G.R. No. 162175 June 28, 2010 621 SCRA 606 MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. SECOND DIVISION Petitioner, a non-stock and non-profit corporation, was organized for the purpose of holding title to and administering the employees’ trust or retirement retirement funds established for the benefit of the employees of Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMC). Petitioner, as trustee, claims that the income earned by the Employees’ Trust Fund is tax exempt under Section 53(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code). On 25 March 1992, petitioner decided to invest part of the Employees’ Trust Fund to purchase a lot in the Madrigal Business Business Park (MBP lot) in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Petitioner claims that since it needed funds to pay the retirement and pension benefits of VMC employees and to reimburse advances made by VMC, petitioner’s Board of Trustees authorized the the sale of its share in the MBP lot. On 26 March 1997, VMC negotiated the sale of the MBP lot with Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. (Metrobank). Metrobank, as withholding with holding agent, paid the t he Bureau Bure au of Internal Revenue (BIR) P6,125,625 as withholding tax on the sale of real property. Petitioner claims that it is a co- owner of the MBP lot as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, based on the notarized Memorandum of Agreement presented before the appellate courts. Petitioner further contends that there is no dispute that the Employees’ Trust Fund is exempt from income tax. Since petitioner, as trustee, purchased 49.59% of the MBP lot using funds of the Employees’ Trust Fund, petitioner asserts that the Employees’ Trust Fund's 49.59% share in the income tax paid (or P3,037,697.40 rounded off to P3,037,500) should be refunded. On 14 August 1997, the BIR, through its Revenue District Officer, wrote petitioner stating that under Section 26 of the Tax Code, petitioner is not exempt from tax on its income from the sale of real property. Since the BIR failed to act on petitioner’s claim for refund, petitioner elevated its claim to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on 26 October 1998. The CIR did not act on petitioner’s claim for refund. Hence, petitioner petitioner filed a petition for tax refund before the CTA. On 24 October 2000, the CTA rendered a decision denying the petition. On 22 November 2000, petitioner filed its Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. On 20 May 2003, the CA rendered a decision denying the appeal. The CA also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Hence this appeal. Issue: whether petitioner or the Employees’ Trust Fund is exempt from tax and thus entitled to refund Held Yes Petitioner is a corporation that was formed to administer the Employees' Trust Fund. Petitioner invested P5,504,748.25 of the funds of the Employees' Trust Fund to purchase the MBP lot. When the MBP lot was sold, the gross income of the Employees’ Trust Fund from the sale of the MBP lot was P40,500,000. P40,500, 000. The 7.5% withholding tax of P3,037,500 and broker’s commission were deducted from the proceeds. It is evident that tax-exemption is likewise to be enjoyed by the income of the pension trust. Otherwise, taxation of those earnings would result in a diminution of accumulated income and reduce whatever the trust beneficiaries would receive out of the trust fund. This would run afoul of the very intendment of the law. Indeed, the petitioner is correct in its adherence to the clear ruling laid by the Supreme Court way back in 1992 in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, The Court of Tax Appeals and GCL Retirement Plan, 207 SCRA 487 at page 496 , supra, wherein it was succinctly held: There can be no denying either that the final withholding tax is collected from income in respect of which employees’ trusts are declared exempt (Sec. 56(b), now 53(b), Tax Code). The application of the withholdings system to interest on bank deposits or yield from deposit substitutes is essentially to maximize and expedite the collection of income taxes by requiring its payment at the source. If an employees’ trust like the GCL enjoys a tax-exempt status from income, we see no logic in withholding a certain percentage of that income which it is not supposed to pay in the first place. Similarly, the income of the trust funds involved herein is exempt from the payment of final withholding taxes.Since petitioner has proven that the income from the sale of the MBP lot came from an investment investm ent by the Employees' Trust Fund, petitioner, as trustee of the Employees’ Trust Fund, is entitled to claim the tax refund of P3,037,500 which was erroneously paid in the sale of the MBP lot.
