View full case

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 76449). The respondent is the Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. (PHCPI), a corporation that operates a prepaid group practice health care delivery system. In 1987, PHCPI inquired with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) regarding the applicability of Value-Added Tax (VAT) to its services. In 1988, the CIR issued VAT Ruling No. 231-88, stating that PHCPI is exempt from VAT. However, in 1999, the BIR sent PHCPI a preliminary assessment notice for deficiency VAT payment for 1996 and 1997. PHCPI protested, but no action was taken by the CIR. Subsequently, PHCPI filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which ordered PHCPI to pay the deficiency VAT for 1996 and 1997 but canceled the deficiency documentary stamp tax assessment. PHCPI filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which the CTA granted, withdrawing and setting aside the VAT assessment. The CTA held that PHCPI is subject to VAT but entitled to the benefit of non-retroactivity of rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA's resolution, leading to the CIR's filing of a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent's services are subject to VAT.

  2. Whether VAT Ruling No. 231-88 exempting respondent from payment of VAT has retroactive application.

  3. Whether or not the respondent acted in good faith in failing to describe itself as a health maintenance organization subject to VAT.

RULING:

  1. Respondent's services are not subject to VAT. The Court upheld the application of Section 246 of the Tax Code, which exempts taxpayers engaged in the performance of medical, dental, hospital, and veterinary services from paying VAT. The Court held that respondent, who acts as a conduit between members and accredited hospitals and clinics, does not actually provide medical and hospital services but merely arranges for them. Therefore, respondent's services are not VAT-exempt.

  2. VAT Ruling No. 231-88 exempting respondent from VAT payment has retroactive application. Section 246 of the Tax Code provides that rulings, circulars, rules, and regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application if applying them would prejudice the taxpayer, except in cases of deliberate misstatements or omissions of material facts by the taxpayer, materially different facts discovered later, or bad faith on the part of the taxpayer. The Court found no evidence that respondent deliberately misled the BIR or acted in bad faith when it obtained the VAT ruling. Therefore, the VAT ruling applies retroactively, and respondent is exempt from paying VAT for the taxable years 1996 and 1997.

  3. Yes, the respondent acted in good faith in failing to describe itself as a health maintenance organization subject to VAT.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code imposes a value-added tax on the sale or exchange of services, including those performed by construction and service contractors.

  • Section 103 of the same Code provides for exemptions from the value-added tax, including medical, dental, hospital, and veterinary services.

  • Exempt transactions under the tax code refer to goods or services specifically listed in and expressly exempted from VAT, regardless of the tax status of the party involved in the transaction.

  • Findings of fact by the Court of Tax Appeals, a specialized court with expertise in tax matters, are generally regarded as final and binding, especially when they do not conflict with the findings of the Court of Appeals.

  • Section 246 of the Tax Code provides that rulings, circulars, rules, and regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application if it prejudices the taxpayer, unless there are deliberate misstatements or omissions, materially different facts, or bad faith on the part of the taxpayer.

  • Good faith is a state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. It is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious.

  • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is precluded from adopting a position contrary to one previously taken where injustice would result to the taxpayer. Retroactive application of a ruling that would result in a grossly unfair deal would be prejudicial to the taxpayer.