G.R. No. 181298 - BELLE CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED, and accordingly, the herein impugned April 10, 2001 Decision and June 5, 2001 Resolution of the CTA are hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED . [33] Petitioner moved for reconsideration. [34] The CA, however, denied the same in a Resolution [35] dated January 21, 2008. Issues Aggrieved, petitioner availed of the present recourse, raising the following assignment of errors: THE CA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN APPLYING THE PBCOM CASE. A.1. THE [DECISION IN THE] PBCOM CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN REPEALED. A.2. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE [DECISION IN THE] PBCOM CASE HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED, IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO BELLE. THE CA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FINDING THAT BELLE'S REFUND CLAIM IS NOT ON ALL FOURS WITH THE CASES OF BPI FAMILY AND AB LEASING. B.1. BELLE'S `CARRYING-OVER' OF ITS EXCESS INCOME TAX PAID FOR 1997 TO 1999 (BEYOND THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR) IS IMMATERIAL. B.2. BELLE'S PARTIAL USE OF ITS EXCESS INCOME TAX PAID IN 1998 (THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR) DOES NOT PRECLUDE BELLE FROM ASKING FOR A REFUND. [36] In a nutshell, the issue boils down to whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of its excess income tax payments for the taxable year 1997 in the amount of P106,447,318.00. Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner insists that it is entitled to a refund as the ruling in Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [37] relied upon by the CA in denying its claim has been overturned by BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [38] AB Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [39] Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [40] and State Land Investment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. [41] In these cases, the taxpayers were allowed to claim refund of unutilized tax credits. [42] Similarly, in this case, petitioner asserts that it may still recover unutilized tax credits via a claim for refund. [43] And while petitioner admits that it has committed a "blatant transgression" of the "succeeding taxable year limit" when it carried over its 1997 excess income tax payments beyond the taxable year 1998, petitioner believes that this should not result in the denial of its claim for refund but should only invalidate the application of its 1997 unutilized excess income tax payments to its 1999 income tax liabilities. [44] Hence, petitioner postulates that a claim for refund of its unutilized tax credits for the taxable year 1997 may still be made because the carry-over thereof to the taxable year 1999 produced no legal effect, and is, therefore, immaterial to the resolution of its claim for refund. [45] Respondent's Arguments Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the cases of BPI-Family Savings Bank [46] and AB Leasing [47] are inapplicable as the facts obtaining therein are different from those of the present case. [48] What is controlling, therefore, is the ruling in Philippine Bank of Co