SILICON PHILIPPINES, INC., (Formerly INTEL PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 172378 January 17, 2011
Facts:
1. Petitioner Silicon Philippines, Inc., is engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing and exporting advance and largescale integrated circuit components or ICs.
2. Petitioner is registered with BIR as a VAT taxpayer and with the Board of Investments (BOI) as a preferred pioneer enterprise.
3. Petitioner filed with the CIR, through the One Stop Shop Inter Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the DOF, an application for credit/refund of unutilized input VAT.
4. Due to the inaction of the respondent, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA.
5. Petitioner alleged that for the it generated and recorded zero-rated export sales in the amount of P3,027,880,818.42, paid to petitioner in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP and that for the said period, petitioner paid input VAT in the total amount of P31,902,507.50, which have not been applied to any output VAT.
6. CTA rendered a Decision partially granting petitioners claim for refund of unutilized input VAT on capital goods. Out of the amount of P15,170,082.00, only P9,898,867.00 was allowed to be refunded because training materials, office supplies, posters, banners, Tshirts, books, and other similar items purchased by petitioner were not considered capital goods under Section 4.1061( b) of RR No. 795. With regard to petitioners claim for credit/refund of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated export sales, the CTA denied the same because petitioner failed to present an Authority to Print (ATP) from the BIR; neither did it print on its export sales invoices the ATP and the word zero-rated
Issues:
(1) Whether the CTA erred in denying petitioners claim for credit/ refund of input VA attributable to its zero-rated sales due to its failure:
(a) To show that it secured an ATP from the BIR and to indicate the same in its export sales invoices; and
(b) To print the word zero-rated in its export sales invoices.
(2) Whether the CTA erred in ruling that only the amount of P9,898,867.00 can be classified as input VAT paid on capital goods
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
1. First Issue
ü Printing the ATP on the invoices or receipts is not required
The ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts because there is no law or regulation requiring it. Thus, in the absence of such law or regulation, failure to print the ATP on the invoices or receipts should not result in the outright denial of a claim or the invalidation of the invoices or receipts for purposes of claiming a refund.
But while there is no law requiring the ATP to be printed on the invoices or receipts, Section 238 of the NIRC expressly requires persons engaged in business to secure an ATP from the BIR prior to printing invoices or receipts. Failure to do so makes the person liable under Section 264 of the NIRC.
Under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC, a claimant must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. To prove this, duly registered invoices or receipts evidencing zero-rated sales must be presented. However, since the ATP is not indicated in the invoices or receipts, the only way to verify whether the invoices or receipts are duly registered is by requiring the claimant to present its ATP from the BIR. Without this proof, the invoices or receipts would have no probative value for the purpose of refund.
ü Failure to print the word zero-rated on the sales invoices is fatal to a claim for refund of input VAT
(Panasonic Case)
All told, the no presentation of the ATP and the failure to indicate the word zero-rated in the invoices or receipts are fatal to a claim for credit/refund of input VAT on zero-rated sales. The failure to indicate the ATP in the sales invoices or receipts, on the other hand, is not. In this case, petitioner failed to present its ATP and to print the word zero-rated on its export sales invoices.
2. Second Issue:
Section 4.1061 (b) of RR No. 795 defines capital goods as follows:
Capital goods or properties refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater that one year and which are treated as depreciable assets under Section 29 (f), used directly or indirectly in the production or sale of taxable goods or services.
Based on the foregoing definition, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the CTA that training materials, office supplies, posters, banners, Tshirts, books, and the other similar items reflected in petitioners Summary of Importation of Goods are not capital goods. A reduction in the refundable input VAT on capital goods from P15,170,082.00 to P9,898,867.00 is therefore in order.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment