Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

G.R. No. 66838

EN BANC
G.R. No. 66838, December 02, 1991
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS.
PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
FELICIANO, J.:
Forthetaxableyear1974endingon30June1974,andthetaxableyear1975ending30June
1975, private respondent Procter and Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation ("P&GPhil.")
declared dividends payable to its parent company and sole stockholder, Procter and Gamble Co.,
Inc. (USA) ("P&GUSA"), amounting to P24,164,946.30, from which dividends the amount of
P8,457,731.21representingthethirtyfivepercent(35%)withholdingtaxatsourcewasdeducted.
On5January1977,privaterespondentP&GPhil.filedwithpetitionerCommissionerofInternal
Revenue a claim for refund or tax credit in the amount of P4,832,989.26 claiming, among other
[1]

things, that pursuant to Section 24 (b) (1) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC"), as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 369, the applicable rate of withholding tax on the dividends
remittedwasonlyfifteenpercent(15%)(andnotthirtyfivepercent[35%])ofthedividends.
TherebeingnoresponsiveactiononthepartoftheCommissioner,P&GPhil.,on13July1977,
filedapetitionforreviewwithpublicrespondentCourtofTaxAppeals("CTA")docketedasCTACase

No.2883.On31January1984,theCTArenderedadecision ordering petitioner Commissioner to

refundorgrantthetaxcreditintheamountofP4,832,989.00.
OnappealbytheCommissioner,theCourtthroughitsSecondDivisionreversedthedecisionof
theCTAandheldthat:
(a)P&GUSA,andnotprivaterespondentP&GPhil.,wastheproperpartytoclaimtherefundortax
credithereinvolved
(b)"thereisnothinginSection902orotherprovisionsoftheUSTaxCodethatallowsacreditagainst
theUStaxduefromP&GUSAoftaxesdeemedtohavebeenpaidinthePhilippinesequivalentto
twentypercent(20%)whichrepresentsthedifferencebetweentheregulartaxofthirtyfivepercent
(35%)oncorporationsandthetaxoffifteenpercent(15%)ondividends"and
(c) private respondent P&GPhil. failed to meet certain conditions necessary in order that "the
dividendsreceivedbyitsnonresidentparentcompanyintheUS(P&GUSA)maybesubjecttothe
preferentialtaxrateof15%insteadof35%."

TheseholdingswerequestionedinP&GPhil.'sMotionforReconsiderationandwewilldealwith
themseriatiminthisResolutionresolvingthatMotion.
I
1. There are certain preliminary aspects of the question of the capacity of P&GPhil. to bring the
presentclaimforrefundortaxcredit,whichneedtobeexamined.Thisquestionwasraisedforthe
firsttimeonappeal,i.e.,intheproceedingsbeforethisCourtonthePetitionforReviewfiledbythe
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The question was not raised by the Commissioner on the
administrativelevel,andneitherwasitraisedbyhimbeforetheCTA.

We believe that the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") should not be allowed to defeat an
otherwise valid claim for refund by raising this question of alleged incapacity for the first time on
appeal before this Court. This is clearly a matter of procedure. Petitioner does not pretend that
P&GPhil.,shoulditsucceedintheclaimforrefund,islikelytorunaway,asitwere,withtherefund
insteadoftransmittingsuchrefundortaxcredittoitsparentandsolestockholder.Itiscommonplace
that in the absence of explicit statutory provisions to the contrary, the government must follow the
samerulesofprocedurewhichbindprivateparties.Itis,forinstance,clearthatthegovernmentis
heldtocompliancewiththeprovisionsofCircularNo.188ofthisCourtinexactlythesamewaythat
private litigants are held to such compliance, save only in respect of the matter of filing fees from
whichtheRepublicofthePhilippinesisexemptbytheRulesofCourt.
More importantly, there arises here a question of fairness should the BIR, unlike any other
litigant,beallowedtoraiseforthefirsttimeonappealquestionswhichhadnotbeenlitigatedeither
in the lower court or on the administrative level. For, if petitioner had at the earliest possible
opportunity,i.e.,attheadministrativelevel,demandedthatP&GPhil.produceanexpressauthoriza
tionfromitsparentcorporationtobringtheclaimforrefund,thenP&GPhil.wouldhavebeenable
forthwithtosecureandproducesuchauthorizationbeforefilingtheactionintheinstantcase.The
actionherewascommencedjustbeforeexpirationofthetwo(2)yearprescriptiveperiod.
2.ThequestionofthecapacityofP&GPhil.tobringtheclaimforrefundhassubstantivedimensions
aswellwhich,aswillbeseenbelow,alsoultimatelyrelatetofairness.

UnderSection306oftheNIRC,aclaimforrefundortaxcreditfiledwiththeCommissionerof
InternalRevenueisessentialformaintenanceofasuitforrecoveryoftaxesallegedlyerroneouslyor
illegallyassessedorcollected:

"Sec. 306. Recovery of tax erroneously or illegally collected. -- No suit or

proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national

internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally

assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without
authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner
wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue but such suit or proceeding may be
maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest
or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the
expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless
of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: x x x." (Underscoring
supplied)
Section309(3)oftheNIRC,inturn,provides:

"Section 309. Authority of Commissioner to Take Compromises and to Refund

Taxes. -- The Commissioner may:
x x x x x x x x x
(3) credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received, x x x. No credit or
refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing
with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the
payment of the tax or penalty." (As amended by P.D. No. 69) (Emphasis
supplied)
Since the claim for refund was filed by P&GPhil., the question which arises is: is P&GPhil. a
"taxpayer" under Section 309 (3) of the NIRC? The term "taxpayer" is defined in our NIRC as
[2]

referringto"anypersonsubjecttotaximposedbytheTitle[onTaxonIncome]." It thus becomes

important to note that under Section 53 (c) of the NIRC,the withholding agent who is "required to
deduct and withhold any tax" is made "personally liable for such tax" and indeed is indemnified
against any claims and demands which the stockholder might wish to make in questioning the
amount of payments effected by the withholding agent in accordance with the provisions of the
[3]

NIRC.Thewithholdingagent,P&GPhil.,isdirectlyandindependentlyliable forthecorrectamount
ofthetaxthatshouldbewithheldfromthedividendremittances.Thewithholdingagentis,moreover,
subjecttoandliablefordeficiencyassessments,surchargesandpenaltiesshouldtheamountofthe
taxwithheldbefinallyfoundtobelessthantheamountthatshouldhavebeenwithheldunderlaw.
A"personliablefortax"hasbeenheldtobea"personsubjecttotax"andproperlyconsidereda
[4]

"taxpayer." Theterms"liablefortax"and"subjecttotax"bothconnotelegalobligationordutytopay
atax.Itisverydifficult,indeedconceptuallyimpossible,toconsiderapersonwhoisstatutorilymade
"liable for tax" as not "subject to tax." By any reasonable standard, such a person should be
regarded as a party in interest, or as a person having sufficient legal interest, to bring a suit for
refundoftaxeshebelieveswereillegallycollectedfromhim.
[5]

InPhilippineGuarantyCompany,Inc.v.CommissionerofInternalRevenue, thisCourtpointed
outthatawithholdingagentisinfacttheagentbothofthegovernmentandofthetaxpayer,andthat
thewithholdingagentisnotanordinarygovernmentagent:

"The law sets no condition for the personal liability of the withholding agent to
attach. The reason is to compel the withholding agent to withhold the tax under
all circumstances. In effect, the responsibility for the collection of the tax as well
as the payment thereof is concentrated upon the person over whom the Government has jurisdiction. Thus, the withholding agent is constituted the agent of

