1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.119286.October13,2004]

PASEO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,respondents.
DECISION
TINGA,J.:

The changes in the reportorial requirements and payment schedules of corporate income taxes
[1]
fromannualtoquarterlyhavecreatedproblems,especiallyonthematteroftaxrefunds. Inthiscase,
the Court is called to resolve the question of whether alleged excess taxes paid by a corporation
duringataxableyearshouldberefundedorcreditedagainstitstaxliabilitiesforthesucceedingyear.
PaseoRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation,adomesticcorporationengagedintheleaseoftwo
[2]
(2)parcelsoflandatPaseodeRoxasinMakatiCity,seeksareviewoftheDecision oftheCourtof
[3]
Appealsdismissingitspetitionforreviewoftheresolution oftheCourtofTaxAppeals(CTA)which,
inturn,denieditsclaimforrefund.
[4]

Thefactualantecedents areasfollows:
On April 16, 1990, petitioner led its Income Tax Return for the calendar year 1989 declaring a gross income of
P1,855,000.00, deductions of P1,775,991.00, net income of P79,009.00, an income tax due thereon in the
amount of P27,653.00, prior years excess credit of P146,026.00, and creditable taxes withheld in 1989 of
P54,104.00 or a total tax credit of P200,130.00 and credit balance of P172,477.00.
On November 14, 1991, petitioner led with respondent a claim for the refund of excess creditable withholding
and income taxes for the years 1989 and 1990 in the aggregate amount of P147,036.15.
On December 27, 1991 alleging that the prescriptive period for refunds for 1989 would expire on December 30,
1991 and that it was necessary to interrupt the prescriptive period, petitioner led with the respondent Court of
Tax Appeals a petition for review praying for the refund of P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes withheld
from income payments of petitioner for the calendar year ending December 31, 1989.
On February 25, 1992, respondent Commissioner led an Answer and by way of special and/or afrmative
defenses averred the following: a) the petition states no cause of action for failure to allege the dates when the
taxes sought to be refunded were paid; b) petitioners claim for refund is still under investigation by respondent
Commissioner; c) the taxes claimed are deemed to have been paid and collected in accordance with law and
existing pertinent rules and regulations; d) petitioner failed to allege that it is entitled to the refund or deductions
claimed; e) petitioners contention that it has available tax credit for the current and prior year is gratuitous and
does not ipso facto warrant the refund; f) petitioner failed to show that it has complied with the provision of
Section 230 in relation to Section 204 of the Tax Code.
After trial, the respondent Court rendered a decision ordering respondent Commissioner to refund in favor of
petitioner the amount of P54,104.00, representing excess creditable withholding taxes paid for January to
July1989.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

1/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

Respondent Commissioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, alleging that the P54,104.00 ordered to be
refunded has already been included and is part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which petitioner automatically
applied as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990.
In a resolution dated October 21, 1993 Respondent Court reconsidered its decision of July 29, 1993 and
dismissed the petition for review, stating that it has overlooked the fact that the petitioners 1989 Corporate
Income Tax Return (Exh. A) indicated that the amount of P54,104.00 subject of petitioners claim for refund has
already been included as part and parcel of the P172,477.00 which the petitioner automatically applied as tax
credit for the succeeding taxable year 1990.
[5]

Petitioner led a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by respondent Court on March 10, 1994.
[6]

PetitionerfiledaPetitionforReview datedApril3,1994withtheCourtofAppeals.Resolvingthe
twin issues of whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of P54,104.00 representing creditable taxes
withheldin1989andwhetherpetitionerappliedsuchcreditabletaxeswithheldtoits1990incometax
liability,theappellatecourtheldthatpetitionerisnotentitledtoarefundbecauseithadalreadyelected
toapplythetotalamountofP172,447.00,whichincludestheP54,104.00refundclaimed,againstits
income tax liability for 1990. The appellate court elucidated on the reason for its dismissal of
petitionersclaimforrefund,thus:
In the instant case, it appears that when petitioner led its income tax return for the year 1989, it lled up the box
stating that the total amount of P172,477.00 shall be applied against its income tax liabilities for the succeeding
taxable year.
Petitioner did not specify in its return the amount to be refunded and the amount to be applied as tax credit to the
succeeding taxable year, but merely marked an x to the box indicating to be applied as tax credit to the
succeeding taxable year. Unlike what petitioner had done when it led its income tax return for the year 1988, it
specically stated that out of the P146,026.00 the entire refundable amount, only P64,623.00 will be made
available as tax credit, while the amount of P81,403.00 will be refunded.
In its 1989 income tax return, petitioner lled up the box to be applied as tax credit to succeeding taxable year,
which signied that instead of refund, petitioner will apply the total amount of P172,447.00, which includes the
amount of P54,104.00 sought to be refunded, as tax credit for its tax liabilities in 1990. Thus, there is really
nothing left to be refunded to petitioner for the year 1989. To grant petitioners claim for refund is tantamount to
granting twice the refund herein sought to be refunded, to the prejudice of the Government.
[7]

TheCourtofAppealsdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsideration datedNovember8,1994in
[8]
itsResolution datedFebruary21,1995becausethemotionmerelyrestatedthegroundswhichhave
[9]
alreadybeenconsideredandpasseduponinitsDecision.
[10]

Petitioner thus filed the instant Petition for Review dated April 14, 1995 arguing that the
evidencepresentedbeforethelowercourtsconclusivelyshowsthatitdidnotapplytheP54,104.00to
its1990incometaxliabilitythattheDecisionsubjectoftheinstantpetitionisinconsistentwithafinal
[11]
decision of the Sixteenth Division of the appellate court in C.A.G.R. Sp. No. 32890 involving the
same parties and subject matter and that the affirmation of the questioned Decision would lead to
absurdresultsinthemannerofclaimingrefundsorintheapplicationofprioryearsexcesstaxcredits.
[12]

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment dated May 16, 1996 on behalf of
respondents asserting that the claimed refund of P54,104.00 was, by petitioners election in its
Corporate Annual Income Tax Return for 1989, to be applied against its tax liability for 1990. Not
havingsubmitteditstaxreturnfor1990toshowwhetherthesaidamountwasindeedappliedagainst
its tax liability for 1990, petitioners election in its tax return stands. The OSG also contends that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

2/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

petitioners election to apply its overpaid income tax as tax credit against its tax liabilities for the
succeedingtaxableyearismandatoryandirrevocable.
[13]

OnSeptember2,1997,petitionerfiledaReply datedAugust31,1996insistingthattheissuein
thiscaseisnotwhethertheamountofP54,104.00wasincludedastaxcredittobeappliedagainstits
1990 income tax liability but whether the same amount was actually applied as tax credit for 1990.
Petitioner claims that there is no need to show that the amount of P54,104.00 had not been
automatically applied against its 1990 income tax liability because the appellate courts decision in
C.A.G.R.Sp.No.32890clearlyheldthatpetitionerchargedits1990incometaxliabilityagainstitstax
creditfor1988andnot1989.PetitioneralsodisputestheOSGsassertionthatthetaxpayerselection
as to the application of excess taxes is irrevocable averring that there is nothing in the law that
prohibitsataxpayerfromchangingitsmindespeciallyifsubsequenteventsleavethelatternochoice
buttochangeitselection.
[14]

TheOSGfiledaRejoinder datedMarch5,1997statingthatpetitioners1988taxreturnshowsa
prior years excess credit of P81,403.00, creditable tax withheld of P92,750.00 and tax due of
P27,127.00.PetitionerindicatedthattheprioryearsexcesscreditofP81,403.00wastoberefunded,
whiletheremainingamountofP64,623.00(P92,750.00P27,127.00)shallbeconsideredastaxcredit
for1989.However,inits1989taxreturn,petitionerincludedtheP81,403.00whichhadalreadybeen
segregated for refund in the computation of its excess credit, and specified that the full amount of
P172,479.00* (P81,403.00 + P64,623.00 + P54,104.00** P27,653.00***) be considered as its tax
creditfor1990.Consideringthatithadobtainedafavorablerulingfortherefundofitsexcesscreditfor
1988 in CAG.R. SP. No. 32890, its remaining tax credit for 1989 should be the excess credit to be
appliedagainstits1990taxliability.Infine,theOSGarguesthatbyitsownelection,petitionercanno
longeraskforarefundofitscreditabletaxeswithheldin1989asthesamehadbeenappliedagainst
its1990taxdue.
[15]

InitsResolution datedJuly16,1997,theCourtgaveduecoursetothepetitionandrequiredthe
parties to simultaneously file their respective memoranda within 30 days from notice. In compliance
[16]
with this directive, petitioner submitted its Memorandum dated September 18, 1997 in due time,
[17]
while the OSG filed its Memorandum dated April 27, 1998 only on April 29, 1998 after several
extensions.
Thepetitionmustbedenied.
Asamatterofprinciple,itisnotadvisableforthisCourttosetasidetheconclusionreachedbyan
agencysuchastheCTAwhichis,bytheverynatureofitsfunctions,dedicatedexclusivelytothestudy
andconsiderationoftaxproblemsandhasnecessarilydevelopedanexpertiseonthesubject,unless
[18]
therehasbeenanabuseorimprovidentexerciseofitsauthority.
ThisinterdictionfindsparticularapplicationinthiscasesincetheCTA,aftercarefulconsideration
of the merits of the Commissioner of Internal Revenues motion for reconsideration, reconsidered its
earlierdecisionwhichorderedthelattertorefundtheamountofP54,104.00topetitioner.Itsresolution
cannotbesuccessfullyassailedbased,asitis,onthepertinentlawsasappliedtothefacts.
Petitioners1989taxreturnindicatesanaggregatecreditabletaxofP172,477.00,representingits
1988excesscreditofP146,026.00and1989creditabletaxofP54,104.00lesstaxduefor1989,which
[19]
it elected to apply as tax credit for the succeeding taxable year. According to petitioner, it
successivelyutilizedthisamountwhenitobtainedrefundsinCTACaseNo.4439(C.A.G.R.Sp.No.
32300)andCTACaseNo.4528(C.A.G.R.Sp.No.32890),andappliedits1990taxliability,leavinga
[20]
balance of P54,104.00, the amount subject of the instant claim for refund. Represented
mathematically,petitioneraccountsforitsclaiminthiswise:
P172,477.00 Amount indicated in petitioners 1989 tax return to be applied as tax credit for the succeeding
taxable year
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

3/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

- 25,623.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4439 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32300)
P146,854.00 Balance as of April 16, 1990
- 59,510.00 Claim for refund in CTA Case No. 4528 (C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 32890)
P87,344.00 Balance as of January 2, 1991
- 33,240.00 Income tax liability for calendar year 1990 applied as of April 15, 1991
[21]

P54,104.00 Balance as of April 15, 1991 now subject of the instant claim for refund

Other than its own bare allegations, however, petitioner offers no proof to the effect that its
creditable tax of P172,477.00 was applied as claimed above. Instead, it anchors its assertion of
[22]

entitlementtorefundonanallegedfindinginC.A.G.R.Sp.No.32890 involvingthesamepartiesto
theeffectthatpetitionerchargedits1990incometaxliabilitytoitstaxcreditfor1988andnotits1989
taxcredit.Hence,itsexcesscreditabletaxeswithheldofP54,104.00for1989wasleftuntouchedand
mayberefunded.
Noteshouldbetaken,however,thatnowhereinthecasereferredtobypetitionerdidtheCourtof
Appealsmakeacategoricaldeterminationthatpetitionerstaxliabilityfor1990wasappliedagainstits
1988taxcredit.Thestatementadvertedtobypetitionerwasactuallypresentedintheappellatecourts
decisioninCAG.R.SpNo.32890aspartofpetitionersownnarrationoffacts.Thepertinentportionof
thedecisionreads:
It would appear from petitioners submission as follows:
xxx since it has already applied to its prior years excess credit of P81,403.00 (which petitioner wanted refunded
when it led its 1988 Income Tax Return on April 14, 1989) the income tax liability for 1988 of P28,127.00 and
the income tax liability for 1989 of P27,653.00, leaving a balance refundable of P25,623.00 subject of C.T.A.
Case No. 4439, the P92,750.00 (P64,623.00 plus P28,127.00, since this second amount was already applied to
the amount refundable of P81,403.00) should be the refundable amount. But since the taxpayer again used part of
it to satisfy its income tax liability of P33,240.00 for 1990, the amount refundable was P59,510.00, which is the
amount prayed for in the claim for refund and also in the petitioner (sic) for review.
That the present claim for refund already consolidates its claims for refund for 1988, 1989, and 1990, when it
led a claim for refund of P59,510.00 in this case (CTA Case No. 4528). Hence, the present claim should be
[23]
resolved together with the previous claims.
Theconfusionastopetitionersentitlementtoarefundcouldaltogetherhavebeenavoidedhadit
presenteditstaxreturnfor1990.Suchreturnwouldhaveshownwhetherpetitioneractuallyappliedits
1989 tax credit of P172,477.00, which includes the P54,104.00 creditable taxes withheld for 1989
subjectoftheinstantclaimforrefund,againstits1990taxliabilityasithadelectedinits1989return,
or at least, whether petitioners tax credit of P172,477.00 was applied to its approved refunds as it
claims.
The return would also have shown whether there remained an excess credit refundable to
petitionerafterdeductingitstaxliabilityfor1990.Asitis,weonlyhavepetitionersallegationthatitstax
duefor1990wasP33,240.00andthatthiswasappliedagainstitsremainingtaxcreditsusingitsown
firstin,firstoutmethodofcomputation.
ItwouldhavebeendifferenthadpetitionernotincludedtheP54,104.00creditabletaxesfor1989
in the total amount it elected to apply against its 1990 tax liabilities. Then, all that would have been
requiredofpetitionerare:proofthatitfiledaclaimforrefundwithinthetwo(2)yearprescriptiveperiod
provided under Section 230 of the NIRC evidence that the income upon which the taxes were
withheldwasincludedinitsreturnandtoestablishthefactofwithholdingbyacopyofthestatement
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

4/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

[24]

(BIRFormNo.1743.1)issuedbythepayor tothepayeeshowingtheamountpaidandtheamount
oftaxwithheldtherefrom.However,sincepetitioneroptedtoapplyitsaggregateexcesscreditsastax
credit for 1990, it was incumbent upon it to present its tax return for 1990 to show that the claimed
refundhadnotbeenautomaticallycreditedandappliedtoits1990taxliabilities.
Thegrantofarefundisfoundedontheassumptionthatthetaxreturnisvalid,i.e.,thatthefacts
[25]

statedthereinaretrueandcorrect. Withoutthetaxreturn,itiserrortograntarefundsinceitwould
bevirtuallyimpossibletodeterminewhetherthepropertaxeshavebeenassessedandpaid.
Why petitioner failed to present such a vital piece of evidence confounds the Court. Petitioner
couldverywellhaveattachedacopyofitsfinaladjustmentreturnfor1990whenitfileditsclaimfor
[26]

refund on November 13, 1991. Annex B of its PetitionforReview dated December 26, 1991 filed
withtheCTA,infact,statesthatitsannualtaxreturnfor1990wassubmittedinsupportofitsclaim.
Yet,petitionerstaxreturnfor1990isnowheretobefoundintherecordsofthiscase.
Hadpetitionerpresentedits1990taxreturninrefutationofrespondentCommissionersallegation
that it did not present evidence to prove that its claimed refund had already been automatically
creditedagainstits1990taxliability,theCTAwouldnothavereconsidereditsearlierDecision.Asitis,
the absence of petitioners 1990 tax return was the principal basis of the CTAs Resolution
reconsideringitsearlierDecisiontograntpetitionersclaimforrefund.
Petitioner could even still have attached a copy of its 1990 tax return to its petition for review
before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, being a trier of facts, is authorized to receive it in
evidenceandwouldlikelyhavetakenitintoaccountinitsdispositionofthepetition.
[27]

InBPIFamilySavingsBankv.CourtofAppeals, although petitioner failed to present its 1990

tax return, it presented other evidence to prove its claim that it did not apply and could not have
appliedtheamountindisputeastaxcredit.Importantly,petitionerthereinattachedacopyofitsfinal
adjustmentreturnfor1990toitsmotionforreconsiderationbeforetheCTAbuttressingitsclaimthatit
incurredanetlossandisthusentitledtorefund.Consideringthisfact,theCourtheldthatthereisno
reasonfortheBIRtowithholdthetaxrefund.
Inthiscase,petitionersfailuretopresentsufficientevidencetoproveitsclaimforrefundisfatalto
itscause.Afterall,itisaxiomaticthataclaimanthastheburdenofprooftoestablishthefactualbasis
of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly
[28]
againstthetaxpayer.
Section 69, Chapter IX, Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines (NIRC)
provides:
Sec. 69. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 24 shall le a nal adjustment
return covering the total net income for the preceding calendar or scal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax
payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable net income of
that year the corporation shall either:
(a) Pay the excess tax still due; or
(b) Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.
In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the
refundable amount shown on its nal adjustment return may be credited against the estimated quarterly
income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year. [Emphasis supplied]
RevenueRegulationNo.1077oftheBureauofInternalRevenueclarifies:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

