Citibank, N.A.-Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

[C.T.A. CASE NO. 5477. April 11, 2000.] CITIBANK, N.A. PHILIPPINE BRANCH , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . D E C I S I O N This is a petition seeking for the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P4,898,352.60 allegedly representing overpaid gross receipts tax for the calendar year 1995. llcd The factual backdrop of the case are as follows: Petitioner is a resident foreign corporation duly organized and registered under the laws of the State of New York, U.S.A. and is authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission to engage in business in the Philippines. LibLex During the year 1995, Petitioner filed its Quarterly Percentage Tax Returns as follows: Exhibit Date Filed Period Covered Gross Receipts Tax Paid A April 20, 1995 Jan. March 1995 P775,006,970.73 P38,605,948.68 B July 20, 1995 Apr. June 1995 1,028,468,359.28 51,311,056.23 C October 20, 1995 July Sept. 1995 931,645,908.30 46,481,457.95 D January 22, 1996 Oct. Dec. 1995 1,156,578,406.56 57,723,926.03 TOTAL P3,891,699,644.87 P194,122,389 03 ============== ============ Part of Petitioner's gross receipts subjected to the gross receipts tax included interest income or yield derived from passive investments, inclusive of the 20% final withholding tax. And so Petitioner, citing this Court's decision in CTA Case No. 4720 entitled Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue promulgated last January 30, 1996 , where We ruled that the 20% final withholding tax on interest income should not form part of taxable gross receipts, filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue on March 12, 1997 a claim for the refund of its overpaid gross receipts tax for the year 1995 in the amount of P4,898,352.60 (Exh. E), computed as follows: Final Withholding Tax: First quarter, 1995 P16,627,230.07 Second quarter, 1995 P24,494,917.27 Third quarter, 1995 P36,641,837.79 Fourth quarter, 1995 20,203.066.94 Total P97,967,052.07 Gross Receipts Tax Rate x 5% Overpaid 5% Gross Receipts Tax P4,898,352.60 ============= There being no action on the part of Respondent and the two year prescriptive period provided for under Section 230 of the Tax Code was about to lapse, the instant petition was filed on March 26, 1997. In his Answer, Respondent claimed by way of Special and Affirmative Defenses that: "5. Petitioner's claim for refund is still undergoing administrative routinary investigation/examination by the respondent's Bureau; 6. The amount of tax sought by the petitioner to be refunded/credited was paid pursuant to law and BIR implementing rules and regulations, hence the same is not refundable. Petitioner must prove that the said income tax was actually paid, remitted and received by the respondent's Bureau, and that, the income from which the amount of tax was paid, were declared and included in its gross income during the year under review; LexLib 7. Petitioner's allegations that it overpaid its gross receipt tax for the year under review does not ipso facto warrant the refund. Petitioner must prove that it is indeed entitled to a refund under the Tax Code and its implementing rules and regulations. Moreover, the same must be supported by evidence; 8. Petitioner must likewise prove that the alleged refundable taxes were neither automatically applied as tax credit against its tax liability for the succeeding quarters of the succeeding year nor included as creditable taxes declared and applied to the succeeding taxable years; 9. Claims for tax refund are construed strictly against the claimant as it partakes of the nature of an exemption from tax and it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that it is entitled thereto under the law. Failure to prove the same is fatal to its claim for tax refund; 10. Moreover, petitioner must prove that it has complied with the provision of Section 230 of the Tax Code, as amended." cdlex The issues We are tasked to resolve are: 1. Whether or not the 20% final withholding tax derived from passive investments form part of gross receipts subject to the gross receipts tax; and 2. Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to the amount of P4,898,352.60 representing alleged overpaid gross receipts tax paid for the year 1995 on the basis of the evidence presented. As regards the first issue, this Court has already ruled in a number of cases involving claims for refund of overpaid gross receipts tax that the 20% final withholding tax on interest income should not form part of taxable gross receipts . As aptly cited by Petitioner, in the case of Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (CTA Case No. 4720), promulgated on January 30, 1996, this Court ruled: "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: cdll ". . . .The Government could not have meant to tax as gross receipt of the Manila Jockey Club the 1/2% 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 121/2% 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 1/2% 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 racetrack 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 ." cdll This aforequoted ruling was later on 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 . The Appellate Court citing the Manila Jockey Club case and the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Tours Specialist Inc. 183 SCRA 402 , ruled, thus: cdll "As demonstrated in the above-mentioned case, gross receipts subject to tax under the Tax Code do not include monies or receipts entrusted to the taxpayer which do not belong to them and do not redound to the taxpayer's benefit and it is not necessary that there must be a law or regulation which would exempt such monies and receipts within the meaning of gross receipts under the Tax Code. Parenthetically, the room charges entrusted by the foreign travel agencies to the private respondent (a local travel agency) do not form part of its gross receipts within the definition of the Tax Code. The said receipts never belonged to the private respondent. The private respondent never benefitted from their payment to the local hotels. As stated earlier, this arrangement was only to accommodate the foreign agencies." ( supra., at pages 409-412. Rollo ) (emphasis supplied). LexLib xxx xxx xxx "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. llcd xxx xxx xxx We now proceed to the factual issue. In support of its claim, Petitioner presented the following: Exhibits Description A to D Quarterly Percentage Tax Returns of Petitioner for the four (4)quarters of 1995. E Letter-claim for refund dated February 11, 1997 filed with the BIR on March 12, 1997 F to I Gross Receipts Tax Computations for the four quarters of 1995 EC and EE Partial and final reports of the audit firm Alba, Romeo & Co. ED-2 to ED-214 Trading order slips and other transaction documents relating to the purchase and sale of treasury bills by Petitioner for the year 1995 EF Letter addressed to Mr. Salamillas of Citibank from the Deputy Treasurer of the Bureau of Treasury EG Letter addressed to Citibank by the Government Securities Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Likewise, Petitioner offered as evidence the various debit and credit advices with the corresponding certificates of final withholding tax issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for calendar year 1995 showing the 20% final withholding tax paid by Petitioner on its purchases of treasury bills and notes, redemption of treasury bills and interest income earned from treasury notes. Respondent, on his part, manifested that he was not able to retrieve the records of this case and so, there being no evidence to present, he submitted the case for decision based on the pleadings.(p. 413. CTA Records) prcd After examining the evidence adduced by Petitioner, We rule against Petitioner. In order to be entitled to a refund of overpaid gross receipts tax, Petitioner must prove: 1. That it actually paid the 20% final withholding tax on its gross receipts from passive income; 2. That the 20% final withholding tax on passive income formed part of its gross receipts subjected to the gross receipts tax; and 3. That it actually paid the gross receipts tax due on its gross receipts from passive income, inclusive of the 20% final withholding tax. As to the first requirement, We give weight to the findings of Alba, Romeo & Co., the auditing firm engaged by Petitioner and commissioned by the Court to verify and examine the accuracy of the instant claim for refund. According to the final report of the said firm (Exh. EE), out of the P97,967,052.07 final withholding tax claimed by Petitioner, only the amount of P33,105,656.67 was verified to have been withheld based on treasury bills original trading orders/reprints generated by Petitioner's computerized Securities Treasury System (STS). Of this amount, P9,978,131.02 was supported by Central Bank debit advices and P5,319,755.61 was substantiated by Central Bank certificates of final taxes withheld, as follows: Supported by T-Bills Trading Orders Central Bank (Original Docs./ Central Bank Withholding Tax Gross Receipts STS Reprints) Debit Advices Certificates Discount P136,650,109.63 P34,950,984.40 P20,843,180.82 Trading gain (loss) 28,878,173.74 14,939,670.72 5,755,597.22 P165,528,283.37 P49,890,655.12 P26,598,778.04 ============= ============ ============= 20% Final Tax P33,105,656.67 P9,978,131.02 P5,319,755.61 ============= ============ ============= Since Petitioner must prove actual payment of the 20% final withholding tax, then it would seem that only the amount of P265,987.78 (5% of 5,319,755.61) of gross receipts tax may be refunded. However, Petitioner showed no proof of compliance with the second requirement. While Petitioner's 1995 quarterly taxable gross receipts (passive and non-passive) and the corresponding gross receipts taxes appearing in its 1995 quarterly percentage tax returns tallied with those appearing in the quarterly GRT computation schedules, the detailed transaction amounts as well as the supporting source documents were not presented. This is necessary in order to determine whether or not Petitioner's claim of P97,967,052.07 in final withholding taxes were included in its quarterly gross receipts from passive income subjected to the gross receipts tax. The above observations find support in the findings of the audit firm, Alba, Romeo & Co. which stated in its final report that it was able to verify the amount of P165,528,238.37 passive income with 20% final withholding taxes of P33,105,656.67 based on available treasury bill transaction documents. However, it was unable to trace the recording of the said passive income in Petitioner's books of accounts due to missing transaction sheets, thus: cdlex "The following exceptions were noted during our examination: 1. Because the income figures in the schedules were derived from documents through manual computation, the income figures could not be traced to recordings in the book of accounts due to missing transaction sheets." cdlex Verily, the audit firm failed to ascertain whether or not the said income of P165,528,238.37 (inclusive of the 20% final tax) was included in Petitioner's 1995 total passive income per books of P489,835,260.35 which became the basis of its 1995 gross receipts tax computation for passive income (Exhs. F to I) and declared as part of its 1995 total taxable gross receipts (passive and non-passive income) of P3,891,699,644.87 per the 1995 quarterly percentage tax returns. prcd Consequently, as Petitioner failed to prove the inclusion of the 20% final withholding tax of P97,967,052.02 in its 1995 gross receipts from passive income, then We cannot conclude with certainty that there was actual payment of the corresponding 5% gross receipts tax of P4,898,352.60. WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, Petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate of its overpaid gross receipts tax for the year 1995 is hereby DENIED for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge I CONCUR: (SGD.) RAMON O. DE VEYRA Associate Judge Separate Opinions The majority opinion denied the claim for refund due to insufficiency of evidence but upheld the ruling that the final withholding tax on certain passive income of a bank should be excluded from its gross receipts for purposes of computing the gross receipts tax. I humbly disagree with the aforementioned ruling primarily because this is based on this Court's decision in the case of Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4720 promulgated 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." LibLex 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. llcd The High Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Manila Jockey Club, Inc., 108 Phils. 821, June 30, 1960 , which was reaffirmed by the said Court in the case of Visayan-Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 357, February 27, 1965 cannot be considered as precedent cases, hence, inapplicable to the two cases decided by this Honorable Court in the cases of Compaia Maritima vs. Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 1426 dated November 14, 1966 and Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 4720 dated January 30, 1996 , for the following reasons: llcd In the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. case, the Club was authorized to operate horse races in which betting was made through the sale of tickets to the public. The total amount of bets called "wager fund" were distributed pursuant to Executive Order No. 320 and Republic Act No. 309, as follows: 87% as dividends to holders of winning tickets 12 1/2 as "commissions" of the Manila Jockey Club, of which 1/2 % was assigned to the Board on Races and 5% was distributed as prizes for owners of winning horses and authorized bonus for jockeys. According to the above-mentioned distribution of the "wager fund", the then Collector of Internal Revenue assessed the Club on the whole amount of its "commission" of 12 1/2. But since the Club had already paid the amusement tax based on its 7% share of the "commission", the amount assessable pertains only to the 5 1/2% for the period from November 1946 to October 1950. On various instances, the Club protested the proposed assessments and was sustained by the opinions of the Secretary of Justice rendered on three different occasions (Opinion No. 345, series of 1941; Opinion No. 249, series of 1952 and Opinion No. 340, series of 1955). Notwithstanding the opinions of the Secretary of Justice to the effect that the amount corresponding to the 5 1/2% was held only by the Club in trust for the owners of winning horses and authorized bonuses of jockeys, the then Collector of Internal Revenue demanded payment of amusement taxes for the period November 1946 to October 1950. Said demand letter was timely appealed to the Court of Appeals wherein a unanimous judgment was obtained reversing the Collector's stand on the matter. In the High Court, the position of the Secretary of Justice was sustained thereby upholding the Court of Tax Appeals' decision. cdlex Accordingly, gross receipts of the proprietor of the amusement place should not include any money which, although delivered to the amusement place was "especially earmarked" by law or legal rule and regulations for some persons other than the proprietor. Undeniably, they are money received by the racing club but they are moneys earmarked by law or regulations for winning horse owners and jockeys and never for a minute become the property of the race track. The same is true in the case of the 1/2% which the law directs the club to deliver to the Board on Races. The High Court therefore agrees with the stand of the Court of Tax Appeals that such funds representing 5 1/2% of the 12 1/2% "commissions" of the race track do not form part of the gross receipts, hence not subject to the amusement tax of 20%. cdlex The above-mentioned decision of the High Court was also applied in the case of Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 357, Nos. L-19530 and L-19444, February 27, 1965 . The legal issue involved in this case is the interpretation of the management contract entered into by and between the Bureau of Customs and Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. whereby the latter as contractor was appointed the sole manager of the Arrastre Service at the Port of Cebu City. In the said Management Contract, it was further agreed and understood that in consideration of the rights and privileges granted the Contractor for the management of the Arrastre Service, the Bureau of Customs shall receive twenty eight (28%) percent of the total monthly gross income derived from whatever source in connection with the operations of the Arrastre Service, payable within ten (10) days of the succeeding month. The main legal issue involved in this case is whether or not the gross receipts corresponding to the 28% of the total gross income of the Service Contractor delivered to the Bureau of Customs within ten (10) days of the following month should form part of the gross receipts subject to 3% contractor's tax under Section 191 of the Tax Code. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding the view that the said 28% payment by the Arrastre Contractor based on its monthly gross income should not form part of the gross receipts subject to 3% contractors tax and that paragraph 23 of the said Management Contract can legally be construed as a " regulation ". As the learned trial court has aptly observed: ". . . the government could not have intended to consider as gross receipts the 28% that went to one of its institutions, the Bureau of Customs, and thereby collect percentage tax on it from petitioner. To hold petitioner liable for the payment of percentage tax is unquestionably unjust and not contemplated by Section 191 of the Tax Code." All the above-mentioned decisions of the High Court made specific reference to gross receipts which are especially " earmarked by law or legal rule or regulation " as not forming part of the taxable gross receipts for purposes of the gross receipts tax under the Tax Code. For this purpose, it is pertinent to define the word "earmark" as a mark put upon a thing to distinguish it from another. Originally and literally, a mark upon the ear, a mode of marking sheep and other animals. Property is said to be earmarked when it can be identified or distinguished from other property of the same nature. To set apart from others (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 508). In the case of the Manila Jockey Club, Inc. Executive Order No. 320 and Republic Act No. 309 made the specific ''earmarking'' for distribution of the total wager fund to different persons other than the proprietor. The same is true in the case of Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. where the specific earmarking of the 28% of the total monthly gross income to be delivered to the Bureau of Customs by the Contractor was provided in paragraph 23 of the Management Contract. Such specific earmarking of the twenty percent (20%) final income tax as not includible in the gross receipts for purposes of the gross receipts tax was not provided by any law or legal rule or regulation, hence the non-applicability of the above-cited High Court decisions to the Asian Bank Corporation case. This legal observation is also in point in the case of Compaia Maritima case where the non-inclusion of the 10% reserve from the total cash collection to avoid claim for refund on freight and passengers tickets not taken is not provided by any law or legal rule or regulation. In the Asian Bank Corporation case, petitioner bank alleges that subjecting the gross receipts to the 20% final withholding income tax and later to the 5% gross receipts tax is not only oppressive and obnoxious but even a confiscatory form of double taxation. Double taxation has been defined "as the taxing of the same item or piece of property twice to the same person, or taxing it as the property of one person and again as the property of another, but this does not include the imposition of different taxes concurrently on the same property or income (e.g. federal and state income taxes), nor the taxation of the same piece of property to different persons when they hold different interests in it or when it represents different values in their hands, as when both the mortgagor and mortgagee of property are taxed in respect to their interests in it, or when a tax is laid upon the profits of the corporation and also upon the dividends paid to its stockholders" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 491). This acceptable form of double taxation is reflected in BIR Ruling No. 223 dated November 2, 1989, thus: "The 5% gross receipts tax under Section 120 of the Tax Code is collectible on all finance companies doing business in the Philippines from interests, discounts, and all other items treated as gross income under the Tax Code. Accordingly, your income derived from investing the excess funds in short-term market placements through commercial banks constitutes income hence, subject to the 5% gross receipts tax under said Section. The fact that it has been subjected to the 20% final withholding income 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) For as long as the basis for the claim for refund or tax credit certificate is based on the non-inclusion of the amount representing the final withholding income tax under Section 50(a) as part of the gross income subject to gross receipts tax, this dissenting opinion will stand. For purposes of the amusement tax under Section 260 of the Tax Code, the term gross receipts' embraces 'all the receipts' of the proprietor, lessee, or operator of the amusement place. The words 'all the receipts' refer to the total amount of cash received which becomes part of the funds of the taxpayer and does not include any money which has been specially earmarked by any law or legal rule or regulation for some other person other than the proprietor, lessee or operator of the amusement place. Receipts means actually received (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-3222, January 21, 1952) for itself and not for others, for otherwise they would not be receipts (Manila Jockey Club, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 205, April 15, 1958; Jai Alai Corporation of the Philippines vs. Araneta, CTA Case No. 108, July 31, 1956 Annotated, NIRC by Commissioner Jose Aranas, 1988 Edition, p. 687) . WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, I hereby register my dissent to the majority opinion and vote for the denial of the claim for refund for lack of legal basis. (SGD.) AMANCIO Q. SAGA Associate Judge