Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    BDO v. Republic (G.R. No. 198756, 16 August 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Christine S. Saya-Ang
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding zero coupon bonds (PEACe Bonds) sold by the Bureau of Treasury. It held that the 20-lender rule can apply to such bonds depending on the number of lenders at the time of sale, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing taxes on the bonds due to previous rulings, and that the Bureau of Treasury is liable to pay legal interest for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BDO v. Republic (G.R. No. 198756, 16 August 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Christine S. Saya-Ang
    5 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding zero coupon bonds (PEACe Bonds) sold by the Bureau of Treasury. It held that the 20-lender rule can apply to such bonds depending on the number of lenders at the time of sale, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing taxes on the bonds due to previous rulings, and that the Bureau of Treasury is liable to pay legal interest for withholding payment.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding zero coupon bonds (PEACe Bonds) sold by the Bureau of Treasury. It held that the 20-lender rule can apply to such bonds depending on the number of lenders at the time of sale, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing taxes on the bonds due to previous rulings, and that the Bureau of Treasury is liable to pay legal interest for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views3 pages

    BDO v. Republic (G.R. No. 198756, 16 August 2016)

    Uploaded by

    Christine S. Saya-Ang
    The Supreme Court ruled on several issues regarding zero coupon bonds (PEACe Bonds) sold by the Bureau of Treasury. It held that the 20-lender rule can apply to such bonds depending on the number of lenders at the time of sale, that the Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing taxes on the bonds due to previous rulings, and that the Bureau of Treasury is liable to pay legal interest for withholding payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    G.R. No.

    198756, August 16, 2016


    BANCO DE ORO, BANK OF COMMERCE, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, METROPOLITAN
    BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PHILIPPINE
    NATIONAL BANK, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, AND PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK,
    Petitioners,
    RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND RCBC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
    Petitioners-Intervenors,
    CAUCUS OF DEVELOPMENT NGO NETWORKS, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
    SECRETARY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, AND
    BUREAU OF TREASURY, Respondents.

    FULL TEXT HERE: https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016augustdecisions.php?id=757


    BDO v. Republic (G.R. No. 198756, 16 August 2016)
    FACTS:
    In the notice to all Government Securities Eligible Dealers entitled Public Offering the Bureau of Treasury
    announced that 30 billion worth of 10-year Zero Coupon Bonds would be auctioned
    It stated that the issue is limited to 19 lenders and while taxable shall not be subject to the 20% final
    withholding tax. One (1) day before the auction date, the Bureau of Treasury issued the Auction Guidelines.
    (RCBC) participated on behalf of the Caucus of Development NGO Networks and won the bid. RCBC Capital
    entered into an underwriting agreement with the Caucus of Development NGO Networks where RCBC Capital
    was appointed as the Issue Manager and Lead Underwriter for the offering of the PEACe Bonds.
    RCBC Capital sold and distributed the Government Bonds, and Banco de Oro, et al. purchased the PEACe
    Bonds on different dates.
    barely 11 days before the maturity of the PEACe Bonds, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a BIR
    Ruling declaring that the PEACe Bonds, being deposit substitutes, were subject to a 20% final withholding tax.
    Replying to an urgent query from the Bureau of Treasury, the Bureau of Internal Revenue clarified that the final
    withholding tax due on the discount or interest earned on the PEACe Bonds should "be imposed and withheld
    not only on RCBC/CODE NGO but also [on] 'all subsequent holders of the Bonds.
    petitioners filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and/or Mandamus (with urgent
    application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction).
    The court issued a temporary restraining order. RCBC and RCBC Capital, as well as CODE-NGO separately
    moved for leave of court to intervene and to admit the Petition-in-Intervention. The court granted the petition.
    Meanwhile, petitioners filed their Manifestation with an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Direct Respondents to
    Comply with the TRO.
    On January 13, 2015, the Court promulgated the Decision granting the Petition and the Petitions-in-
    Intervention. Applying Section 22(Y) of the National Internal Revenue Code, we held that the number of
    lenders/investors at every transaction is determinative of whether a debt instrument is a deposit substitute
    subject to a 20% final withholding tax. When at any transaction, funds are simultaneously obtained from 20 or
    more lenders/investors, there is deemed to be a public borrowing and the bonds then are deemed deposit
    substitutes. Consequently, the seller is required to withhold the 20% final withholding tax on the imputed
    interest income from the bonds.
    WHEREFORE, the petition for review and petitions-in-intervention are GRANTED. 2 BIR Rulings
    are NULLIFIED.
    respondents filed by registered mail their Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification.
    ISSUES
    1. Does CTA have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality or validity of tax laws, rules and
    regulations, and other administrative issuances of CIR?

    2. May the 20-lender rule apply to PEACe Bonds?

    3. Assuming the PEACe Bonds are considered “deposit substitutes,” whether the government or the
    Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing and/or collecting the 20% final withholding tax
    from the face value of these Bonds?

    4. Whether or not BTr is liable to pay a 6% legal interest rate?

    HELD

    #1
    YES. CTA has jurisdiction and may take cognizance of cases directly challenging the constitutionality or
    validity of a tax law, regulation, or administrative issuance such as revenue order, revenue memorandum
    circular, and ruling.
    RA 9282: appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies on tax-related problems must be brought
    exclusively to the CTA
    #2
    YES. The 20-lender rule may apply to PEACe Bonds, depending on the number of lenders “at any one time”

    The definition of deposit substitutes in Section 22(Y) specifically defined “public” to mean “twenty (20) or
    more individual or corporate lenders at any one time.” Hence, if there are 20 or more lenders, the debt
    instrument is considered a deposit substitute which is subject to the 20% FWT.
    “The reckoning of the phrase “20 or more lenders” should be at the time when the petitioner-intervenor RCBC
    Capital sold the PEACe bonds to investors. Should the number of investor to whom petitioner-intervenor RCBC
    Capital distributes the PEACe bonds, therefore, be found to be 20 or more, the PEACe Bonds are considered
    deposit substitutes subject to 20% final withholding tax. Petitioner-intervenors RCBC/CODE-NGO and RCBC
    Capital, as well as the final bondholders who have recourse to government upon maturity are liable to pay the
    20% final withholding tax.”
    #3
    YES. The Bureau of Internal Revenue is estopped from imposing and/or collecting the 20% final withholding
    tax from the face value of these Bonds
    The Supreme Court interpretation in its January 2015 decision of the phrase “at any one time” to determine the
    phrase “20 or more lenders” to include both the primary and secondary market cannot be applied to the PEACe
    Bonds and should be applied prospectively.
    RCBC and the rest of the investors relied in good faith on the BIR Rulings which provide that PEACe Bonds
    are not treated as deposit substitutes and are subject to the 20% final withholding tax.
    #4
    YES. BTr may be held liable.
    The BTr made no effort to release the amount corresponding to the 20% FWT which is an utter disregard and
    defiance of the order of the Court
    BTr is ordered to immediately release and pay the bondholders the amount of P4,966,207,796.41, representing
    the 20% final withholding tax on the PEACe Bonds, with the legal interest of 6% per annum from October 19,
    2011 until full payment.

    You might also like