Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: Mindanao I and II (Mindanao) are value-added taxpayers, and Block Power Production Facilities accredited by
the Department of Energy. They had a Build-Operate-Transfer contract with the Philippine National Oil Corporation
Energy Development Company (PNOC-EDC), whereby Mindanao converts steam supplied to it by PNOC-EDC into
electricity, and then delivers the electricity to the National Power Corporation (NPC) in behalf of PNOC-EDC.
The Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2000 (EPIRA, RA 9136), amended the Tax Reform Act of 1997 (RA 8424),
when it decreed that sales of power by generation companies shall be subjected to a zero rate of VAT. Pursuant to
EPIRA, Mindanao I and II filed their claims for the issuance of tax credit certificates on unutilized or excess input
taxes from their sales of generated power and delivery of electric capacity and energy to NPC.
The CTA En Banc denied Mindanao IIs claims for refund tax credit for the first and second quarters of 2003, and
Mindanao Is claims for refund/tax credit for the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2003, for being filed out
of time.
The following are relevant dates:
CTA Case No.
Close of
quarter
when sales
were
made
filing case
with CTA Actual Date
of filing case with CTA (judicial
claim)
MINDANAO II
7227
1st Quarter
31 March 2003
31 March 2005
13 April 2005
12 Sept 2005
22 April 2005
7287
2nd Quarter
30 June 2003
30 June 2005
13 April 2005
12 Sept 2005
7 July 2005
7317
2005
30 Sept 2003
30 Sept 2005
13 April 2005
12 Sept 2005
Sept
MINDANAO I
7228
1st Quarter
31 March 2003
31 March 2005
4 April 2005
1 Sept 2005
22 April 2005
7286
2nd Quarter
30 June 2003
30 June 2005
4 April 2005
1 Sept 2005
7 July 2005
7318
4 April 2005
1 Sept 2005
9 Sept 2005
31 Dec. 2003
2 January 2006
[1] ISSUE: Whether the reckoning date for counting the two-year prescriptive period in Section 112 should be
counted from the end of the taxable quarter when the sales were made (Mirant) or the date of filing the return
(Atlas)?
HELD: Neither Atlas nor Mirant applies, because when Mindanao II and Mindanao I filed their respective
administrative and judicial claims in 2005, neither case had been promulgated. Atlas was promulgated on 8 June
2007, Mirant on 12 September 2008. Besides, Atlas merely stated that the two-year prescriptive period should be
counted from the date of payment of the output VAT, not from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales
involving the input VAT were made. The Atlas doctrine did not interpret, expressly or impliedly, the 120+30 day
periods.
Prescriptive Period for the Filing of Administrative Claims
Section 112(A) of the 1997 Tax Code was the applicable law at the time of filing of the claims in issue, therefore the
claims needed to have been filed within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were
made. Mindanao I and IIs administrative claims for the first quarter of 2003 had prescribed, but their claims for the
second, third and fourth quarters of 2003 were filed on time.
13 April 2005.
CIRs denial by
of 2003 was on
which was the
Mindanao II filed its judicial claim for the second quarter before the expiration of the 120-day period; it was thus
prematurely filed. However, pursuant to San Roque, the claim qualifies under the exception to the strict application
of the 120+30 day periods. Its judicial claims for the third quarter and fourth quarter of 2003 were filed on time.
Mindanao I filed its administrative claims for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2003 on 4 April 2005.
Counting 120 days after filing of the administrative claim with the CIR (2 August 2005) and 30 days after the CIRs
denial by inaction, the last day for filing a judicial claim was on 1 September 2005. However, the judicial claim
cannot be filed earlier than 2 August 2005, which is the expiration of the 120-day period for the Commissioner to
act on the claim. Mindanao I prematurely filed its judicial claim for the second quarter of 2003 but claim qualifies
under the exception in San Roque. Its judicial claims for the third and fourth quarters of 2003, however, were filed
after the prescriptive period.
[2] ISSUE: Whether the sale of the fully-depreciated Nissan Patrol is a one-time transaction not incidental to the VAT
zero-rated operation of Mindanao II, thus not VATable?
Mindanao II asserts that the sale of a fully depreciated Nissan Patrol is not an incidental transaction in the course of
its business but an isolated transaction that should not have been subject to 10% VAT. It does not follow that an
isolated transaction cannot be an incidental transaction for purposes of VAT liability. Indeed, a reading of Section
105 would show that a transaction in the course of trade or business includes transactions incidental thereto. In
the course of its business, Mindanao II bought and eventually sold a Nissan Patrol. Prior to the sale, the Nissan
Patrol was part of Mindanao IIs property, plant, and equipment. Therefore, the sale of the Nissan Patrol is an
incidental transaction made in the course of Mindanao IIs business which should be liable for VAT.
DISPOSITION: Petitions partially granted. The claim of Mindanao II for the first quarter of 2003 is DENIED, while its
claims for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2003 are GRANTED. The claims of Mindanao I for the first, third,
and fourth quarters of 2003 are DENIED while its claim for the second quarter of 2003 is GRANTED.
Digest by Cristina Madarieta
inShare1
FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE- Transitional Input Value
Added Tax
FACTS:
Petitioner was a real estate developer that bought from the national government a parcel of land that used to be
the Fort Bonifacio military reservation. At the time of the said sale there was as yet no VAT imposed so Petitioner did
not pay any VAT on its purchase. Subsequently, Petitioner sold two parcels of land to Metro Pacific Corp. In reporting
the said sale for VAT purposes (because the VAT had already been imposed in the interim), Petitioner claimed
transitional input VAT corresponding to its inventory of land. The BIR disallowed the claim of presumptive input VAT
and thereby assessed Petitioner for deficiency VAT.
ISSUE:
Is Petitioner entitled to claim the transitional input VAT on its sale of real properties given its nature as a real estate
dealer and if so (i) is the transitional input VAT applied only to the improvements on the real property or is it applied
on the value of the entire real property and (ii) should there have been a previous tax payment for the transitional
input VAT to be creditable?
HELD:
YES. Petitioner is entitled to claim transitional input VAT based on the value of not only the improvements but on the
value of the entire real property and regardless of whether there was in fact actual payment on the purchase of the
real property or not.
The amendments to the VAT law do not show any intention to make those in the real estate business subject to a
different treatment from those engaged in the sale of other goods or properties or in any other commercial trade or
business. On the scope of the basis for determining the available transitional input VAT, the CIR has no power to
limit the meaning and coverage of the term "goods" in Section 105 of the Tax Code without statutory authority or
basis. The transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT-registered persons, whether or not they
previously paid taxes in the acquisition of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies.