Cta 2D CV 09617 D 2019mar11 Ref
Cta 2D CV 09617 D 2019mar11 Ref
Cta 2D CV 09617 D 2019mar11 Ref
-versus-
COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated:
INTERNAL REVENUE, MAR
1 1 2019
Respondent. /
J7 ~~ /TI!."" •
x--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------x
DECISION
Before this Court is a claim for refund via a Petition for Review 1
filed on May 19, 2017, by petitioner Wells Fargo Enterprise Global
Services, LLC-Philippines, in the amount of Twenty-Eight Million Five
Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Thirty-Five Pesos and Sixty-Nine
Centavos (P28,551,035.69) representing unutilized input value-added
tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales for the taxable year
January to December 2015. r
THE FACTS
2 Par. 1, Jointly Stipulated Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue (JSFI), Docket (Vol. II), p. 769.
3 Exhibit "P-108".
4 Exhibit "P-4".
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 9617
Page 3 of 17
4th
January 25, 2016 December 31, 2015 7,280,993.68
(Exh. "P-80'')
Jf)JAL P28,S5l',(JSS.69
5 Exhibit "1".
6 Exhibit "1-B".
7 Exhibit "2".
8 Docket (Vol. I), pp. 285-287.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 9617
Page 4 of 17
THE ISSUE
Petitioner's Arguments
Respondent's Counter-Arguments
This Court shall determine first whether or not the Petition for
Review was timely filed. The pertinent provisions of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, are Sections 112
(C) and 204 (C) which respectively reads, viz.:
XXX
X X X."
XXX
X X X."
Based above, Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, states that
respondent has one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of
submission of complete supporting documents within which to act on
the administrative claim for tax refund/credit. Thereafter, the taxpayer
may, in case of an adverse ruling or inaction thereof, elevate the
matter via a Petition for Review to this Court within thirty (30) days
from receipt of the adverse decision or after the lapse of the 120-day
period.
(2) The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of
complete documents in support of the administrative claim
within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a
tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend beyond
the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim
if the claim is filed in the later part of the two-year period. If
the 120-day period expires without any decision from the CIR,
then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied
by inaction.
As to its judicial claim, petitioner had thirty (30) days from May
19, 2017, the date when it received the decision denying petitioner's
administrative claim, within which to file its judicial appeal. Considering
that petitioner filed its judicial claim with this Court on June 19, 2017, 33
then, the same was timely filed and within the prescriptive period.
That having been settled, this Court shall now address the
question of whether petitioner has sufficiently established the factual
and legal bases for its application for refund/credit of input VAT.
XXX
From the foregoing, prior to the effectivity of RMC No. 74-99, the
old VAT rule for PEZA-registered enterprises was based on their choice
of fiscal incentives, namely: ( 1) if the PEZA-registered enterprise chose
the 5°/o preferential tax on its gross income in lieu of all taxes, as
provided by Republic Act No. 7916, as amended, then it was VAT-
exempt; and (2) if the PEZA-registered enterprise availed itself of the
income tax holiday under Executive Order No. 226, as amended, it was
subject to VAT at 10°/o (now, 12°/o). However, now, with the issuance
of RMC No. 74-99, the distinction under the old rule was disregarded
and the new circular took into consideration the two important
principles of the Philippine VAT system: the Cross-Border Doctrine and
the Destination Principle.
36 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos.
141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007; citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Seagate Technology
(Philippines), G.R. No. 153866, February 11, 2005.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 9617
Page 14 of 17
37
"An Act Providing for the Legal Framework and Mechanisms for the Creation, Operation, Administration,
and Coordination of Special Economic Zones in the Philippines, Creating for this Purpose, the Philippine
Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), and for Other Purposes", dated February 21, 1995.
Moreover, it also bears stressing that all claims for input VAT by
PEZA-registered companies, regardless of the type or class of PEZA-
registration, which involves invoices/receipts issued after the effectivity
of RMC No. 74-99, shall be denied. Considering that petitioner's claim
for refund pertains to input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods
and services from January to December 2015, which is long after the
effectivity of RMC No. 74-99, petitioner is therefore not entitled to
refund of VAT.
40 "SEC. 8. ECOZONE to be Operated and Managed as Separate Customs Territory. -The ECOZONE shall be
managed and operated by the PEZA as separate customs territory."
41 Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 190506, June 13, 2016; citing
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils) Inc., G.R. No. 150154, August
9, 2005.
42 "Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires
or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return
the same to him."
43
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc., eta!. vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, July 28, 2009.
44 Supra No. 33.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 9617
Page 16 of 17
SO ORDERED.
~~c.~~~,~~.
Jt1ANITO C. CASTANED( JR.
Associate Justice
45 Ibid
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 9617
Page 17 of 17
/CONCUR:
c~/~-~
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
~~C-~~Q.
iCJANI"TO C. CASTAN ED~ !IR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Presiding Justice