Part H 2 - CIR vs. Procter Gamble

Topic: H.
2-Taxpayer/Withholding Agent
GR No. 66838, Apr 15, 1988, CIR v. PROCTER & GAMBLE
FACTS: CTA Case No. 2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Bureau
of Internal Revenue", declared petitioner therein, Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation
to be entitled to the sought refund or tax credit in the amount of P4,832,989.00 representing the alleged
overpaid withholding tax at source and ordering payment thereof.
Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PMC-Phil.), a

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Philippine laws, is engaged in business in
the Philippines and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter and Gamble, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as
PMC-USA), a non-resident foreign corporation in the Philippines, not engaged in trade and business therein.
As such PMC-U.S.A. is the sole shareholder or stockholder of PMC-Phil., as PMC-U.S.A. owns wholly or by
100% the voting stock of PMC-Phil. and is entitled to receive income from PMC-Phil. in the form of dividends,
if not rents or royalties. In addition, PMC-Phil. has a legal personality separate and distinct from PMC-U.S.A.
For the taxable year ending June 30, 1974 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P56,500,332.00 and
accordingly paid the corresponding income tax thereon equivalent to 25% - 35% or P19,765,116.00 as
provided for under Section 24(a) of the Philippine Tax Code.
After taxation its net profit was P36,735,216.00. Out of said amount it declared a dividend in favor of its sole
corporate stockholder and parent corporation PMC-U.S.A. in the total sum of P17,707,460.00 which latter
amount was subjected to Philippine taxation of 35% or P6,197,611.23 as provided for in Section 24(b) of the
Philippine Tax Code.
For the taxable year ending June 30, 1975 PMC-Phil. realized a taxable net income of P8,735,125.00 which
was subjected to Philippine taxation at the rate of 25%-25% or P2,952,159.00, thereafter leaving a net profit
of P5,782,966.00. As in the 2nd quarter of 1975, PMC-Phil. again declared a dividend in favor of PMC-U.S.A.
at the tax rate of 35% or P6,457,485.00.
In July, 1977 PMC-Phil., invoking the tax-sparing credit provision in Section 24(b) as aforequoted, as the
withholding agent of the Philippine government, with respect to the dividend taxes paid by PMC-U.S.A., filed
a claim with the herein petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the refund of the 20 percentage-
point portion of the 35 percentage-point whole tax paid, arising allegedly from the alleged "overpaid
withholding tax at source or overpaid withholding tax in the amount of P4,832,989.00.
There being no immediate action by the BIR on PMC-Phils' letter-claim the latter sought the intervention of
the CTA when on July 13, 1977 it filed with herein respondent court a petition for review docketed as CTA no.
2883 entitled "Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Internal
Revenue", praying that it be declared entitled to the refund or tax credit claimed and ordering respondent
therein to refund to it the amount of P4,832,989.00, or to issue tax credit in its favor in lieu of tax refund.
(Rollo, p. 41)
On the other hand, therein respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in his answer, prayed for the
dismissal of said petition and for the denial of the claim for refund. The petitioner maintains that it is the
PMC-U.S.A., the tax payer and not PMC-Phil. the remitter or payor of the dividend income, and a mere
withholding agent for and in behalf of the Philippine Government, which should be legally entitled to receive
the refund if any.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent is entitled to the preferential 15% tax rate on dividends declared
and remitted to its parent corporation.
RULING: NO. The real party in interest being the mother corporation in the United States, it follows that
American entity is the real party in interest, and should have been the claimant in this case.
Closely intertwined with the first assignment of error is the issue of whether or not PMC-U.S.A. - a
non?resident foreign corporation under Section 24 (b) (1) of the Tax Code (the subsidiary of an American) a
domestic corporation domiciled in the United States, is entitled under the U.S. Tax Code to a United States
Foreign Tax Credit equivalent to at least the 20 percentage paid portion (of the 35% dividend tax) spared or
waived as otherwise considered or deemed paid by the government. The law pertinent to the issue is Section
902 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Public Law 87-834, the law governing tax credits
granted to U.S. corporations on dividends received from foreign corporations.
"SEC. 902 - CREDIT FOR CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS IN FOREIGN CORPORATION.
(a) Treatment of Taxes Paid by Foreign Corporation - For purposes of this subject, a domestic
corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it
receives dividends in any taxable year shall -
(1) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as
defined in subsection (c) (1) (a)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is not a less developed
country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess
profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any
possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of
such dividends (determined without regard to Section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated
profits in excess of such income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (other than those deemed paid);
and
(2) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated profits [as
defined in subsection (c) (1) (b)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is a less-developed
country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess
profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any
possession of the United States on or with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of
such dividends bears to the amount of such accumulated profits.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Applicable Rules
(1) Accumulated profits defined. - For purposes of this section, the term 'accumulated profits' means
with respect to any foreign corporation.
(A) for purposes of sub-sections (a) (1) and (b) (1), the amount of its gains, profits, or income
computed without reduction by the amount of the income, war profits, and excess profits taxes
imposed on or with respect to such profits or income by any foreign country. x x x; and
(B) for purposes of sub-sections (a) (2) and (b) (2), the amount of its gains, profits, or income in excess
of the income, was profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or
income.
The Secretary or his delegate shall have full power to determine from the accumulated profits of what
year or years such dividends were paid, treating dividends paid in the first 20 days of any year as
having been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or years (unless to his satisfaction
shows otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as having been paid from the most recently
accumulated gains, profits, or earnings. xxx xxx." (Rollo, pp. 55-56)
To Our mind there is nothing in the aforecited provision that would justify tax return of the disputed 15% to
the private respondent. Furthermore, as ably argued by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to meet
certain conditions necessary in order that the dividends received by the non-resident parent company in the
United States may be subject to the preferential 15% tax instead of 35%. Among other things, the private
respondent failed: (1) to show the actual amount credited by the U.S. government against the income tax due
from PMC-U.S.A. on the dividends received from private respondent; (2) to present the income tax return of
its mother company for 1975 when the dividends were received; and (3) to submit any duly authenticated
document showing that the U.S. government credited the 20% tax deemed paid in the Philippines.

Part H 2 - CIR vs. Procter Gamble

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part H 2 - CIR vs. Procter Gamble

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part H 2 - CIR vs. Procter Gamble

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: H.

GR No. 66838, Apr 15, 1988, CIR v. PROCTER & GAMBLE

Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PMC-Phil.), a

"SEC. 902 - CREDIT FOR CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS IN FOREIGN CORPORATION.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Applicable Rules

You might also like