5/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

SEC. 7. Filing of nal or adjustment return and nal payment of income tax. A nal or an adjustment return on
B.I.R. Form No. 1702 covering the total taxable income of the corporation for the preceding calendar or scal
year shall be led on or before the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the calendar or scal year.
The return shall include all the items of gross income and deductions for the taxable year. The amount of income
tax to be paid shall be the balance of the total income tax shown on the nal or adjustment return after deducting
therefrom the total quarterly income taxes paid during the preceding rst three quarters of the same calendar or
scal year.
Any excess of the total quarterly payments over the actual income tax computed and shown in the adjustment or
nal corporate income tax return shall either (a) be refunded to the corporation, or (b) may be credited against
the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the quarters of the succeeding taxable year. The corporation
must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return its intention whether to request for refund of the
overpaid income tax or claim for automatic credit to be applied against its income tax liabilities for the
quarters of the succeeding taxable year by lling up the appropriate box on the corporate tax return
(B.I.R. Form No. 1702). [Emphasis supplied]
Asclearlyshownfromtheabovequotedprovisions,incasethecorporationisentitledtoarefund
of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its final
adjustmentreturnmaybecreditedagainsttheestimatedquarterlyincometaxliabilitiesforthetaxable
quarters of the succeeding year. The carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a
giventaxableyearislimitedtothesucceedingtaxableyearonly.
IntherecentcaseofABLeasingandFinanceCorporationv.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,
where the Court declared that [T]he carrying forward of any excess or overpaid income tax for a
given taxable year then is limited to the succeeding taxable year only, we ruled that since the case
involved a claim for refund of overpaid taxes for 1993, petitioner could only have applied the 1993
excesstaxcreditstoits1994incometaxliabilities.Tofurthercarryoverto1995the1993excesstax
creditsisviolativeofSection69oftheNIRC.
[29]

In this case, petitioner included its 1988 excess credit of P146,026.00 in the computation of its
total excess credit for 1989. It indicated this amount, plus the 1989 creditable taxes withheld of
P54,104.00oratotalofP172,477.00,asitstotalexcesscredittobeappliedastaxcreditfor1990.By
itsowndisclosure,petitionereffectivelycombinedits1988and1989taxcreditsandappliedits1990
taxdueofP33,240.00againstthetotal,andnotagainstitscreditabletaxesfor1989onlyasallowed
by Section 69. This is a clear admission that petitioners 1988 tax credit was incorrectly and illegally
appliedagainstits1990taxliabilities.
Parenthetically,whileataxpayerisgiventhechoicewhethertoclaimforrefundorhaveitsexcess
taxesappliedastaxcreditforthesucceedingtaxableyear,suchelectionisnotfinal.Priorverification
andapprovalbytheCommissionerofInternalRevenueisrequired.Theavailmentoftheremedyoftax
creditisnotabsoluteandmandatory.Itdoesnotconferanabsoluterightonthetaxpayertoavailof
thetaxcreditschemeifitsochooses.Neitherdoesitimposeadutyonthepartofthegovernmentto
sit back and allow an important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the
[30]

taxpayer.

Contrarytopetitionersassertionhowever,thetaxpayerselection,signifiedbythetickingofboxes
inItem10ofBIRFormNo.1702,isnotameretechnicalexercise.Itaidsinthepropermanagementof
claimsforrefundortaxcreditbyleadingtaxauthoritiestothedirectiontheyshouldtakeinaddressing
theclaim.
[31]

TheamendmentofSection69bywhatisnowSection76ofRepublicActNo.8424 emphasizes
thatitisimperativetoindicateinthetaxreturnorthefinaladjustmentreturnwhetherataxcreditor
refundissoughtbymakingthetaxpayerschoiceirrevocable.Section76provides:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

6/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall le a nal adjustment
return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or scal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax
payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that
year, the corporation shall either:
(A) Pay the balance of the tax still due; or
(B) Carry-over the excess credit; or
(C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be.
In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid,
the excess amount shown on its nal adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated
quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to
carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of
the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable
period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certicate shall be allowed therefore.
[Emphasis supplied]
As clearly seen from this provision, the taxpayer is allowed three (3) options if the sum of its
quarterlytaxpaymentsmadeduringthetaxableyearisnotequaltothetotaltaxdueforthatyear:(a)
paythebalanceofthetaxstilldue(b)carryovertheexcesscreditor(c)becreditedorrefundedthe
amountpaid.Ifthetaxpayerhaspaidexcessquarterlyincometaxes,itmaybeentitledtoataxcredit
or refund as shown in its final adjustment return which may be carried over and applied against the
estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years.
However,oncethetaxpayerhasexercisedtheoptiontocarryoverandtoapplytheexcessquarterly
income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years, such
option is irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax
creditcertificateshallbeallowed.
Hadthisprovision been in effect when the present claim for refund wasfiled,petitionersexcess
creditsfor1988couldhavebeenproperlyappliedtoits1990taxliabilities.Unfortunatelyforpetitioner,
thisisnotthecase.
Taxationisadestructivepowerwhichinterfereswiththepersonalandpropertyrightsofthepeople
andtakesfromthemaportionoftheirpropertyforthesupportofthegovernment.Andsincetaxesare
whatwepayforcivilizedsociety,orarethelifebloodofthenation,thelawfrownsagainstexemptions
from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the
taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. A claim of refund or exemption from tax
payments must be clearly shown and be based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.
[32]

Elsewisestated,taxationistherule,exemptiontherefromistheexception.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisDENIED.ThechallengeddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsis
herebyAFFIRMED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,andCallejo,Sr.,JJ.,concur.
ChicoNazario,J.,onleave.
[1]

The provision on the filing of corporate returns was first amended by P.D. 1158A (June 3, 1977), which required the
filingofquarterlyincometaxreturns.TheamendmentwasincorporatedintheNationalInternalRevenueCodeof
1977. P.D. 1705 (August 1, 1980) and P.D. 1773 (January 16, 1981) further amended the provision. The
amendmentwasincorporatedinsubsequenttaxcodesuptothepresentTaxReformActof1997.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

7/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

[2]

Dated October 14, 1994 penned by Associate Justice Consuelo YnaresSantiago (now an Associate Justice of this
Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Emeterio C. Cui and Conchita Carpio Morales (now also an
AssociateJusticeofthisCourt)AnnexBoftheinstantPetitionforReviewRollo,pp.3740.

[3]

DatedOctober21,1993CTARecords,pp.7275.

[4]

Supra,note1.

[5]

Id.at37,pp.12oftheDecision.

[6]

Id.at2434,AnnexAoftheinstantpetition.

[7]

Id.at4146,AnnexCoftheinstantpetition.

[8]

Id.at53,AnnexEoftheinstantpetition.

[9]

Ibid.

[10]

Rollo,pp.1064,withAnnexes.

[11]

PennedbyAssociateJusticeMinervaP.GonzagaReyes(nowretiredAssociateJusticeofthisCourt)AnnexFofthe
instantpetition,Rollo,pp.5564.

[12]

Id.at109118.

[13]

Id.at123131.

[14]

Id.at196199.

*ShouldbeP172,477.00.
**Representingthecreditabletaxeswithheldatsourcefor1989.
***Representingthetaxduefor1989.
[15]

Id.at201.

[16]

Id.at206216.

[17]

Id.at251264.

[18]

SeaLandService,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.122605,April30,201,357SCRA441Reyesv.Commissionerof
InternalRevenue,G.R.Nos.L2402021,July29,1968,24SCRA198.

[19]

Supra,note3at3Exh.AofthepetitionforreviewdatedDecember26,1991.

[20]

Supra,note2at212213,petitionersMemorandum.

[21]

Ibid.

[22]

Supra,note11.

[23]

Supra,note2at6263.

[24]

Inthiscase,thelesseeofpetitionersproperties,Citibank.

[25]

CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.CourtofTaxAppeals,G.R.No.106611,July21,1994,234SCRA348.

[26]

Supra,note3at16.

[27]

386Phil.719(2000).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

8/9

1/22/2017

Paseo Realty vs CA: 119286 : October 13, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

[28]

Citibank,N.A.v.CourtofAppeals,345Phil.695(1997),280SCRA459CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.Tokyo
ShippingCo.,Ltd.,314Phil.220(1995).

[29]

G.R.No.138342,July8,2003,405SCRA380.

[30]

SanCarlosMillingCo.Inc.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,G.R.No.103379,November23,1993.

[31]

TaxReformActof1997.

[32]

MactanCebuInternationalAirportAuthorityv.Marcos,330Phil.392(1996),citationsomittedSeealsoCommissioner
ofInternalRevenuev.S.C.Johnson&Son,Inc.,368Phil.388(1999).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/119286.htm

9/9