Huwebes, Abril 25, 2013

Requirements for application of Certificate of Good Standing


1. CAPR
2.  Audited FS received by BIR
3.  Social audit report
4.  Performance Audit report
5. Surety bond of accountable officers
6.  Minutes of Annual GA meeting
7. List of officers and training attend
8. P100.00 CGS fee
9. Letter request for CGS include the purpose for its issuance

Guidelines in processing request for exchange of information


The BIR has issued the following guidelines and procedures in the processing of requests for information pursuant to the exchange of information provision of Philippine tax treaties, in relation to Republic Act No. (RA) 10021 (otherwise known as the Exchange of Information Act of 2010), as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 10-2010.

Scope and coverage of exchange of information
The exchange of information covers any information that is necessary or foreseeably relevant to the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws of the contracting parties concerning income taxes and other taxes covered by the terms of exchange of information agreements.

A request for information may include, among others, information such as the fiscal residence of the taxpayer, tax status of a legal entity, income and expenses shown in the income tax returns, business records, formation documents of an entity, banking records, accounting records, and the price for goods in a transaction between independent companies in both states.

The scope of information is not limited to taxpayer-specific information but also includes information related to tax administration and compliance such as statistics, tax administration trends, laws, and court decisions.

Limitations to the exchange of information
The obligation for exchange of information is mandatory and is not limited to information contained in the tax files of the BIR. When a request for information is received by the BIR, the bureau has to take action to obtain the information requested if it is not available on its tax files. However, the BIR is not bound to go beyond its own internal laws and administrative practice in putting information at the disposal of the requesting state.

Instances where the obligation to exchange information is lifted and request for information may be declined include:
(a) when the requesting party would not be able to obtain the information it is asking for under similar circumstances under its own laws or administrative practice;
(b) when the information being asked for relates to years not covered by double taxation agreements or taxes not covered;
(c) if disclosure of information would be contrary to public policy;
(d) when the information being asked for relates to administration enforcement of a provision of the tax laws that would discriminate against a national of the requested party as compared with a national of the applicant party in the same circumstances; and
(e) when the information is subject to legal privilege.

Procedures for responding to a request for information
The international standard for processing request for information is 90 days from receipt of request by the tax authority.

The 90-day period may be extended where there are difficulties encountered in obtaining and providing the information. In this regard, the Commissioner or his/her duly authorized representative shall inform the requesting foreign tax authority of the obstacles encountered in obtaining the information and reasons for failure to provide the information.

With respect to requests for information held by banks or financial institutions, the Commissioner or his/her duly authorized representative shall, within 60 days from receipt of all requested information, send notice to the concerned taxpayer that he/it/is or was the subject of a request for information by the foreign tax authority.

Confidentiality of information
All taxpayer information obtained pursuant to a request for exchange of information is confidential and may only be disclosed in accordance with Philippine law.

Generally, the exchange of information article in the Philippine double taxation agreements (DTAs) provides that any information received by the BIR shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of the Philippines, and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessments or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to taxes on income. However, some of the Philippines’ DTAs, such as Canada and Singapore, have even more restrictive confidentiality provisions, i.e., it only allows disclosure after sign off by the Commissioner or his/her duly authorized representative for this purpose.

BIR treatment of requested information
The gathering of information by the BIR for a foreign tax authority pursuant to a request for information does not constitute an actual investigation of the concerned taxpayer nor does it authorize the BIR to issue corresponding letters of authority on the request, unless warranted.

However, information supplied by a bank or a financial institution to the BIR may be used by it in its own assessment, verification, and audit of the taxpayer whose account and his or its transactions are made known to the BIR. The BIR is also not precluded from carrying out subsequent investigation on taxpayers whose transactions with foreign taxpayers were the subject of examination by foreign tax authorities.

(Revenue Memorandum Order No. 02-2013, February 18, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Biyernes, Abril 19, 2013

Use of eORB by tobacco manufacturers


The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has prescribed the use of electronic official register books (eORB) for manufacturers of tobacco products and regulated raw materials, replacing the manually prepared and submitted ORB.

eORB system coverage
The eORB shall cover all manufacturers of cigarettes, cigars and cigarette papers, including traders and dealers of whole leaf tobacco and partially manufactured leaf tobacco. For purposes of expediency, the eORB system shall be initially implemented for use by the major tobacco industry players identified by the BIR, and a prior notice shall be issued for the implementation to the other tobacco industry players.

Enrollment in the eORB system
For purposes of enrollment in the eORB system, all manufacturers of cigarettes, cigars and cigarette papers, including traders and dealers of whole leaf tobacco and partially manufactured leaf tobacco, shall initially file with the Chief, Excise LT Field Operations Division, a written request for access to the system, together with a duly notarized board resolution in case the taxpayer is a juridical entity, or an affidavit, in case of sole proprietor stating, among others, the names of its representatives authorized to register and maintain a user account, either as an encoder or as an authorized officer, in the system.

In cases where a taxpayer’s computerized accounting system has the capability to automatically generate and print the ORBs, the taxpayer shall coordinate with the BIR in determining the manner of submission of the ORB through the eORB system. The BIR shall be notified immediately in writing, for purposes of re-evaluation and prior approval, prior to any change or enhancement of the computerized accounting system that will affect any transaction covered by the eORB system.

Submission of eORB
The duly accomplished eORB should be submitted within five calendar days immediately after the end of the month of operation. Any amendment in the entries of the eORBs that have been submitted should be made any time within the year of the taxpayer’s operation but not later than January 31 of the immediately succeeding year of the taxpayer’s operations. However, amendments can only be made once for each reference document and subject to the approval of the Chief, Excise Field Operations Division through an email notification. Submission of ORB to the BIR through external storage facilities such as memory sticks or cards, external hard drives, etc. is not allowed.

Transition rules
All transactions of covered excise taxpayers beginning February 1, 2013 shall already be encoded into the eORB system with the duly accomplished eORB Form for the month of February 2013 transmitted, through the eORB home page, on or before March 5, 2013.

(Revenue Regulations No. 03-2013, February 14, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Linggo, Abril 14, 2013

Clarification on applicability of excise tax on ethyl alcohol

The importation of ethyl alcohol or ethanol intended for re-sale or for the manufacture of compounded liquors is subject to excise tax unless the importer thereof is a holder of permit to operate as importer of ethyl alcohol or ethanol or as a manufacturer of compounded liquors, as the case may be, duly issued by the BIR and has posted a surety bond, in addition to the importer’s bond.

In case of domestic sale of ethyl or ethanol by duly registered manufacturers thereof, otherwise known as distilleries, the sale and delivery of ethyl alcohol or ethanol directly to manufacturers of compounded liquors shall be subject to excise tax, unless a surety bond shall be posted by the distillery, in addition to the manufacturer’s bond.

As regards removal of ethyl alcohol from distilleries for purposes other than the manufacture of compounded liquors, such as for use as blending component for gasoline under RA 9367 (Biofuel Act of 2006), or for industrial and pharmaceutical purposes, the same shall be denatured according to existing rules and regulations on denaturation in order that the same shall not be subject to excise tax. However, the removal of ethyl alcohol or ethanol from distilleries for purposes of rectification shall be conditionally tax-exempt and the excise tax due on the rectified alcohol shall be paid by the rectifier.

Duly registered importers of ethyl alcohol or ethanol intended for resale shall be liable to the excise tax on sale and delivery thereof to persons or entity other than to manufacturers of compounded liquors. The excise tax due on sale to non-manufacturers of compounded liquors shall be paid simultaneous to the payment, if any, of the excise tax not covered by the surety bond.

(Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 18-2013, February 15, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Sabado, Abril 13, 2013

LBT on tollway operators/concessionaires


The Department of Finance (DOF) has issued the following clarifications on the authority of local government units (LGUs) to impose business tax on tollway operators/concessionaires (TOCs) pursuant to the provisions of Section 143(e) of RA 7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991).

