BIR Ruling [DA-562-04]

November 9, 2004 BIR RULING [DA-562-04] 22 (B), 27 (A), 196, 57 (B) DA-096-2000 Ms. Teresita M. Diato Anabu, Imus, Cavite M a d a m : This refers to your letter dated October 22, 2004 as follows: 1. Sometime in November 3, 2004, Teresita M. Diato (the Owner) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with New Gold Band Realty and Development Corporation (the Developer) wherein you are also the majority stockholder and President, for the development of your 10,979 sq.m. property located at San Jose, Municipality of Dasmarias, Province of Cavite, into an economy type residential subdivision with a lot sharing of 50-50 for the resultant lots of the subdivision; 2. In accordance with the joint venture agreement, the Developer shall be responsible for the surveys, preparation of plans and design, securing all permits and licenses with HLURB, DAR, NHA and city government at its own expense; and 3. The same Joint Venture Agreement was already executed to transfer the 50% share of the Developer in the resultant subdivision lots. In reply, please be informed that pursuant to Section 22(B) of the Tax Code of 1997, the term "corporation" includes partnerships, no matter how created or organized, joint stock companies, joint accounts ( cuentas en participacion ), associations, or insurance companies, but does not include general professional partnerships and a joint venture or consortium formed for the purpose of undertaking construction projects or engaging in petroleum, coal, geothermal and other energy operations pursuant to an operating or consortium agreement under a service contract with the Government. P.D. No. 29 amended the definition of the taxable corporation as not to include joint venture formed for the purpose of undertaking construction projects. The reasons for such amendment are: (1) Local contractors contribute substantially to the development program of the country; (2) Local contractors are at a disadvantage in competitive bidding with foreign contractors in view of limited capital and financial resources; (3) In order to be able to compete with big foreign contractors, it may be necessary for them to enter into joint ventures to pool their limited resources in undertaking big construction projects; (4) To assist them in achieving competitiveness with foreign contractors, the joint ventures formed by them should not be considered as additional income tax lien. STHDAc Considering therefore, that it is the intention of the legislature to exclude joint venture or consortium formed for the purpose of undertaking construction projects from the definition of taxable corporation, this Office hereby opines that the joint venture by and between the Owners and the Developer is not subject to income tax under Section 27 of the Tax Code of 1997. The assignment by the Owners to the Developer of its corresponding share of the resultant subdivision lots in the aforesaid project is not a taxable event that will give rise to the payment of regular income tax/creditable withholding tax, because the aforestated assignment is a mere return of capital contribution, and therefore not a taxable event. (BIR Ruling No. DA-192-2001 dated October 17, 2001) The Joint Venture Agreement, whereby the Owners and the Developer will allocate unto each other their share in the saleable area, in consideration of their respective contributions is not subject to the documentary stamp tax imposed under Section 196 of the Tax Code of 1997 because the allocation is made without monetary consideration and is not in connection with a sale. The allocation is made merely to segregate the saleable area between the parties, as the return of the capital which each has contributed. However, the acknowledgement to said Joint Venture Agreement is subject to the documentary stamp tax pursuant to Section 188 of the Tax Code of 1997. (BIR Ruling No. DA-240-2001 dated November 16, 2001) The transfer is also not subject to VAT since under Section 105 of the Tax Code of 1997, any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges, leases goods or properties, renders services and any person who imports goods shall be subject to VAT imposed in Sections 106 to 108 of the same Tax Code. Hence, by contributing the parcel of land, the Owners, neither sell, barter, exchange goods, properties nor render service to be subject to VAT. (BIR Ruling No. DA-240-2001 dated November 16, 2001; BIR Ruling No. DA-115-2001 dated September 5, 2001) It is understood however, that upon the subsequent disposition by the co-venturers of the areas allocated to them, the gain that may be realized by them from such sale will be subject to the creditable withholding tax under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, as amended by RR No. 6-2001 or capital gains tax under Section 24(D)(1), as the case may be. Moreover, such sale shall be subject to the documentary stamp tax imposed under Section 196 of the Tax Code of 1997, based on the gross selling price or fair market value of the properties, whichever is higher. Furthermore, the said sale shall likewise be subject to VAT. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be ascertained that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered null and void. Very truly yours, Commissioner of Internal Revenue By: (SGD.) MILAGROS V. REGALADO Assistant Commissioner Legal Service