April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016 - ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016
ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
For resolution is respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Partial Reconsideration1 of our Decision2 dated July 22, 2015, which partly granted the Rule 45 Petition of ING Bank N.V. Manila Branch.3 We set aside the assessments for deficiency documentary stamp taxes on petitioner's special savings accounts for the taxable years 1996 and 1997 and deficiency tax on onshore interest income for taxable year 1996 "in view of [its] availment of the tax amnesty program under Republic Act No. 9480."4 However, we affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc's April 5, 2005 Decision holding petitioner "liable for deficiency withholding tax on compensation for the taxable years 1996 and 1997 in the total amount of P564,542.67 inclusive of interest[.]"5
Petitioner filed its Opposition.6
The sole issue raised in the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is whether documentary stamp taxes are excluded from the tax amnesty granted by Republic Act No. 9480.7
Earlier, respondent argued that petitioner could not avail itself of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 94808 because both the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc and Second Division ruled in respondent's favor and confirmed the liability of petitioner for deficiency documentary stamp taxes, onshore taxes, and withholding taxes.9 Respondent contended that the Bureau of Internal Revenue's Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-200810 specifically excludes "cases which were ruled by any court (even without finality) in favor of the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] prior to amnesty availment of the taxpayer" from the coverage of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480.11
In our Decision dated July 22, 2015, we found respondent's argument untenable. We held that "[t]axpayers with pending tax cases may avail [themselves] . . . of the tax amnesty program[.]"12 We also held that Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008 cannot override Republic Act No. 9480 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which only exclude from tax amnesty "tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts."13
In its present Motion for Partial Reconsideration, respondent argues for the first time that the documentary stamp taxes on petitioner's special savings accounts for taxable years 1996 and 1997 are not covered by Republic Act No. 9480, pursuant to Q-l of Revenue Memorandum Circular Nos. 69-200714 and 19-2008.15 This time, respondent claims that the revenue memorandum circulars exclude documentary stamp taxes for being "[t]axes passed-on and collected from customers for remittance to the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] [,]"16
The pertinent provisions of the revenue memorandum circulars are as follows:
REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 69-2007
. . . .