Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No. 173425, 2013 Case Digest

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No.
173425, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (FBDC) is a duly registered domestic
corporation engaged in the development and sale of real property.
The Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), a wholly owned government
corporation created under Republic Act (RA) No. 7227, owns 45% of petitioner’s issued and
outstanding capital stock.
Bonifacio Land Corporation, a consortium of private domestic corporations, owns the remaining
55%
By virtue of an executive order, petitioner purchased from the National Government a portion of
the Fort Bonifacio Reservation, now known as the Fort Bonifacio Global City (Global City
Later on, RA 7716 was enacted and restructured and amended the VAT system and extended the
coverage of the VAT to real properties held primarily for sale to customers or held for lease in
the ordinary course of trade or business.
Petitioner would later submit to the BIR an inventory of all its real properties, all aggregated to
over 71 million pesos. Based on this value, petitioner FBDC claimed that its entitled to a
transitional input credit of over 5.6 million pesos pursuant to Sec. 105 of the old NIRC.
Petitioner would later start selling Global City lots to interested buyers.
For the first quarter of 1997, FBDC generated over 3.6 billion pesos from its sale and lease of
lots, on which the output VAT payable was over 368 million pesos.
Petitioner paid the output VAT by making cash payment to the BIR totally over 359 million
pesos and crediting its unutilized input tax credit on purchase of goods and services on the rest.
However, they realize that its transitional input tax credit was not applied in computing its output
VAT for the first quarter so petitioner filed with the BIR a claim for refund of the amount of 359
million pesos that they erroneously paid as output VAT for the said period
Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals (Denied)

The CTA denied petitioner’s claim for refund. According to the CTA, "the benefit of transitional
input tax credit comes with the condition that business taxes should have been paid first.”
In this case, since petitioner acquired the Global City property under a VAT-free sale transaction,
it cannot avail of the transitional input tax credit.
The CTA likewise pointed out that under Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 7-95, implementing
Section 105 of the old NIRC, the 8% transitional input tax credit should be based on the value of
the improvements on land such as buildings, roads, drainage system and other similar structures,
constructed on or after January 1, 1998, and not on the book value of the real property. Thus, the
CTA disposed of the case in this manner:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the claim for refund representing alleged overpaid
value-added tax covering the first quarter of 1997 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (Affirmed the decision of the CTA)

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the
CA.
On July 7, 2006, the CA affirmed the decision of the CTA.
The CA agreed that petitioner is not entitled to the 8% transitional input tax credit since it did not
pay any VAT when it purchased the Global City property.
The CA opined that transitional input tax credit is allowed only when business taxes have been
paid and passed-on as part of the purchase price.
In arriving at this conclusion, the CA relied heavily on the historical background of transitional
input tax credit.
As to the validity of RR 7-95, which limited the 8% transitional input tax to the value of the
improvements on the land, the CA said that it is entitled to great weight as it was issued pursuant
to Section 245 of the old NIRC.
ISSUE:
Hence, the instant petition with the principal issue of whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of
₱ 359,652,009.47 erroneously paid as output VAT for the first quarter of 1997. (YES)
RULING:
YES, THEY ARE.
The issues before us are no longer new or novel as these have been resolved in the related case
of Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Prior payment of taxes is not required for a taxpayer to avail of the 8% transitional input tax
credit
Section 105 of the old NIRC reads:
SEC. 105. Transitional input tax credits. – A person who becomes liable to value-
added tax or any person who elects to be a VAT-registered person shall, subject to the
filing of an inventory as prescribed by regulations, be allowed input tax on his
beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies equivalent to 8% of the value of
such inventory or the actual value-added tax paid on such goods, materials and supplies,
whichever is higher, which shall be creditable against the output tax. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Contrary to the view of the CTA and the CA, there is nothing in the above-quoted provision to
indicate that prior payment of taxes is necessary for the availment of the 8% transitional input tax
credit. Obviously, all that is required is for the taxpayer to file a beginning inventory with the
BIR.
To require prior payment of taxes, as proposed in the Dissent is not only tantamount to judicial
legislation but would also render nugatory the provision in Section 105 of the old NIRC that the
transitional input tax credit shall be "8% of the value of [the beginning] inventory or the actual
[VAT] paid on such goods, materials and supplies, whichever is higher" because the actual VAT
(now 12%) paid on the goods, materials, and supplies would always be higher than the 8% (now
2%) of the beginning inventory which, following the view of Justice Carpio, would have to
exclude all goods, materials, and supplies where no taxes were paid. Clearly, limiting the value
of the beginning inventory only to goods, materials, and supplies, where prior taxes were paid,
was not the intention of the law. Otherwise, it would have specifically stated that the beginning
inventory excludes goods, materials, and supplies where no taxes were paid. As retired Justice
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago has pointed out in her Concurring Opinion in the earlier case of Fort
Bonifacio:
If the intent of the law were to limit the input tax to cases where actual VAT was paid, it
could have simply said that the tax base shall be the actual value-added tax paid. Instead,
the law as framed contemplates a situation where a transitional input tax credit is claimed
even if there was no actual payment of VAT in the underlying transaction. In such cases,
the tax base used shall be the value of the beginning inventory of goods, materials and
supplies.
Moreover, prior payment of taxes is not required to avail of the transitional input tax
credit because it is not a tax refund per se but a tax credit.
Tax credit is not synonymous to tax refund.
Tax refund is defined as the money that a taxpayer overpaid and is thus returned by the taxing
authority.
Tax credit, on the other hand, is an amount subtracted directly from one’s total tax liability. It is
any amount given to a taxpayer as a subsidy, a refund, or an incentive to encourage investment.
Thus, unlike a tax refund, prior payment of taxes is not a prerequisite to avail of a tax
credit. In fact, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corp., we declared
that prior payment of taxes is not required in order to avail of a tax credit.
In this case, when petitioner realized that its transitional input tax credit was not applied in
computing its output VAT for the 1st quarter of 1997, it filed a claim for refund to recover the
output VAT it erroneously or excessively paid for the 1st quarter of 1997.
In filing a claim for tax refund, petitioner is simply applying its transitional input tax credit
against the output VAT it has paid. Hence, it is merely availing of the tax credit incentive given
by law to first time VAT taxpayers.
As we have said in the earlier case of Fort Bonifacio, the provision on transitional input tax
credit was enacted to benefit first time VAT taxpayers by mitigating the impact of VAT on the
taxpayer.
Thus, contrary to the view of Justice Carpio, the granting of a transitional input tax credit in
favor of petitioner, which would be paid out of the general fund of the government, would be an
appropriation authorized by law, specifically Section 105 of the old NIRC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated July 7, 2006 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61436 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ordered to refund to petitioner Fort Bonifacio Development
Corporation the amount of ₱ 359,652,009.47 paid as output VAT for the first quarter of 1997 in
light of the transitional input tax credit available to petitioner for the said quarter, or in the
alternative, to issue a tax credit certificate corresponding to such amount.
SO ORDERED.

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No. 173425, 2013 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No. 173425, 2013 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No. 173425, 2013 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fort Bonifacio Development Corp v. CIR, G.R. No.

Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals (Denied)

Ruling of the Court of Appeals (Affirmed the decision of the CTA)

You might also like