both the Government and the taxpayer. With respect to the collection and/or
withholding of the tax, he is the Government's agent. In regard to the filing of
the necessary income tax return and the payment of the tax to the Government,
he is the agent of the taxpayer. The withholding agent, therefore, is no ordinary
government agent especially because under Section 53 (c) he is held personally
liable for the tax he is duty bound to withhold whereas the Commissioner and
[6]
his deputies are not made liable by law." (Emphases supplied)
If, as pointed out in Philippine Guaranty, the withholding agent is also an agent of the beneficial
ownerofthedividendswithrespecttothefilingofthenecessaryincometaxreturnandwithrespect
toactualpaymentofthetaxtothegovernment,suchauthoritymayreasonablybeheldtoincludethe
authority to file a claim for refund and to bring an action for recovery of such claim. This implied
authority is especially warranted where, as in the instant case, the withholding agent is the wholly
ownedsubsidiaryoftheparentstockholderandtherefore,atalltimes,undertheeffectivecontrolof
suchparentstockholder.Inthecircumstancesofthiscase,itseemsparticularlyunrealtodenythe
impliedauthorityofP&GPhil.toclaimarefundandtocommenceanactionforsuchrefund.
Webelievethat,evennow,thereisnothingtoprecludetheBIRfromrequiringP&GPhil.toshow
somewrittenortelexedconfirmationbyP&GUSAofthesubsidiary'sauthoritytoclaimtherefundor
taxcreditandtoremittheproceedsoftherefund,ortoapplythetaxcredittosomePhilippinetax
obligationofP&GUSA,beforeactualpaymentoftherefundorissuanceofataxcreditcertificate.
What appears to be vitiated by basic unfairness is petitioner's position that, although P&GPhil. is
directlyandpersonallyliabletotheGovernmentforthetaxesandanydeficiencyassessmentstobe
collected,theGovernmentisnotlegallyliableforarefundsimplybecauseitdidnotdemandawritten
confirmation of P&GPhil.'s implied authority from the very beginning. A sovereign government
shouldacthonorablyandfairlyatalltimes,evenvisavistaxpayers.
We believe and so hold that, under the circumstances of this case, P&GPhil. is properly
regardedasa"taxpayer"withinthemeaningofSection309,NIRC,andasimpliedlyauthorizedtofile
theclaimforrefundandthesuittorecoversuchclaim.
II
1.Weturntotheprincipalsubstantivequestionbeforeustheapplicabilitytothedividendremittances
byP&GPhil.toP&GUSAofthefifteenpercent(15%)taxrateprovidedforinthefollowingportion
ofSection24(b)(1)oftheNIRC:

"(b) Tax on foreign corporations. -

(1) Non-resident corporation. -- A foreign corporation not engaged in trade and
business in the Philippines, x x x, shall pay a tax equal to 35% of the gross income
receipt during its taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as x x x
dividends x x x. Provided, still further, that on dividends received from a
domestic corporation liable to tax under this Chapter, the tax shall be 15% of the
dividends, which shall be collected and paid as provided in Section 53 (d) of this
Code, subject to the condition that the country in which the non-resident foreign
corporation is domiciled shall allow a credit against the tax due from the nonresident foreign corporation, taxes deemed to have been paid in the Philippines
equivalent to 20% which represents the difference between the regular tax (35%)
on corporations and the tax (15%) on dividends as provided in this Section x x
x."

Theordinarythirtyfivepercent(35%)taxrateapplicabletodividendremittancestononresident
corporatestockholdersofaPhilippinecorporation,goesdowntofifteenpercent(15%)ifthecountry
ofdomicileoftheforeignstockholdercorporation"shallallow"suchforeigncorporationataxcredit
for "taxes deemed paid in the Philippines," applicable against the tax payable to the domiciliary
country by the foreign stockholder corporation. In other words, in the instant case, the reduced
fifteenpercent(15%)dividendtaxrateisapplicableiftheUSA"shallallow"toP&GUSAataxcredit
for"taxesdeemedpaidinthePhilippines"applicableagainsttheUStaxesofP&GUSA.TheNIRC
specifiesthatsuchtaxcreditfor"taxesdeemedpaidinthePhilippines"must,asaminimum,reach
anamountequivalenttotwenty(20)percentagepointswhichrepresentsthedifferencebetweenthe
regular thirtyfive percent (35%) dividend tax rate and the preferred fifteen percent (15%) dividend
taxrate.
It is important to note that Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC, does not require that the US must give a
"deemed paid" tax credit for the dividend tax (20 percentage points) waived by the Philippines in
makingapplicablethepreferreddividendtaxrateoffifteenpercent(15%).Inotherwords,ourNIRC
does not require that the US tax law deem the parentcorporation to have paid the twenty (20)
percentage points of dividend tax waived by the Philippines. The NIRC only requires that the US
"shall allow" P&GUSA a "deemed paid" tax credit in an amount equivalent to the twenty (20)
percentagepointswaivedbythePhilippines.
2.Thequestionarises:DidtheUSlawcomplywiththeaboverequirement?Therelevantprovisionsof
theUSInternalRevenueCode("TaxCode")arethefollowing:

"SEC. 901 -- Taxes of foreign countries and possessions of United States.

