XAVIER UNIVERSITY - ATENEO DE CAGAYAN

TAXATION 2

CASE DIGEST – VALUE ADDED TAX

CASE GR NO./ SCRA

INTEL TECHNOLOGY VS CIR 522 SCRA 657
EASTERN TELECOM VS CIR GR 168856
SILICONE PHILIPPINES VS CIR GR 172378
CIR VS SAN ROQUE GR 187485

SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. CHERRY P. IBAOC

SUBMITTED BY:

SARAH JANE F. BEHIGA

INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE│G.R. No. 166732│April 27, 2007

The Facts

Intel is a domestic corporation engaged primarily in the business of designing, developing,

manufacturing and exporting advanced and large- scale integrated circuit components (ICs). It
is registered with the BIR as a value-added tax (VAT) entity in 1996; it is likewise registered with
the PEZA as an Ecozone export enterprise.

As a VAT-registered entity, petitioner filed with the CIR its Monthly VAT Declarations and
Quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of 1998 declaring zero-rated export sales of
₱2,538,906,840.16 and VAT input taxes from domestic purchases of goods and services in the
total amount of ₱11,770,181.70.

On May 18, 1999, petitioner filed with the CIR a claim for tax credit/refund of VAT input taxes on
its domestic purchases of goods and services directly used in its commercial operations.
Petitioner’s claim for refund amounted to ₱11,770,181.70 covering the period April 1, 1998 to
June 30, 1998. When the two-year prescriptive period to file a refund was about to lapse without
any action by the CIR on its claim, petitioner filed with the CTA a petition for review with the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) as respondent.

CTA rendered judgment denying petitioner’s claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed before the CA a petition for review of the tax court’s decision.

CA rendered its Decision affirming the CTA ruling.

Hence this petition.

The Issues

(1) Whether the absence of the BIR authority to print or the absence of the TIN-V in petitioner’s
export sales invoices operates to forfeit its entitlement to a tax refund/credit of its unutilized input
VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales; and

(2) Whether petitioner’s failure to indicate "TIN-V" in its sales invoices automatically invalidates
its claim for a tax credit certification.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is partially granted.

Under Sections 106 (A)(2)(a)(1) in relation to 112(A) of the Tax Code, a taxpayer engaged in
zero-rated or effectively zero-rated transactions may apply for a refund or issuance of a tax
credit certificate for input taxes paid attributable to such sales upon complying with the following
requisites: (1) the taxpayer is engaged in sales which are zero-rated (like export sales) or
effectively zero-rated; (2) the taxpayer is VAT-registered; (3) the claim must be filed within two
years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; (4) the creditable input
tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input tax, to the extent
that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax; and (5) in case of zero-rated
sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1) and (2), Section 106(B), and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the
acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in
accordance with BSP rules and regulations. It is added that, "where the taxpayer is engaged in
zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or
properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly or
entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the
basis of the volume of the sales."

In this connection, petitioner’s evidence, juxtaposed with the requirements of Sections 106
(A)(2)(a)(1) and 112(A) of the Tax Code, as enumerated earlier, sufficiently establish that it is
entitled to a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes.
Significantly, the CTA and the CA have similarly found petitioner to be legally entitled to a claim
for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of its unutilized VAT input taxes on domestic
purchases of goods and services attributable to its zero-rated sales.

As correctly argued by petitioner, there is no law or BIR rule or regulation requiring

petitioner’s authority from the BIR to print its sales invoices (BIR authority to print) to be
reflected or indicated therein.

It is clear that while entities engaged in business are required to secure from the BIR an
authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it is not
required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Only the following
items are required to be indicated in the receipts or invoices: (1) a statement that the seller is a
VAT-registered entity followed by its TIN-V; (2) the total amount which the purchaser pays or is
obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax;
(3) date of the transaction; (4) quantity of merchandise; (5) unit cost; (6) description of
merchandise or nature of service; (7) the name, business style, if any, and address of the
purchaser, customer or client in the case of sales, receipt or transfers in the amount of ₱100.00
or more, or regardless of the amount, where the sale or transfer is made by a person liable to
VAT to another person also liable to VAT, or where the receipt is issued to cover payment made
as rentals, commissions, compensations or fees; and (8) the TIN of the purchaser where the
purchaser is a VAT-registered person.

It should be noted that petitioner is engaged in export sales, such that the purchasers of its
goods are foreign entities, which are, logically, not VAT-registered in our country or liable to pay
VAT in our jurisdiction. Items (7) and (8) in the above enumeration do not, thus, apply to
petitioner; that is, they need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts, given that it
is an entity engaged in export sales, and the purchasers of its goods which are foreign entities
are not VAT-registered in our country nor liable to pay VAT in our jurisdiction.

In any case, the provisions of law and revenue regulations do not provide that failure to
reflect or indicate in the invoices or receipts the BIR authority to print, as well as the TIN-
V, would result in the outright invalidation of these invoices or receipts. Neither is it
provided that such omission or failure would result in the outright denial of a claim for tax
credit/refund. Instead, Section 264 of the Tax Code imposes the penalty of fine and
imprisonment for, among others, invoices or receipts that do not truly reflect or contain all the
required information.

The appellate court’s reliance on RMC No. 42-2003 is misplaced. In any case, the said Circular
was issued on July 15, 2003 while petitioner’s claim was filed on May 18, 1999. Hence, RMC
No. 42-2003 cannot be applied retroactively because to do so would be prejudicial to petitioner.
In a long line of cases, the Court has affirmed that the rulings, circulars, rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commissioner on Internal Revenue would have no retroactive application if
to so apply them would be prejudicial to the taxpayers.

It bears reiterating that while the pertinent provisions of the Tax Code and the rules and
regulations implementing them require entities engaged in business to secure a BIR authority to
print invoices or receipts and to issue duly registered invoices or receipts, it is not specifically
required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Indeed, what is
important with respect to the BIR authority to print is that it has been secured or obtained by the
taxpayer, and that invoices or receipts are duly registered.

In a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate attributable to zero-rated sales, what is
to be closely scrutinized is the documentary substantiation of the input VAT paid, as may be
proven by other export documents, rather than the supporting documents for the zero-rated
export sales. And since petitioner has established by sufficient evidence that it is entitled
to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate, in accordance with the requirements of
Sections 106 (A)(2)(a)(1) and 112(A) of the Tax Code, then its claim should not be denied,
notwithstanding its failure to state on the invoices the BIR authority to print and the TIN-
V.

What applies to petitioner, as a PEZA-registered export enterprise, is the Court’s

pronouncement that leniency in the implementation of the VAT is an imperative, precisely to
spur economic growth in the country and attain global competitiveness as envisioned in our
laws. The incentives offered to PEZA enterprises, among which are tax exemptions and tax
credits, ultimately redound to the benefit of the national economy, enticing as they do more
enterprises to invest and do business within the zones, thus creating more employment
opportunities and infusing more dynamism to the vibrant interplay of market forces.

Even as the Court now holds that petitioner is legally entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax
credit certificate of its unutilized VAT input taxes on domestic purchases of goods and services
attributable to its zero-rated sales, the case shall nevertheless be remanded to the CTA for
proper determination and computation of petitioner’s tax credit/refund.
EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 168856│August 29, 2012

The Facts

Petitioner Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) is a duly authorized corporation

engaged in telecommunications services by virtue of a legislative franchise. It has entered into
various international service agreements with international non-resident telecommunications
companies and it handles incoming telecommunications services for non-resident foreign
telecommunication companies and the relay of said international calls within the Philippines. In
addition, to broaden the coverage of its distribution of telecommunications services, it executed
several interconnection agreements with local carriers for the receipt of foreign calls relayed by
it and the distribution of such calls to the intended local end-receiver. From these services to
non-resident foreign telecommunications companies, ETPI generates foreign currency revenues
which are inwardly remitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP to its US
dollar accounts in banks. The manner and mode of payments follow the international standard
as set forth in the Blue Book or Manual prepared by the Consultative Commission of
International Telegraph and Telephony.

ETPI seasonably filed its Quarterly Value-Added Tax (VAT) Returns for the year 1999, later
amended on February 22, 2001. Believing that it is entitled to a refund for the unutilized input
VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales, ETPI filed with the BIR an administrative claim for
refund and/or tax credit in the amount of P 23,070,911.75 representing excess input VAT
derived from its zero-rated sales for the period from January 1999 to December 1999.

On March 26, 2001, without waiting for the decision of the BIR, ETPI filed a petition for review
before the CTA to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period. In its Decision, the CTA
(CTA-Division) denied the petition for lack of merit, finding that ETPI failed to imprint the word
"zero-rated" on the face of its VAT invoices or receipts, in violation of Revenue Regulations No.
7-95. In addition, ETPI failed to substantiate its taxable and exempt sales, the verification of
which was not included in the examination of the commissioned independent certified public
accountant.

Aggrieved, ETPI elevated the case to the CTA-En Banc, which promulgated its Decision
dismissing the petition and affirming the decision of the CTA-Division. ETPI filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied by the CTA-En Banc. Hence, this petition.

The Issue

Whether ETPI’s failure to imprint the word "zero-rated" on its invoices or receipts is fatal to its
claim for tax refund or tax credit for excess input VAT.

The Court’s Ruling

Imprinting of the word "zero-rated" on the invoices or receipts is required

Section 244 of the NIRC explicitly grants the Secretary of Finance the authority to promulgate
the necessary rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the tax
code. Such rules and regulations "deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts in view
of the rule-making authority given to those who formulate them and their specific expertise in
their respective fields."

Consequently, the following invoicing requirements enumerated in Section 4.108-1 of Revenue

Regulations No. 7-95 must be observed by all VAT-registered taxpayers:

Sec. 4.108-1. Invoicing Requirements. – All VAT-registered persons shall, for every sale or
lease of goods or properties or services, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial
invoices which must show: 1. the name, TIN and address of seller; 2. date of transaction; 3.
quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service; 4. the name, TIN,
business style, if any, and address of the VAT-registered purchaser, customer or client; 5. the
word "zero-rated" imprinted on the invoice covering zero-rated sales; and 6. the invoice
value or consideration. xxx

The need for taxpayers to indicate in their invoices and receipts the fact that they are zero-rated
or that its transactions are zero-rated became more apparent upon the integration of the above
quoted provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95 in Section 113 of the NIRC enumerating the
invoicing requirements of VAT-registered persons when the tax code was amended by Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9337. A consequence of failing to comply with the invoicing requirements is
the denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit.

If the claim for refund/TCC is based on the existence of zero-rated sales by the taxpayer but it
fails to comply with the invoicing requirements in the issuance of sales invoices (e.g. failure to
indicate the TIN), its claim for tax credit/refund of VAT on its purchases shall be denied
considering that the invoice it is issuing to its customers does not depict its being a VAT-
registered taxpayer whose sales are classified as zero-rated sales. Nonetheless, this treatment
is without prejudice to the right of the taxpayer to charge the input taxes to the appropriate
expense account or asset account subject to depreciation, whichever is applicable. Moreover,
the case shall be referred by the processing office to the concerned BIR office for verification of
other tax liabilities of the taxpayer.

In this regard, the Court has consistently held that the absence of the word "zero-rated" on the
invoices and receipts of a taxpayer will result in the denial of the claim for tax refund. In
Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, the court ruled that the appearance of the word "zero-rated" on the face of invoices
covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases
when no VAT was actually paid. If, absent such word, a successful claim for input VAT is made,
the government would be refunding money it did not collect.

Further, the printing of the word "zero-rated" on the invoice helps segregate sales that are
subject to 10% (now 12%) VAT from those sales that are zero-rated. Unable to submit the
proper invoices, petitioner Panasonic has been unable to substantiate its claim for refund.

Tax refunds are strictly construed against the taxpayer; ETPI failed to substantiate its claim

ETPI should be reminded of the well-established rule that tax refunds, which are in the nature of
tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
government. This is because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation. Thus, the burden of proof is
upon the claimant of the tax refund to prove the factual basis of his claim. Unfortunately, ETPI
failed to discharge this burden.
SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC., (Formerly INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.) vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE

G.R. No. 172378│ January 17, 2011

DOCTRINE: The burden of proving entitlement to a refund lies with the claimant.

The Facts

Petitioner Silicon Philippines, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue
of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, is engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing and exporting advance and large-scale integrated circuit
components or ICs. Petitioner is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a
Value Added Tax (VAT) taxpayer and with the Board of Investments (BOI) as a preferred
pioneer enterprise.

On May 21, 1999, petitioner filed with the respondent CIR, an application for credit/refund of
unutilized input VAT for the period October 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 in the amount
of P31,902,507.50.

On December 27, 2000, due to the inaction of the respondent, petitioner filed a Petition for
Review with the CTA Division.

