Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[C.T.A. CASE NO. 5406. January 26, 2000.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . D E C I S I O N This is a judicial claim for tax refund or credit in the aggregate amount of P17,504,775.48 allegedly representing excess payments of gross receipts tax ("GRT" for brevity) for taxable quarters beginning June 30, 1994 up to March 31, 1996. Petitioner is a private financial institution organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with office address at PNB Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila. The facts are simple. For the eight (8) taxable quarters covering the period June 30, 1994 up to March 31, 1996, Petitioner filed its quarterly percentage tax returns on gross receipts or earnings, inclusive of the 20% final withholding tax on interest income derived from investments, deposits and loans and paid correspondingly the GRT due thereon. On July 19, 1996, Petitioner filed amended quarterly percentage tax returns for the period involved herein with the 20% final withholding tax duly excluded from its gross receipts on account of the decision of this Court in Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4720, promulgated on January 30, 1996 , wherein it was ruled that the 20% final withholding tax on interest income should not form part of a bank's taxable gross receipts for GRT purposes. Such amendment thus reflected a reduced amount of taxable gross receipts and GRT liabilities with resulting overpayment of GRT when compared with previous returns, as follows: Period Covered Tax Due Per Tax Due Per Overpayment (Quarter-End) Original Return Amended Return For Refund June 30, 1994 107,483,285.27 105,127,122.33 2,356,162.94 September 30, 1994 114,292,729.36 111,817,191.57 2,475,537.79 December 31, 1994 118,443,383.42 116,573,108.77 1,870,274.65 March 31, 1995 127,781,909.47 125,733,423.93 2,048,485.54 June 30, 1995 105,615,948.79 102,932,534.56 2,683,414.23 September 30, 1995 136,977,975.85 134,253,099.12 2,724,876.73 December 31, 1995 137,565,078.91 135,893,668.65 1,671,410.26 March 31, 1996 133,260,982.62 131.586,369.28 1,674,613.34 TOTAL P981,421,293.69 P963,916,518.21 P17,504,775.48 ============= ============= =========== Simultaneous with the submission of such amended quarterly percentage returns, Petitioner filed with the Respondent at 2:34 p.m. of the same day, the corresponding written claim for tax refund or credit of the above mentioned overpaid GRT in the aggregate amount of P17,504,775.48. Later at 4:35 p.m. of even date, it likewise filed the instant petition for review before this Court allegedly on the ground that the recovery of the portions of its claim for refund for the period covering quarters ending June 30, 1994 and September 30, 1994 were about to be barred judicially when reckoned with the two-year prescriptive period for claiming such refund from date of payment of the tax, as provided under Section 230 of the old Tax Code, as amended. prcd At bar, Petitioner reasserts its stance a quo . On the other hand, Respondent avers, inter alia , the following special and affirmative defense, to wit: 7. Petitioner's allegation that it erroneously and excessively paid its gross receipts taxes during the quarters under review does not ipso facto warrant refund/credit. Petitioner must prove that the exclusions claimed by it from its gross receipts are allowable exclusions under the Tax Code and its pertinent implementing rules and regulations. Moreover, the same must be supported by evidence. Records show that both parties filed their respective memorandum. Petitioner merely reiterated its assertions while Respondent asseverated a new line of reasoning. He contends, inter alia , that the case of Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Jockey Club , 108 Phil. 821, cited in the Asian Bank Corporation case, supra , is not applicable because it dealt on gross receipts of a proprietor of an amusement place and not to a banking institution such as the Petitioner in the instant case; and that, the term 'gross earnings' which is synonymous to the term 'gross receipts' is defined as the entire earnings, receipts, or the like, under consideration, without any deduction', citing Words & Phrases, 1956 Ed ., p . 482 . prcd Respondent further contends as bereft of factual and legal basis the reliance of the Asian Bank Corporation case, supra , upon the provisions of Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 which declares in part that the rates of taxes to be imposed on the gross receipts of banking institutions shall be based only on all items of income actually received. He argues that it is erroneous to infer that the questioned items of income (20% final taxes) were not actually received by the petitioner because in the first place, no final tax can be withheld therefrom if such items of income were not actually received by it. Moreover, Respondent observes that under the clear language of Section 7(b) of the same Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, the 20% final withholding tax paid by the withholding agent on the interest income received by the Petitioner cannot be deducted or credited against the latter's income or any other taxes, including its gross receipts tax liabilities. The sole issue to be adjudicated in this case is whether or not Petitioner is legally and factually entitled to its claim at bar for tax refund or credit of overpaid gross receipts taxes. prcd After a painstaking scrutiny of the attending facts, the disquisition of the parties and the laws and jurisprudence in point, this Court rules in favor of the Petitioner, albeit on a reduced amount. The legal aspect of petitioner's claim for refund is not a case of first impression. As adverted to above, the case of Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , CTA Case No. 4720 promulgated on January 30, 1996 1 , has already enunciated the rule that the 20% final taxes already withheld by various withholding agents on the passive income of banks and non-banking intermediaries are to be excluded in the computation of the latter's obligation on the payment of gross receipts tax. We do not intend to depart from the wisdom of said case which is hereunder quoted, to wit: "The assessment for GRT is based on Section 119 of the Tax Code, quoted hereunder thus: SEC. 119. Tax on banks and non-bank financial intermediaries . There shall be collected a tax on gross receipts derived from sources within the Philippines by all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries in accordance with the following schedule: (a) On interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities as well as income from financial leasing, on the basis of remaining maturities of instruments from which such receipts are derived. LexLib Short-term maturity not in excess of two (2) years 5% Medium-term maturity-over two years but not exceeding four (4) years 3% Long-term maturity: (i) Over four (4) years but not exceeding seven (7) years 1% (ii) Over seven (7) years 0% (b) On dividends 0% (c) On royalties, rentals of property, real or personal, profits from exchange and all other items treated as gross income under Section 28 of this Code 5% Provided , however , That in case the maturity period referred to in paragraph (a) is shortened thru pretermination, then the maturity period shall be reckoned to end as of the date of pretermination for purposes of classifying the transaction as short, medium or long term and the correct rate of tax shall be applied accordingly. Nothing in this Code shall preclude the Commissioner from imposing the same tax herein provided on persons performing similar banking activities. The aforequoted provision of the law speaks of gross receipts as the basis of the 5% bank tax or GRT, and it is petitioner's contention that the interest income included as part of such gross receipts should be computed minus the final tax already withheld by various withholding agents for the reason that such amount did not actually go to its funds, hence was not actually received by them. We agree with the petitioner that the 20% final withholding tax on its interest income should not form part of its taxable gross receipts. xxx xxx xxx This conclusion is in accord with the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the case entitled Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Jockey Club, 108 Phil. 821, as quoted by this Court in disposing of a similar issue in the case entitled Compaia Maritima vs. Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 1426 dated November 14, 1996, thus: In the second place, the highest tribunal of the land interpreted the term: "gross receipts" to mean all receipts of a taxpayer excluding those which have been especially earmarked by law or regulation for the government or some person other than the taxpayer. Thus, it was held: ". . . The Government could not have meant to tax as gross receipt of the Manila Jockey Club the % which it directs same Club to turn over to the Board of Races. The latter being a Government institution, there would be double taxation, which should be avoided unless the statute admits of no other interpretation. In the same manner, the Government could not have intended to consider as gross receipt the portion of the funds which it directed the Club to give, or know the Club would give, to winning horses and Jockeys admitted 5%. It is true that the law says that out of the total wager funds 12% shall be set aside as the 'commission' of the track owners but the law itself takes official notice, and virtually approves or directs payment of the portion that goes to owners of horses as prized and bonuses of jockeys, which portion is admittedly 5% out of the 12% commission. As it did not at that time contemplate the application of 'gross receipts' revenue principle, the law in making a distribution of the total wager funds, took no trouble of separating one item from the other; and for convenience, grouped three items under one common denomination. "Needless to say, gross receipts