Imposition of LBT
For local business tax (LBT) purposes, tollway operators/concessionaires (TOCs) shall be classified as falling under the category of contractors. They shall be subject to LBT on the amount they realize from the operation of tollways systems, which shall be considered their taxable gross receipts.

In calculating a TOC’s LBT liability to any LGU traversed by the toll expressway system, the following rules shall apply:
a. All receipts collected by the tollbooths in a toll barrier/plaza shall be recorded in said toll barrier/plaza and the tax due thereon shall be payable to the city or municipality where the tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza is located.

b. In case an LGU hosts more than one toll barrier/plaza, the combined gross sales or receipts collected at the toll barriers/plazas shall also be recorded in said LGU and all LBT dues shall be collected 100% by the same LGU.

c. In case an LGU hosts the head/principal office of the TOC, any LBT due shall be based only upon the gross sales/receipts collected at the toll barriers/plazas, if any, located within the territorial
jurisdiction of the same LGU. No sales allocation shall be applicable and the LGU hosting such head/principal office shall have no share in the LBT due to other LGUs traversed by the toll expressway system. However, gross receipts realized by the head/principal office of the TOC independent from the operation of the tollways system, if any, shall be recorded in, and the tax due thereon shall be paid to, the LGU hosting the same.

d. Cities and municipalities traversed by the tollways system where the TOC does not maintain any tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza shall not be entitled to the collection of the LBT. Conversely, an LGU that does not host a tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza within its territorial jurisdiction is not authorized to impose and  collect LBT even if it hosts the head/principal office of the TOC.

e. All receipts from an electronic toll collection system (ETC), such as “EC Tag” or any other modes of electronic collection, shall be recorded in the toll barrier/plaza were the e-Card or e-Pass is used and the charges therefrom shall be recorded in said toll barrier/plaza and the tax due thereon shall be payable to the city or municipality where the said tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza is located.

f. No LBT shall be imposed on a newly-installed tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza during the initial period of operation thereof, except regulatory fees and services charges.

However, on the ensuing quarter/year and thereafter, the same shall be assessed for LBT based on the gross sales/receipts realized during the preceding quarter/calendar, as the case may be.

Collection of mayor’s permit and other regulatory fees
LGUs are authorized to collect the mayor’s permit fee and other regulatory fees and charges from the head/principal office and/or tollbooth or toll barrier/ plaza operating within their respective jurisdictions. However, TOCs shall not be required to pay mayor’s permit and other regulatory fees in localities where they do not directly operate a head/principal office and/or tollbooth or toll barrier/plaza.

The mayor’s permit and other regulatory fees shall not be based on capital investment, gross sales of the business, actual kilometer traversed in each LGU, or volumes of vehicles that use the tollways system.

(Local Finance Circular No. 1-2013, January 18, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Biyernes, Abril 12, 2013

SLP as basis for tax assessment


Tax assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith. The assessments should not, however, be based on presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical the presumption might be. In order to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts.

In the instant case, a company engaged in transmission of information was assessed for undeclared sales. The BIR’s assessment arose from the matching of computer records using the summary list of purchases submitted by the taxpayer’s customers.

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) held that the BIR’s assessment against the taxpayer cannot be sustained since the assessment lacks factual basis. The BIR based its assessment merely on an unverified quarterly list. The CTA maintained that the summary list of purchases should have been verified with other externally sourced data in order to check the integrity of the information gathered.

According to the CTA, even the BIR, in its Revenue Memorandum Order No. (RMO) 04-03, recognizes the need to verify the amounts reflected in the quarterly summary list of purchases with other externally sourced data in ascertaining the taxpayer’s underdeclaration of revenues or overstatement of costs and expenses.

Hence, for failure to corroborate its assessment with other externally sourced data, the CTA ordered the cancellation of the deficiency income tax and VAT against the taxpayer.

(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fax N Parcel, Incorporated, CTA EB 883 re: CTA Case No. 7415, February 14, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Huwebes, Abril 11, 2013

Two year prescriptive period for VAT refund applies to administrative claim, not judicial claim for refund


Under Section 112 (A) of the Tax Code, an application for refund of un-utilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales may be made within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. In case of application for VAT refund filed in accordance with Section 112(A) of the Tax Code, Section 112(C) of the Tax Code provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must decide within the 120-day period from the date of submission of complete documents.

In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or credit or failure on the part of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the application for refund within the prescribed period, Section 112(C) of the Tax Code further provides that the taxpayer may, within 30 days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the 120-day period, appeal the decision or the inaction with the CTA.

The SC held that the 30-day period for filing judicial claim for refund under Section 112(C) need not fall within the two-year prescriptive period, as long as the administrative claim is filed within the two-year prescriptive period. The SC cited the following reasons for holding that the 30-day period is not bound by the two-year prescriptive period.

1. Under Section 112(A) of the Tax Code, a taxpayer with unutilized input VAT incurred from zero-rated sales may apply with the Commissioner for refund or credit “within two years” after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. According to the SC, this means that the taxpayer may apply for refund or credit at any time within two years. Thus, an application for refund or credit may be filed by the taxpayer with the Commissioner on the last day of the two-year prescriptive period and it will strictly comply with the law.

2. Section 112(C) of the Tax Code, which provides that the Commissioner shall decide “within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection A,” means that the application in Section 112(A) is the administrative claim that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must decide within the 120-day period. In short, the two-year period does not refer to the filing of the judicial claim with the CTA but to the filing of the administrative claim with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

3. If the 30-day period, or any part of it, is required to fall within the two-year prescriptive period (equivalent to 730 days), then the taxpayer must file his administrative claim for refund or credit within the first 610 days of the two-year prescriptive period. Otherwise, the SC held that the filing of the administrative claim beyond the first 610 days will result in the appeal to the CTA being filed beyond the two-year prescriptive period.

According to the SC, the theory that the 30-day period must fall within the two-year prescriptive period adds a condition that is not found in the law. It results in truncating 120 days from the 730 days that the law grants the taxpayer for filing his administrative claim with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporation and Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Miyerkules, Abril 10, 2013

DST on promissory notes


A domestic corporation engaged in the business of retail financing was assessed by the BIR for deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) on the promissory notes executed by the buyers of appliances on installment basis in favor of appliance dealers, and also, on the subsequent assignment of the same promissory notes in favor of the company.

The BIR contends that the finance company is subject to DST on the issuance of promissory notes as the transferee that “accepted” the promissory notes from the appliance dealer. In the decision of the CTA en banc, it held that the person “using” the promissory note is one of the persons who can be held liable to pay the DST under Section 42 of Regulations No. 26, and considering that the promissory notes do not bear DST, the financing company can be held liable for DST.

As for the assignment of promissory notes, the CTA en banc held that each and every transaction involving promissory notes is subject to DST under Section 173 of the 1986 Tax Code. Hence, the financing company is likewise liable to DST as the transferee and assignee of the promissory notes.

The Supreme Court (SC) held that the financing company is not liable to DST both on the issuance and assignment of promissory notes. As regards the issuance of the promissory notes, the SC explained that under Section 173 of the Tax Code, the persons liable for the payment of the DST are the persons making, signing, issuing, accepting or transferring the taxable documents, instruments or papers. Should these parties be exempted from paying tax, the SC further explained that the other party who is not exempt would then be liable.

According to the SC, the financing company did not make, sign, issue, accept or transfer the promissory notes. Instead, the buyers of the appliances made, signed and issued the documents subject to tax, while the appliance dealer transferred the documents to the financing company, which likewise indisputably “received” or “accepted” the promissory notes.

The SC held that “acceptance” is an act that is not applicable to promissory notes but only to bills of exchange. As further clarified by the SC, the financing company cannot be made primarily liable for the DST on issuance of promissory notes just because it had “accepted” the promissory notes in the plain and ordinary meaning. On the other hand, the SC held that Section 42 of Regulations No. 26, which provides that the person transferring or using a promissory note can be held responsible for the DST, cannot be interpreted to mean that anyone who “uses” the document regardless of whether such person is a party to the transaction, should be liable, as this reading would go beyond Section 173 of the Tax Code.

Moreover, the SC held that the proviso of Section 173 of the Tax Code, which provides that should any parties be exempt, the other party to the transaction would become liable to DST, cannot likewise be extended to persons who are not the parties named in the taxable document or instrument and are merely using or benefiting from it, against the clear intention of the legislature.

The financing company is also not liable to DST on the assignment of promissory notes since the transaction is not taxed under the law. The SC held that while there are provisions in the Tax Code that specifically impose the DST on the transfer and/or assignment of documents evidencing particular transactions, the assignment of transfer becomes taxable only in connection with mortgages, leases, and policies of insurance. Under Section 198 of the Tax Code, the list of transferred or assigned documents that are subject to DST does not include the assignment of transfer of evidences of indebtedness. Rather, it is the renewal of evidences of indebtedness that is taxable.

Considering that the case does not involve a renewal, but mere transfer or assignment of the evidences of indebtedness or promissory notes, the assignment of promissory note is not liable to DST.

(Philacor Credit Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169899, February 6, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Lunes, Abril 8, 2013

Deferral of additional disclosure requirement in ITR


The additional disclosure requirement under BIR Forms 1700 and 1701 has been further deferred to taxable year 2013. Thus, for taxable year 2012, the disclosure of supplemental information shall be optional for individual taxpayers who are required to file their income tax returns on or before April 15, 2013.

The disclosure requirement, however, shall become mandatory for income tax filing covering and starting calendar year 2013 for which a return is required to be filed in 2014.

(Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 21-2013, February 28, 2013)
Tax Brief – March 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo

Sabado, Abril 6, 2013

Transfer pricing regulations


The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued the following guidelines in applying the arm’s length principle for cross-border and domestic transactions between associated enterprises.

Definition of “associated enterprises”
For transfer pricing (TP) purposes, two or more enterprises are associated if one participates directly or indirectly in the management, control, or capital of the other, or if the same persons participate directly or indirectly in the management, control, or capital of the enterprises. The term “control” is defined as any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether or not legally enforceable, and however exercisable or exercised. Moreover, control shall be deemed present if income or deductions have been arbitrarily shifted between two or more enterprises.

Determination of arm’s length price
The BIR adopts the use of arm’s length principle as the most appropriate standard in determining the transfer prices of associated enterprises or related parties. The arm’s length principle requires that the transaction with a related party be made under comparable conditions and circumstances as a transaction with an independent party.

In the application of the arm’s length principle, the following three-step approach shall be observed:
1. Conduct of comparability analysis
2. Identification of tested party and the appropriate transfer pricing method
3. Determination of the arm’s length results

Arm’s length pricing methodologies
The TP guidelines prescribed five methods in determining the arm’s length price of a transaction. These are comparable uncontrolled price (CUP), resale price method, cost plus method (CPM), profit split method (PSM) and transaction net margin method (TNMM). There is no single method that is applicable to all cases, and choice of appropriate transfer pricing method must be made depending on the evaluation of the transaction.

Details of the TP methodologies are explained in the regulations.

Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA)
The advance pricing arrangement (APA) is a facility available to taxpayers to enter into an agreement with the BIR to determine in advance the criteria (e.g., method, comparables and appropriate adjustments) to ascertain the transfer prices of controlled transactions over a fixed period of time. An APA may involve an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR (unilateral APA) or an agreement involving the Philippines and one or more of its treaty partners (multilateral APA).

Transfer Pricing Documentation
TP document is not required at the time of the filing of the tax return. However, the taxpayer has the obligation to ensure that TP documents are available for submission when required or requested by the BIR. The TP documents must be retained or preserved within the retention period provided under the Tax Code.

Taxpayers are required to prepare contemporaneous TP documentation.
Documentation is contemporaneous if it exists or is brought into existence at the time the associated enterprises develop or implement any arrangement that might raise transfer pricing issues or review the arrangements when preparing returns.

(Revenue Regulations No. 2-2013, January 23, 2013)
Tax Brief – February 2013
Punongbayan and Araullo