On November 18, 2003, the CTA Division rendered a Decision partially granting petitioners
claim for refund of unutilized input VAT on capital goods. Out of the amount of P15,170,082.00,
only P9,898,867.00 was allowed to be refunded because training materials, office supplies,
posters, banners, T-shirts, books, and other similar items purchased by petitioner were not
considered capital goods under Section 4.106-1(b) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 7-95
(Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations). With regard to petitioners claim for credit/refund
of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated export sales, the CTA Division denied the same
because petitioner failed to present an Authority to Print (ATP) from the BIR; neither did it print
on its export sales invoices the ATP and the word zero-rated.

Not satisfied with the Decision, petitioner moved for reconsideration. On its part, respondent
filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

The CTA Division denied both motions in a Resolution.

Undaunted, petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc via a Petition for Review which
was later denied for lack of merit. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the assailed Decision but
the CTA En Banc denied the Motion in a Resolution. Hence the instant petition.

The Issues

(1) whether the CTA En Banc erred in denying petitioners claim for credit/ refund of input VAT
attributable to its zero-rated sales in the amount of P16,732,425.00 due to its failure:
(a) to show that it secured an ATP from the BIR and to indicate the same in its export
sales invoices; and
(b) to print the word zero-rated in its export sales invoices.
(2) whether the CTA En Banc erred in ruling that only the amount of P9,898,867.00 can be
classified as input VAT paid on capital goods.
The Court’s Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

Before us are two types of input VAT credits. One is a credit/refund of input VAT attributable to
zero-rated sales under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC, and the other is a credit/refund of input
VAT on capital goods pursuant to Section 112 (B) of the same Code.

Credit/refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales

In a claim for credit/refund of input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, Section 112 (A) of the
NIRC lays down four requisites, to wit:

1) the taxpayer must be VAT-registered;

2) the taxpayer must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated;
3) the claim must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales
were made; and
4) the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional
input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax.

Printing the ATP on the invoices or receipts is not required

It has been settled in Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
that the ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts because there is no
law or regulation requiring it. Thus, in the absence of such law or regulation, failure to print the
ATP on the invoices or receipts should not result in the outright denial of a claim or the
invalidation of the invoices or receipts for purposes of claiming a refund.

ATP must be secured from the BIR

But while there is no law requiring the ATP to be printed on the invoices or receipts, Section 238
of the NIRC expressly requires persons engaged in business to secure an ATP from the BIR
prior to printing invoices or receipts. Failure to do so makes the person liable under Section
264 of the NIRC.

This brings us to the question of whether a claimant for unutilized input VAT on zero-rated sales
is required to present proof that it has secured an ATP from the BIR prior to the printing of its
invoices or receipts.

We rule in the affirmative.

Under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC, a claimant must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated
or effectively zero-rated. To prove this, duly registered invoices or receipts evidencing zero-
rated sales must be presented. However, since the ATP is not indicated in the invoices or
receipts, the only way to verify whether the invoices or receipts are duly registered is by
requiring the claimant to present its ATP from the BIR. Without this proof, the invoices or
receipts would have no probative value for the purpose of refund. In the case of Intel, we
emphasized that: It bears reiterating that while the pertinent provisions of the Tax Code and the
rules and regulations implementing them require entities engaged in business to secure a BIR
authority to print invoices or receipts and to issue duly registered invoices or receipts, it is not
specifically required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Indeed, what
is important with respect to the BIR authority to print is that it has been secured or obtained by
the taxpayer, and that invoices or receipts are duly registered.

Failure to print the word zero-rated on the sales invoices is fatal to a claim for refund of
input VAT

Similarly, failure to print the word zero-rated on the sales invoices or receipts is fatal to a claim
for credit/refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales.

In Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines (formerly Matsushita

Business Machine Corporation of the Philippines) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we
upheld the denial of Panasonics claim for tax credit/refund due to the absence of the word zero-
rated in its invoices. We explained that compliance with Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95, requiring
the printing of the word zero rated on the invoice covering zero-rated sales, is essential as this
regulation proceeds from the rule-making authority of the Secretary of Finance under Section
244 of the NIRC.

All told, the non-presentation of the ATP and the failure to indicate the word zero-rated in the
invoices or receipts are fatal to a claim for credit/refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales. The
failure to indicate the ATP in the sales invoices or receipts, on the other hand, is not. In this
case, petitioner failed to present its ATP and to print the word zero-rated on its export sales
invoices. Thus, we find no error on the part of the CTA in denying outright petitioners claim for
credit/refund of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales.

