View full case

CIR v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

FACTS:

The petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the respondent, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), are involved in a dispute over a tax refund/credit claimed by MERALCO. MERALCO obtained loans from NORD/LB Singapore Branch, a German bank, and remitted ten percent final withholding tax on the interest payments to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). In 2001, MERALCO filed a request for a BIR ruling to determine the tax-exempt status of NORD/LB. The BIR ruled that the interest payments are exempt from the withholding tax. Based on this ruling, MERALCO filed a claim for a tax refund, but it was denied by the BIR on the ground of prescription. MERALCO then filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which partially granted the petition. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the CTA. The issue in this case is whether MERALCO is entitled to a tax refund/credit for the final withholding taxes it paid to NORD/LB from 1999 to 2003.

The petitioner argues that NORD/LB, as a foreign bank, is not exempted from final withholding taxes unless it can prove that it is owned and controlled by the Federal Republic of Germany. However, MERALCO presents evidence, including a certification from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany and the testimony of its Vice-President and Head of Tax and Tariff, to establish that NORD/LB is indeed owned by various German States. The Court finds that MERALCO has met the burden of proof to support its claim for a tax refund. The certification and testimony provide sufficient evidence of NORD/LB's ownership structure. Therefore, the Court rejects the petitioner's argument and upholds the findings of the CTA En Banc.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the certification presented by respondent MERALCO provides a sufficient basis to establish the tax-exempt status of NORD/LB Singapore Branch.

  2. Whether BIR Ruling No. DA-342-2003 issued by petitioner, which relied on the certification, is valid and binding.

  3. Whether the claim for tax refund has already prescribed under Section 229 of the Tax Code.

  4. Whether the six-year prescriptive period for initiating an action on the ground of solutio indebiti is applicable in this case.

  5. Whether the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) are supported by substantial evidence.

  6. Whether there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court.

RULING:

  1. The certification presented by respondent MERALCO was considered by the court as sufficient evidence to establish the tax-exempt status of NORD/LB Singapore Branch. Absent any strong evidence to disprove the truthfulness of the certification, the court agreed with the findings of the CTA-First Division that the certification is valid.

  2. BIR Ruling No. DA-342-2003 issued by petitioner, which relied on the certification, was considered to be a valid and binding ruling. The court held that petitioner's admission of the issuance of the ruling, as stated in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts, is a judicial admission that cannot be contradicted unless shown to be made through palpable mistake.

  3. The claim for tax refund in the amount of Thirty-Nine Million Three Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four Pesos and Seventy-Nine Centavos (P39,359,254.79) pertaining to the period from January 1999 to July 2002 has already prescribed under Section 229 of the Tax Code.

  4. The six-year prescriptive period for initiating an action on the ground of solutio indebiti is not applicable in this case as there is a binding relation between the petitioner as the taxing authority and respondent MERALCO, and solutio indebiti requires that there be no binding relation between the payor and the recipient of payment.

  5. The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. EB No. 262 are affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The weight of evidence depends on its effects in inducing belief, considering all the facts and circumstances proved.

  • The probative weight of a document or testimonial evidence must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence presented.

  • A judicial admission binds the person who makes it, unless shown to be made through palpable mistake.

  • Discrepancies in documents can be contested during the proceedings, and failing to do so may indicate the absence of palpable mistake in the admission.

  • The prescriptive period for claiming a tax refund is mandatory and starts from the date of payment of tax, not from the discovery of the erroneous or excessive payment of taxes.

  • Solutio indebiti is not applicable in cases involving tax refunds as it requires the absence of a binding relation between the payor and recipient of payment.

  • The conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CTA, are generally respected by the Court.

  • The CTA is a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases.

  • The decisions of the CTA are presumed to be valid in every respect, in the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary.

  • The findings of the CTA can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence.