emphasis Supplied).

25
IGC filed its administrative claim for refund/TCC on March 5, 2008

and its judicial claim for refund/TCC on June 16, 2008 26 (June 15, 2008, falls

on a Sunday). Clearly, the claim for refund/TCC was filed within the 2-year

prescriptive period from June 15, 2006, the date of payment of FWT.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank, 27

the CTA en bane ruled that when the two-year period is already about to

prescribe and the claim for refund with the Commissioner has not yet been

acted upon, the taxpayer should file a petition for review with the CTA in

order to preserve his right to seek judicial recourse. Pertinent portion is

quoted, as follows:

"It is clear that the aforequoted Sections 204 and 229 govern
all kinds of refund or credit of internal revenue taxes - imposed and
collected erroneously or illegally, pursuant to the NIRC (CIR vs. Central
Azucarera Don Pedro, 49 SCRA 474; CIR vs. Insular Lumber Co., 21 SCRA
1237). Section 204 applies to administrative claims filed with the BIR,
while Section 229 refers to judicial actions for the recovery of the tax.
However, the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with
the BIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax
Appeals must be filed within the two-year period. These two
requirements are mandatory and non-compliance therewith
would be fatal to the action for refund or tax credit (Johnston
Lumber Co., Inc. vs. CTA, 101 Phil 151; Guagua Elec. Light Co., Inc. vs. Coli.,
1 SCRA 1221}. The two-year period is a limitation of action not only in
submitting the written claim for refund to the Commissioner, but
likewise in instituting an action with the Court of Tax Appeals (Tax Law
and Jurisprudence, 2nd ed., Justice Jose Vitug and Presiding Justice Ernesto
D. Acosta, p. 306). Hence, the taxpayer must file its administrative
claim for refund with the Commissioner, within two (2) years after the
payment of the tax; however, if the Commissioner takes time in
deciding the claim and the period of two (2) years is about to end, the y-
25
Exhibits "I" and 'T'.
26
Division Docket, p.l.
27
erA EB No. 499 (Case No. 7203), November 26, 2009 with Entry of Judgment on October 11, 2010.
In G.R. No. 191530 (The Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank) this case was
closed and terminated in August 25, 2010 Minute Resolution of SC First Division.
DECISION
CTA EB No. 791 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 17 of 18

suit or proceeding must be started in the Court of Tax Appeals before

the end of the two-year period, without awaiting the decision of the
Commissioner. This is so because of the positive requirement of
Section 204 and the doctrine that delay of the Commissioner in
rendering decision does not extend the peremptory period fixed by
the statute (Gibbs & Gibbs vs. CJR and CTA 15 SCRA 318/ citing Gibbs vs.
Collector of Internal Revenue/ G.R. No. L -1345~ February 29/ 1960). Thus,
when the two-year period is already about to prescribe and
the claim for refund with the Commissioner has not yet been
acted upon, the taxpayer should file a petition for review with
the CTA in order to preserve his right to seek judicial
recourse." (Emphasis Supplied).

Based on the foregoing, there is no reason to set aside the find ings

and conclusions of the CTA Third Division in the assailed Decision and

Resolution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is

DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the February 21, 2011 Decision and

the May 31, 2011 Resolution of the Third Division of the Court of Tax Appeals

are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

~-4:- (2. ~~ 9..

tJUANITO c. CASTANEDA,'JR.
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

r - v. . Q ..._J.,.__
E1m£STO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice

(On Leave)
ERLINDA P. UY
Associate Justice
DEC ISION
CTA EB No. 79 1 (CTA Case No. 7796)
Page 18 of 18

~ ,tL~~
CAESAR~NOVA
Associate Justice
OLGi~NCA-ENRIQUEZ
Associate Justice

(On Leave) ~ N.I\A~- 6'~

ESPERANZA R. FASON-VICTORINO CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On Leave)
AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified

that the above Decision has been reached in consultation with the members
of the Court En Bane before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.

~~ .~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice