Creating an Inter-Agency Task Force to Initiate, Implement and Monitor Ease of Doing Business Reforms

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8261. July 15, 2013.] IMPERIAL, DE GUZMAN, ABALOS & CO., INC. represented by SECURITY BANK CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS , J p : For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by registered mail on June 3, 2013 and received by this Court on June 11, 2013. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, 2 promulgated on May 15, 2013, which denied petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate allegedly representing erroneously paid Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) for insufficiency of evidence. HaTSDA Petitioner argues that the quantum of evidence required for entitlement to a refund or tax credit was clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. PERF Realty Corp. , 557 SCRA 165 (2008), to wit : a) that the claim for refund was filed within the two (2) year period as prescribed under Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code; b) that the income upon which the taxes were withheld were included in the return of the recipient; and c) that the fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the withholding agent to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld. Petitioner insists that it has presented more than enough evidence to prove its claim for refund or credit. It presented the itemized DST payments or the Consolidated Report on Daily Collection of Internal Revenue Taxes it made to Security Bank Corporation (SBC) on various dates (Exhibit "A") ; the Letter dated November 10, 2009 (Exhibit "I") signed by Geraldine S. Bermas, OIC-Chief, Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which clearly recognized and admitted petitioner's submission of its daily consolidated report on the tax payment made and in fact advised it to coordinate with Revenue District Office No. 41 for the reversal of the payments made in view of the passage of the DST Law; and the testimony of Mr. Renato Buccat who has personal knowledge of the transactions pertaining to the remittance and receipt of the BIR of the said payments. Respondent filed its Comment (Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on June 3, 2013) on July 5, 2013, and counter-argues that the case above-cited by petitioner does not fall squarely since it only applies to refund of taxes withheld and does not apply to voluntary DST payment; there is nothing in the evidence enumerated which would directly show that the alleged DST was paid by petitioner on instruments, documents, and papers evidencing sales, barter or exchange of shares of stock listed and traded through the local stock exchange; and the letter of the BIR RAD did not contain an admission of entitlement of refund by petitioner. Upon careful review of the records and after considering the arguments of both parties, the Court finds no compelling reason to modify or reverse its Decision. The issues and arguments raised by petitioner in its motion has already been amply discussed and passed upon and considered by the Court in the assailed decision. As correctly pointed out by respondent, the case above-cited by petitioner applies to claim for refund of creditable withholding taxes, hence, not applicable to this case. To reiterate, the evidence presented by petitioner is insufficient to fully establish that there was actual payment of DST on instruments, documents, and papers evidencing sale, barter or exchange of shares of stock listed and traded through the local stock exchange. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . cISAHT (SGD.) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 201-207. 2. Rollo , pp. 178-191.