View full case

CIR v. UNIVATION MOTOR PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

In the first case, Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. filed an amended Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for 2010, indicating an overpayment of income taxes. Since the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) had not yet acted on the claim for refund, Univation filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CIR argued that the claim was procedurally flawed and that administrative remedies were not exhausted. The CTA First Division partially granted Univation's petition and ordered the CIR to issue a tax credit certificate. The CIR's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CTA En Banc.

In the second case, CBK Power Company Limited filed a claim for tax refund against the CIR. The CIR argued that the claim was filed beyond the two-year prescriptive period. CBK Power contended that the period should be reckoned from the date of filing the adjusted final tax return. The CTA En Banc ruled in favor of CBK Power, stating that the prescriptive period starts from the date of filing the adjusted final tax return. The Court held that there was no violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies as long as the administrative and judicial claims were filed within the prescribed period. The CTA has exclusive jurisdiction over tax refund claims if the Commissioner fails to act on them.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the failure of the taxpayer to submit complete documents at the administrative level renders the petition for refund dismissible for lack of jurisdiction.

  2. Whether the taxpayer can cure its failure to submit documents requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said documents before the CTA.

  3. Whether or not the respondent has proven its entitlement to a tax credit certificate

  4. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc committed a gross error or abuse of authority in sustaining the findings of the CTA First Division and denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

  5. Whether or not the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue should issue a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. for the amount of P12,729,617.90 representing its unutilized or excess creditable withholding tax for the taxable year 2010.

RULING:

  1. The failure of the taxpayer to submit complete documents at the administrative level does not render the petition for refund dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal of a petition at the administrative level on the ground of failure to submit supporting documents does not deprive the CTA of jurisdiction over the appeal. Rather, it is a ground for the dismissal of the claim for failure to substantiate it at the administrative level.

  2. The taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit documents requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said documents before the CTA. In a judicial claim for refund or tax credit, the taxpayer must show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. The taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit documents by filing them before the CTA.

  3. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) found that the respondent has established compliance with the requirements for a tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax. The respondent presented the necessary documentary evidence to prove the fact of withholding and that the income received was declared as part of the gross income. The CTA also took into consideration the explanation of the independent CPA regarding the timing difference in the reporting of income and the withholding of taxes. The CTA's conclusion on the matter was upheld, as the Court will not set aside the findings of the CTA unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.

  4. The Court denies the Petition. The Court affirms the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc sustaining the findings of the CTA First Division and denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

  5. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is directed to issue a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. for the amount of P12,729,617.90 representing its unutilized or excess creditable withholding tax for the taxable year 2010.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over tax refund claims when the Commissioner fails to act on them.

  • The filing of an administrative claim is intended primarily as a notice or warning to the Commissioner that court action will follow if the refund is not granted.

  • The failure of the taxpayer to submit complete documents at the administrative level is a ground for dismissal of the claim for failure to substantiate it at the administrative level, but it does not deprive the CTA of jurisdiction over the appeal.

  • The taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit documents requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing them before the CTA.

  • The CTA can consider evidence that was not presented in the administrative claim with the BIR.

  • Proceedings before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) are not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence. The paramount consideration is the ascertainment of truth.

  • The CTA may give credence to all evidence presented by the taxpayer, including those that may not have been submitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), as the case is being decided in the first instance.

  • The CTA has developed expertise on tax matters, and its conclusions are generally not easily set aside unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.

  • In claiming tax credit or refund of creditable withholding tax, the taxpayer must comply with the requirements under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Revenue Regulation No. 2-98, as amended. These requirements include filing the claim within the prescribed period, establishing the fact of withholding through proper documentation, and showing that the income received was declared as part of the gross income.

  • The Court gives highest respect to the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals, unless there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the said court.

  • An administrative agency, like the Court of Tax Appeals, has developed expertise on tax matters and its decisions are entitled to great deference, unless there was an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.

  • Factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence or if there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the said court.