Deductibility of rental paid to affiliates
In a decision of the CTA in division, the court upheld the disallowance of the BIR of the rent expense claimed by a domestic car manufacturing company on the ground that it is a shareholder of the corporation that owns the rented property. The CTA in division cited Section 29(a)(1)(A) of the 1977 Tax Code [now Section 34(A)(1)(a)(iii), Tax Code], which provides that for rent expense to be deductible for income tax purposes, the taxpayer should have no equity to the property being rented.
Acting on the appeal made by the taxpayer, the CTA en banc held that the company cannot be deemed to have title to or equity in the properties owned by its affiliates as contemplated under Section 29(a)(1)(A) of the 1977 Tax Code on the ground that it has equity in the corporation that owns the leased property. The CTA en banc clarified that said Section refers to the equity in the property itself and not to equity in the corporations that own the property subject of lease.
As explained by the CTA en banc, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members, and is not affected by the personal rights, obligations and transactions of the latter. As lessee, the company cannot be deemed to have equity in the properties owned by or registered in the name of the affiliates without violating the doctrine of separate and distinct juridical personality of the corporation. Extending the condition stated under Section 29(a)(1)(A) of the 1977 Tax Code to the property owned by a corporation, which has a separate and distinct juridical personality, will unduly impose upon the company a burden that is not in the law.
(Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 526 re CTA Case No. 6385, September 7, 2010)
Non-submission of supporting documents in the administrative level not fatal to judicial claim for refund
Although the submission of complete documents is necessary to support a claim for refund, failure of the taxpayer to submit the complete documents at the administrative level does not bar the CTA from receiving, evaluating and appreciating evidence in support of the taxpayer’s claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate.
In judicial claims for refund, the question of whether or not the evidence submitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of a claim lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the court. According to the CTA, judicial claims are decided based on what has been presented and formally offered, and not on mere allegation of non-submission of complete documents before the BIR. Conversely, unless the documentary evidence submitted by the taxpayer to the BIR is formally offered before the CTA, they have no evidentiary value.
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Toledo Power Company, CTA EB No. 589 re CTA Case No. 7471, September 15, 2010)
Period for filing judicial claims for refund
Under Section 112(D) of the Tax Code, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) is given 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents to decide whether to grant a refund/issue tax credit certificate, or to deny the claim. If the CIR grants or denies the claim, or in case he fails to act within the 120-day period, the taxpayer may appeal the decision or the unacted claim to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision, or after the expiration of the 120-day period.
In the instant case, the taxpayer filed its administrative claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate of its unutilized input VAT on January 4, 2007, which falls within the two-year prescriptive period from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. Pursuant to Section 112(D) of the Tax Code, the CIR has 120 days or until May 4, 2007 to decide on the taxpayer’s administrative claim. Since the CIR failed to act on the claim for refund, the taxpayer had 30 days from May 5, 2007, or up to June 3, 2007, to appeal the inaction of the CIR. The taxpayer filed its judicial claim on March 30, 2007, or 35 days before the lapse of the 120-day period to decide and commencement of the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA.
The claim was deemed prematurely filed by the CTA. According to the CTA, the taxpayer should have first exhausted the administrative process afforded to him before resorting to judicial remedy. Hence, due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the taxpayer’s claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate of its unutilized input VAT was denied.
(Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 7595, September 14, 2010)