of the proprietor of the amusement place should not include any money which although delivered to the amusement place has been especially earmarked by law or regulation for some person other than the proprietor." (The Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Jockey Club, Inc. G.R. Nos. L-13890 and L-13887, June 30, 1960) It is to be noted that, under Section 260 of the Tax Code, a race-track is subject to an amusement tax of 20% of its gross receipts and the term 'gross receipts' embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee, or operator of the amusement place." Notwithstanding the broad and all-embracing definition of the term "gross receipts" found in our amusement tax law, our Supreme Court did not adopt a literal interpretation of the said term in the case of the Manila Jockey Club, Inc., supra ." In fact this aforequoted ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the case entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Citytrust Investment Philippines, Inc., CA-G.R. SP No. 52707, dated August 17, 1999 when it ruled, thus: "Accordingly, the 20% final tax withheld against the Respondent's passive income was already remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the corresponding year that the same was actually withheld and considered final withholding taxes under Section 50 of the same code. Indubitably, to include the same to the Respondent's gross receipts for the year 1994 would be to tax twice the passive income derived by the Respondent for the said year, which would constitute double taxation anathema to our taxation laws. With the legal milieu of this case having been settled already, We now go into the examination of the exhibits adduced in evidence by the petitioner. Pursuant to CTA Circular No. 1-95, as amended, Petitioner availed of the independent audit services of Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. (SGV), an accounting firm, through the person of Mr. Ruben R. Rubio, who was thereupon commissioned by this Court to submit a special audit report on Petitioner's evidence on its passive interest income for the quarters involved, namely: Floating Rate Treasury Notes (FRTN), Passive Securities & Commercial Papers (PSCP), Landbank/MWSS Bonds, Long Term Commercial Papers (LTCP), Finman Capital, Treasury Bonds, Central Bank Bills & Treasury Bills. cdll Per audit, SGV reduced the amount of claim for tax refund or credit from the original amount of P17,504,775.48 to only P14,177,273.74. The difference was attributed to lack of supporting documents and discrepancy with regard to the amount of interest income. Based on its own examination, this Court readily concurs with the report of SGV, except for some adverse findings which necessitate disallowance. For the quarters ended June 30, 1994, September 30, 1994, December 31, 1994 and March 31, 1996, Petitioner failed to present the Certificates of Final Tax Withheld in order to prove the fact that the 20% final tax on its passive income from Landbank Bonds, PSCP, and Central Bank Bills and Treasury Bills were included in its quarterly percentage tax returns. It likewise failed to submit any kind of evidence at all for its passive income from LTCP for the quarter ended March 31, 1996. Due to these insufficiency or lack of evidence, the portions of Petitioner's claim for refund or tax credit corresponding to said commercial papers and taxable quarters were disallowed correspondingly. Overall, the total disallowance as found by this Court amounts to P391,860.36 2 , as follows: PERIOD COVERED PER SGV PER COURT'S DIFFERENCES/ (Quarter Ended) VERIFICATION VERIFICATION EXCEPTION June 30, 1994 P 1,656,358.01 P1,525,606.94 130,751.07 September 30, 1994 1,690,454.47 1,679,702.34 10,752.13 December 31, 1994 1,533,480.21 1,460,839.74 72,640.47 March 31, 1995 1,770,291.04 1,770,291.04 - June 30, 1995 2,252,406.94 2,252,406.94 - September 30, 1995 2,358,688.55 2,358,688.55 - December 31, 1995 1,410,149.87 1,410,149.87 - March 31, 1996 1.505.444.65 1,327,727.96 177,716.69 14,177,273.74 P13,785,413.38 P391,860.36 =========== =========== =========== Hence, Petitioner is only entitled to the amount of P13,785,413.38, after deducting therefrom the said amount of disallowance from P14,177,273.74, the amount arrived at by SGV. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, Respondent is hereby ORDERED to ISSUE a TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in the amount of P13,785,413.38 to the Petitioner immediately. LexLib SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge WE CONCUR: (SGD.) RAMON O. DE VEYRA Associate Judge (SGD.) AMANCIO Q. SAGA Associate Judge ANNEX A SCHEDULE OF FINAL AND GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 01, 1994 TO MARCH 31, 1996 A. SECOND QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1994 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT FINMAN 891,193.27 44,559.66 891,193.27 44,559.66 LANDBANK 354,723.23 17,736.16 354,723.23 17,736.16 PSCP/LTCP 2,313,319.32 115,665.97 2,313,319.32 115,665.97 TREASURY BONDS 17,576.71 878.84 17,576.71 878.84 - - FRTN 2,720,396.32 136,019.82 2,720,396.32 136,019.82 - - CB BILLS 278,127.61 13,906.38 254,553.21 12,727.66 23,574.40 1,178.72 T BILLS 26,551,823,78 1,327,591.18 26,426,480.23 1,321,324.00 125,343.55 6,267.18 TOTALS 33,127,160.94 1,656,358,01 30,664,922.97 1,533,246.14 2,462,237.27 123,111.87 ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= B. THIRD QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT FINMAN 880,816.83 44,040.84 880,816.83 44,040.84 - - LANDBANK 324,726.27 16,236.31 324,726.27 16,236.31 - - TREASURY BONDS 18,059.59 902.98 18,059.59 902.98 - - FRTN 1,068,962.95 53,448.15 1,068,962.95 53,448.15 - - CB BILLS 215,042.52 10,752.13 - - 215,042.52 10,752.13 T BILLS 31,301,481.21 1,565,074.06 31,301,481.21 1,565,074.06 - - TOTALS 33,809,089.37 1,690,454.47 33,594,046.85 1,679,702.34 215,042.52 10,752.13 ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= C. FOURTH QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1994 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT FINMAN 685,125.88 34,256.29 685,125.88 34,256.29 - - LANDBANK 295,896.52 14,794.83 295,896.52 14,794.83 - - TREASURY BONDS 17,769.86 888.49 17,769.86 888.49 - - PCSP 726,072.50 36,303.63 - - 726,072.50 36,303.63 LTCP 846,178.27 42,308.91 846,178.27 42,308.91 - - FRTN 712,249.13 35,612.46 712,249.13 35,612.46 - - CB BILLS 726,736.83 36,336.84 - - 726,736.83 36,336.84 T BILLS 26,659,575.16 1,332,978.76 26,659,575.16 1,332,978.76 - - TOTALS 30,669,604.15 1,533,480.21 29,216,794.82 1,460,839.74 1,452,809.33 72,640.47 ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= D. FIRST QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,1995 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT FINMAN 791,872.76 39,593.64 791,872.76 39,593.64 - - LANDBANK 339,320.07 16,966.00 339,320.07 16,966.00 - - TREASURY BONDS 17,093.84 854.69 17,093.84 854.69 - - PCSP 2,392,484.43 119,624.22 2,392,484.43 119,624.22 - - LTCP 1,491,418.28 74,570.91 1,491,418.28 74,570.91 - - FRTN 2,661,405.13 133,070.26 2,661,405.13 133,070.26 - - CB BILLS 175,125.91 8,756.30 175,125.91 8,756.30 - - T BILLS 27,537,100.37 1,376,855.02 27,537,100.37 1,376,855.02 - - TOTALS 35,405,820.79 1,770,291.04 35,405,820.79 1,770,291.04 - - ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= E. SECOND QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT LANDBANK 385,407.19 19,270.36 385,407.19 19,270.36 - - TREASURY BONDS 17,576.71 878.84 17,576.71 878.84 - - PCSP 3,816,607.01 190,830.35 3,816,607.01 190,830.35 - - LTCP 1,824,162.46 91,208.12 1,824,162.46 91,208.12 - - FRTN 5,103,000.43 255,150.03 5,103,000.43 255,150.03 - - CB/T BILLS 33,901,385.05 1,695,069.25 33,901,385.05 1,695,069.25 - - TOTALS 45,048,138.85 2,252,406.94 45,048,138.85 2,252,406.94 - - ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= F. THIRD QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT LANDBANK 466,141.22 23,307.06 466,141.22 23,307.06 - - TREASURY BONDS 18,059.59 902.98 18,059.59 902.98 - - PCSP 2,303,415.05 115,170.75 2,303,415.05 115,170.75 - - LTCP 1,060,588.62 53,029.43 1,060,588.62 53,029.43 - - FRTN 13,280,937.49 664,046.87 13,280,937.49 664,046.87 - - CB BILLS 169,242.60 8,462.13 169,242.60 8,462.13 - - T BILLS 29,875,386.49 1,493,769.33 29,875,386.49 1,493,769.33 - - TOTALS 47,173,771.06 2,358,688.55 47,173,771.06 2,358,688.55 - - ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= G. FOURTH QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT LANDBANK 684,048.24 34,202.41 684,048.24 34,202.41 - - TREASURY BONDS 17,769.85 888.49 17,769.85 888.49 - - PCSP 2,862,509.83 143,125.49 2,862,509.83 143,125.49 - - LTCP 1,061,878.14 53,093.91 1,061,878.14 53,093.91 - - FRTN 6,886,611.63 344,330.58 6,886,611.63 344,330.58 - - CB BILLS 136,622.01 6,831.10 136,622.01 6,831.10 - - T BILLS 16,553,557.73 827,677.89 16,553,557.73 827,677.89 - - TOTALS 28,202,997.43 1,410,149.87 28,202,997.43 1,410,149.87 - - ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= H. FIRST QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 SECURITIES PER SGV VERIFICATION PER COURTS VERIFICATION DIFFERENCE/EXCEPTION 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT 20% Final Tax 5% GRT LANDBANK 794,217.66 39,710.88 - - 794,217.66 39,710.88 TREASURY BONDS 17,286.99 864.35 17,286.99 864.35 - - PCSP 3,959,912.44 197,995.62 1,748,536.24 87,426.81 2,211,376.20 110,568.81 LTCP 446,794.33 22,339.72- - - 446,794.33 22,339.72 FRTN 8,142,900.19 407,145.01 8,142,900.19 407,145.01 - - CB BILLS 168,552.94 8,427.65 66,607.35 3,330.37 101,945.59 5,097.28 T BILLS 16,579,228.39 828,961.42 16,579,228.39 828,961.42 - - TOTALS 30,108,892.94 1,505,444.65 18,411,658.97 1,327,727.96 3,554,333.78 177,716.69 ============= =========== ============= ============= =========== ========= Separate Opinions SAGA , J ., dissenting : I humbly disagree with the majority opinion which granted the claim for refund of gross receipts taxes largely due to my firm belief that this is premised on an erroneous decision enunciated in the Asian Bank Corporation vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No . 