PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE G.R. No. 194065, !"# $0, $016 SERENO, C.J.% FACTS%
Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) purchased documentary stamps from the BIR and loaded them to its DS metering machine. During the period 2 !arch 2""# to 2 Decem$er 2""#% petitioner e&ecuted se'eral repurchase agreements ith the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). he documentary stamps ere imprinted on the Confirmation *etters corresponding to those repurchase agreements through petitioner+s DS metering machine. Petitioner filed ith the BIR an administrati'e claim for the issuance of ta& credit certificates for the alleged erroneous payment of the DS claiming that the repurchase agreements ere not su$,ect to the documentary stamp ta& (DS). -or failure of BIR to act upon petitioners claim for issuance of ta& credit certificates% PBCom filed a Petition for Re'ie ith the C/. Su$se0uently% Court of a& /ppeals (C/) Second Di'ision rendered a Decision% holding that the 'arious repurchase agreements ith the BSP from 2 !arch 2""# to 2 Decem$er 2""# ere e&empt from the imposition of the DS pursuant to Section 1 of Repu$lic /ct (R./.) o. 12# $ut only P3"%4%553.2" had $een su$stantiated. 6ut of that amount% P% "72%823.4" as $arred $y prescription% and only the claim for the remaining P7%843%81.4" fell ithin the to9year prescripti'e period. he C/ Di'ision reckoned the counting of the to9year period from the date of the Confirmation *etters of the repurchase agreements. Considering that petitioner filed its administrati'e claim on 32 !ay 2""4 and the ,udicial claim on 35 !ay 2""4% the DS paid on the repurchase agreements earlier than 35 !ay 2""# as disalloed due to prescription. he C/ en banc ruled ruled that insofar as the ta&payers using the DS metering machine ere concerned% the DS as deemed paid upon the purchase of documentary stamps for loading and reloading on the DS metering machine% through the filing of the DS Declaration under BIR -orm o. 2""". hus% the to9year prescripti'e period for ta&payers using DS metering machine started to run from the date of filing of the DS Declaration under BIR -orm o. 2"""% and not from the date appearing on the documentary stamp imprinted through the DS metering machine. Conse0uently% the refunda$le amount as further reduced to P8%25%#18.#" representing the erroneously paid DS that had not yet $een $arred $y prescription. ISSUE%
:hether or not the date of imprinting the documentary stamps on the document or the date of purchase of documentary stamps for loading and reloading on the DS metering machine should $e deemed as payment of the DS contemplated under Section 2"" (D) of the IRC for the purpose of counting the to9year prescripti'e period for filing a claim for a refund or ta& credit; HEL&%
o% In Gibbs v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, this Court ruled that "Payment is a mode of extinguishing extinguishing obligations (Art. 1231, Civil Code and it means not only the delivery of money but also the !erformane, in any other manner, of an obligation. A tax!ayer, resident or non#resident, non#resident, does so not really to de!osit an amount to the Commissioner of Internal $evenue, but, in truth, to !erform and extinguish his tax obligation for the year onerned. onerned. In other %ords, he is !aying his tax liabilities for that year. Conse&uently, Conse&uently, a tax!ayer %hose inome is %ithheld at soure %ill be deemed to have !aid his tax liability %hen
MARJORIE S PADILLA
the same falls due at the end of the tax year. It is from this latter date then, or %hen the tax liability falls due, that the t%o#year !resri!tive !eriod under 'etion 3) (no% !art of 'etion 23 of the $evenue Code starts to run %ith res!et to !ayments effeted through the %ithholding tax system." *he afore&uoted ruling !resents t%o alternative re+oning dates (1 the end of the tax year- and (2 the date %hen the tax liability falls due A!!lying the same rationale to this ase, the !ayment of the '* and the filing of the '* elaration $eturn u!on loading/reloading of the ' metering mahine must not be onsidered as the "date of !ayment" %hen the !resri!tive !eriod to file a laim for a refund/redit must ommene. 0or ' metering mahine users, the !ayment of the '* u!on loading/reloading is merely an advane !ayment for future a!!liation. *he liability for the !ayment of the '* falls due only u!on the ourrene of a taxable transation. *herefore, it is only then that !ayment may be onsidered for the !ur!ose of filing a laim for a refund or tax redit. 'ine atual !ayment %as already made u!on loading/reloading of the ' metering mahine and the filing of the '* elaration $eturn, the date of im!rinting the doumentary stam! on the taxable doument must be onsidered as the date of !ayment ontem!lated under 'etion 22 of the I$C. In the ase at bar, the '* fell due %hen !etitioner entered into re!urhase agreements %ith the 'P and the orres!onding doumentary stam!s %ere im!rinted on the Confirmation 4etters. Considering, ho%ever, that this transation is exem!t from tax, !etitioner is entitled to a refund. *he !resri!tive !eriod for the filing of a laim for a refund or tax redit under 'etion 22 must be re+oned from the date %hen the doumentary stam!s %ere im!rinted on the Confirmation 4etters.
MARJORIE S PADILLA