Credit/refund of input VAT on capital goods

Capital goods are defined under Section 4.106-1(b) of RR No. 7-95

To claim a refund of input VAT on capital goods, Section 112 (B) of the NIRC requires that:

1. the claimant must be a VAT registered person;

2. the input taxes claimed must have been paid on capital goods;
3. the input taxes must not have been applied against any output tax liability; and
4. the administrative claim for refund must have been filed within two (2) years after the close of
the taxable quarter when the importation or purchase was made.

Corollarily, Section 4.106-1 (b) of RR No. 7-95 defines capital goods as follows:

Capital goods or properties refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater that
one year and which are treated as depreciable assets under Section 29 (f), used directly or
indirectly in the production or sale of taxable goods or services.

Based on the foregoing definition, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the CTA that
training materials, office supplies, posters, banners, T-shirts, books, and the other similar items
reflected in petitioners Summary of Importation of Goods are not capital goods. A reduction in
the refundable input VAT on capital goods from P15,170,082.00 to P9,898,867.00 is therefore in
order.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. SAN ROQUE POWER CORP. G.R. No.
187485│ February 12, 2013│ 707 SCRA 66

The Facts

On October 11, 1997, San Roque Power Corporation (San Roque) entered into a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the National Power Corporation (NPC) by building the San
Roque Multi-Purpose Project in San Manuel, Pangasinan.

The San Roque Multi-Purpose Project allegedly incurred, excess input VAT in the amount of
P559,709,337.54 for taxable year 2001 which it declared in its Quarterly VAT Returns filed for
the same year.

San Roque duly filed with the BIR separate claims for refund, amounting to P559,709,337.54,
representing unutilized input taxes as declared in its VAT returns for taxable year 2001.
However, on March 28, 2003, San Roque filed amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the year
2001 since it increased its unutilized input VAT To the amount of P560,200,283.14. San Roque
filed with the BIR on the same date, separate amended claims for refund in the aggregate
amount of P560,200,283.14.

April 10, 2003, a mere 13 days after it filed its amended administrative claim with the CIR on
March 28, 2003, San Roque filed a Petition for Review with the CTA.

CIR alleged that the claim by San Roque was prematurely filed with the CTA.

The Issue

Whether or not San Roque is entitled to tax refund?

The Court’s Ruling

No. San Roque is not entitled to a tax refund because it failed to comply with the mandatory and
jurisdictional requirement of waiting 120 days before filing its judicial claim.

On April 10, 2003, a mere 13 days after it filed its amended administrative claim with the CIR on
March 28, 2003, San Roque filed a Petition for Review with the CTA, which showed that San
Roque did not wait for the 120-day period to lapse before filing its judicial claim.

Compliance with the 120-day waiting period is mandatory and jurisdictional, under RA 8424 or
the Tax Reform Act of 1997. Failure to comply renders the petition void.

It violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and renders the petition
premature and without a cause of action, with the effect that the CTA does not acquire
jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s petition.

Article 5 of the Civil Code provides, "Acts executed against provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity."
Thus, San Roque’s petition with the CTA is a mere scrap of paper. Well-settled is the rule that
tax refunds or credits, just like tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer.

Whether the Atlas doctrine or the Mirant doctrine is applied to San Roque is immaterial because
what is at issue in the present case is San Roque’s non-compliance with the 120-day mandatory
and jurisdictional period, which is counted from the date it filed its administrative claim with the
CIR. The 120-day period may extend beyond the two-year prescriptive period, as long as the
administrative claim is filed within the two-year prescriptive period. However, San Roque’s fatal
mistake is that it did not wait for the CIR to decide within the 120-day period, a mandatory
period whether the Atlas or the Mirant doctrine is applied.

Section 112(D) of the 1997 Tax Code is clear, unequivocal, and categorical that the CIR has
120 days to act on an administrative claim. The taxpayer can file the judicial claim (1) Only
within 30 days after the CIR partially or fully denies the claim within the 120- day period, or (2)
only within 30 days from the expiration of the 120- day period if the CIR does not act within the
120-day period.

Even if, contrary to all principles of statutory construction as well as plain common sense, we
gratuitously apply now Section 4.106-2(c) of Revenue Regulations No. 7-95, still San Roque
cannot recover any refund or credit because San Roque did not wait for the 60-day period to
lapse, contrary to the express requirement in Section 4.106-2(c).

SC granted the petition of CIR to deny the tax refund or credit claim of San Roque.