4720 , promulgated by this Court on January 30, 1996. The decision in the Asian Bank case which established a precedent for cases having a similar issue, has as its legal basis Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 dated November 7, 1980 which states, thus: "Section 4. . . . (e) Gross receipts tax on banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, financing companies, and other non-bank financial intermediaries not performing quasi-banking activities . The rates of taxes to be imposed on the gross receipts of such financial institutions shall be based on all items of income actually received. Mere accrual shall not be considered, but once payment is received on such accrual or in cases of overpayment then the amount actually received shall be included in the tax base of such financial institutions, as provided hereunder." (Emphasis supplied) Note that in the Asian Bank case, said bank was being assessed for deficiency gross receipts tax of 5% for taxable year 1986 which at that time the aforequoted Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 had already been amended, superseded and omitted in the amendatory Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 dated October 12, 1984. In other words, the citation of Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 by Petitioner's counsel was erroneous in the sense that it misled this Court to adopt Petitioner's legal basis. The legal basis that should have been cited is Section 8(c) of Revenue Regulations 12-80 which became Section 7(c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 which provides, thus: "Section 8. . . . (c) If the recipient of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipts tax is imposed." Petitioner's counsel purposely did not cite said section because certainly it won't be able to get a refund or tax credit for the alleged overpaid gross receipts tax for obvious reasons. Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, as worded, is not a computation which is determinative of the amount to be used as basis of the 5% gross receipts tax. Rather, said Section is reflective of the method of accounting being adopted by the taxpayer, such as the cash receipts and disbursement method or the accrual method of accounting. Said methods of accounting comprise a set of rules for determining when and how to report income and deduction ( Consolidated Mines, Inc . vs . Court of Tax Appeals , L-18843, August 29, 1974 ). Thus, under the cash receipts and disbursements method, income earned by the taxpayer is not included in gross income until received and expenses are not deducted until paid within the taxable year. And in the case of the accrual method, income is included in gross income when earned, whether received or not, and expenses are allowed as deductions when incurred although not paid (BIR Ruling No. 35-98, April 13, 1998). The 5% gross receipts tax under Section 120 of the Tax Code is collectible from all finance companies doing business in the Philippines from interests, discounts and all other items treated as gross income under the Tax Code. Accordingly, its income derived from investing the excess funds in short-term market placements through commercial banks constitute income, hence, subject to the 5% gross receipts tax under said section. The fact that it has been subjected to the 20% final withholding tax under Section 50(a) is immaterial. Besides, the withholding tax is imposed under Title II of the Tax Code while the finance tax is provided under Title V thereof (BIR Ruling No. 223, November 2, 1989). The fact that the same income is subjected to two (2) different kinds of taxes would not make such payments a case of double taxation. By quoting a superseded revenue regulation, Petitioner in the Asian Bank case, led this Court to believe that indeed the basis of the gross receipts tax is total gross receipts exclusive of the 20% final withholding tax deducted and withheld under Section 50(a) of the Tax Code. Section 7(c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 clearly and categorically provides that the basis of such tax is inclusive of the final withholding tax. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the denial of the instant claim for refund on the ground of lack of legal basis. Footnotes 1. As well as in the later cases of Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4720, January 20, 1996; China Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5433, October 7, 1998; AB Leasing and Finance Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5432, April 7, 1999; AB Capital Investment Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5436, April 7, 1999; BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5456, April 7, 1999; Standard Chartered Bank Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5435, July 12, 1999; Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5460, August 6, 1999 etc. 2. Please see annex A for details.