(a) Allowance of credit. -- If the taxpayer chooses to have the benefits of this
subpart, the tax imposed by this chapter shall, subject to the applicable limitation
of section 904, be credited with the amounts provided in the applicable paragraph
of subsection (b) plus, in the case of a corporation, the taxes deemed to have
been paid under sections 902 and 960. Such choice for any taxable year may be
made or changed at any time before the expiration of the period prescribed for
making a claim for credit or refund of the tax imposed by this chapter for such
taxable year. The credit shall not be allowed against the tax imposed by section
531 (relating to the tax on accumulated earnings), against the additional tax
imposed for the taxable year under section 1333 (relating to war loss recoveries)
or under section 1351 (relating to recoveries of foreign expropriation losses), or
against the personal holding company tax imposed by section 541.
(b) Amount allowed. -- Subject to the applicable limitation of section 904, the
following amounts shall be allowed as the credit under subsection (a):
(a) Citizens and domestic corporations. -- In the case of a citizen of the United
States and of a domestic corporation, the amount of any income, war profits,
and excess profits taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign
country or to any possession of the United States and
x x x x x x x x x
SEC. 902. -- Credit for corporate stockholders in foreign corporation.
(A) Treatment of Taxes Paid by Foreign Corporation - For purposes of this
subject, a domestic corporation which owns at least 10 percent of the voting

stock of a foreign corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable

year shall
x x x x x x x x x
(2) to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of
accumulated profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (b)] of a year for which
such foreign corporation is a less-developed country corporation, be deemed
to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess
profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such foreign corporation to any
foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or with respect
to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends bears to
the amount of such accumulated profits.
x x x x x x x x x
(c) Applicable Rules
(1) Accumulated profits defined. -- For purposes of this section, the term
accumulated profits means with respect to any foreign corporation,
(A) for purposes of subsections (a) (1) and (b) (1), the amount of its gains,
profits, or income computed without reduction by the amount of the
income, war profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to
such profits or income by any foreign country. x x x and
(B) for purposes of subsections (a) (2) and (b) (2), the amount of its gains,
profits, or income in excess of the income, war profits, and excess profits
taxes imposed on or with respect to such profits or income.
The Secretary or his delegate shall have full power to determine from the accumulated
profits of what year or years such dividends were paid, treating dividends paid in the first 20
days of any year as having been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or
years (unless to his satisfaction shows otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as
having been paid from the most recently accumulated gains, profits, or earning. x x x x x
x." (Emphases supplied)
[7]

CloseexaminationoftheabovequotedprovisionsoftheUSTaxCode showsthefollowing:

a. US law (Section 901, Tax Code) grants P&G-USA a tax credit for the amount
of the dividend tax actually paid (i.e., withheld) from the dividend remittances to
P&G-USA
b. US law (Section 902, US Tax Code) grants to P&G-USA a "deemed paid" tax
[8]
credit for a proportionate part of the corporate income tax actually paid to the
Philippines by P&G-Phil.
The parentcorporation P&GUSA is "deemed to have paid" a portion of the Philippine corporate
incometaxalthoughthattaxwasactuallypaidbyitsPhilippinesubsidiary,P&GPhil.,notbyP&G
USA.This "deemed paid" concept merely reflects economic reality, since the Philippine corporate
incometaxwasinfactpaidanddeductedfromrevenuesearnedinthePhilippines,thusreducingthe

amount remittable as dividends to P&GUSA. In other words, US tax law treats the Philippine
corporate income tax as if it came out of the pocket, as it were, of P&GUSA as a part of the
economic cost of carrying on business operations in the Philippines through the medium of P&G
Phil.andhereearningprofits.Whatis,underUSlaw,deemedpaidbyP&GUSAarenot"phantom
taxes"butinsteadPhilippinecorporateincometaxesactuallypaidherebyP&GPhil.,whicharevery
realindeed.
Itisalsousefultonotethatboth(i)thetaxcreditforthePhilippinedividendtaxactuallywithheld,
and(ii)thetaxcreditforthePhilippinecorporateincometaxactuallypaidbyP&GPhil.but"deemed
paid" by P&GUSA, are tax credits available or applicable against the US corporate income tax of
P&GUSA.ThesetaxcreditsareallowedbecauseoftheUScongressionaldesiretoavoidorreduce
doubletaxationofthesameincomestream.

[9]

InordertodeterminewhetherUStaxlawcomplieswiththerequirementsforapplicabilityofthe
reduced or preferential fifteen percent (15%) dividend tax rate under Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC, it is
necessary:
a. to determine the amount of the 20 percentage points dividend tax waived by the Philippine
governmentunderSection24(b)(1),NIRC,andwhichhencegoestoP&GUSA
b.todeterminetheamountofthe"deemedpaid"taxcreditwhichUStaxlawmustallowtoP&GUSA
and
c.toascertainthattheamountofthe"deemedpaid"taxcreditallowedbyUSlawisatleastequalto
theamountofthedividendtaxwaivedbythePhilippineGovernment.

Amount (a), i.e., the amount of the dividend tax waived by the Philippine government is
arithmeticallydeterminedinthefollowingmanner:

P100.00 --------- Pretax net corporate income earned by P&G-Phil.

x 35% --------- Regular Philippine corporate income tax rate
P 35.00 --------- Paid to the BIR by P&G-Phil. as Philippine corporate income
tax.
P100.00
- 35.00
P65.00 -------- Available for remittance as dividends to P&G-USA
P65.00 -------- Dividends remittable to P&G-USA
x 35% -------- Regular Philippine dividend tax rate under Section 24 (b)(1),
NIRC
P 22.75 -------- Regular dividend tax
P 65.00 -------- Dividends remittable to P&G-USA
x 15% -------- Reduced dividend tax rate under Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC
P 9.75 -------- Reduced dividend tax

22.75 -------- Regular dividend tax under Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC

- 9.75 -------- Reduced dividend tax under Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC
P 13.00 -------- Amount of dividend tax waived by Philippine government
under Section 24 (b) (1), NIRC.
Thus, amount (a) above is P13.00 for every P100.00 of pretax net income earned by P&GPhil.
Amount(a)isalsotheminimumamountofthe"deemedpaid"taxcreditthatUStaxlawshallallowif
P&GUSAistoqualifyforthereducedorpreferentialdividendtaxrateunderSection24(b)(1),NIRC.
Amount (b) above, i.e., the amount of the "deemed paid" tax credit which US tax law allows
underSection902,TaxCode,maybecomputedarithmeticallyasfollows:

P 65.00 ------- Dividends remittable to P&G-USA

- 9.75 ------- Dividend tax withheld at the reduced (15%) rate
P 55.25 ------- Dividends actually remitted to P&G-USA
P35.00 ------- Philippine corporate income tax paid by P&G-Phil to the BIR
Dividends actually remitted by P&GPhil. to P&G-USA P55.25
____________________________________________ = ___________ x
[10]
P35.00 = P29.75
Amount of accumulated profits earned by P&G-Phil. P65.00
in excess of income tax
Thus,foreveryP55.25ofdividendsactuallyremitted(afterwithholdingattherateof15%)byP&G
Phil.toitsUSparentP&GUSA,ataxcreditofP29.75isallowedbySection902USTaxCodefor
Philippinecorporateincometax"deemedpaid"bytheparentbutactuallypaidbythewhollyowned
subsidiary.
SinceP29.75ismuchhigherthanP13.00(theamountofdividendtaxwaivedbythePhilippine
government),Section902,USTaxCode,specificallyandclearlycomplieswiththerequirementsof
Section24(b)(1),NIRC.
3.ItisimportanttonotealsothattheforegoingreadingofSections901and902oftheUSTaxCodeis
identical with the reading of the BIR of Sections 901 and 902 as shown by administrative rulings
issuedbytheBIR.

The first Ruling was issued in 1976, i.e., BIR Ruling No. 76004, rendered by then Acting
CommissionerofInternalRevenueEfrenI.Plana,laterAssociateJusticeofthisCourt,therelevant
portionofwhichstated:

"However, after a restudy of the decision in the American Chicle Company case
and the provisions of Sections 901 and 902 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code,
we find merit in your contention that our computation of the credit which the
U.S. tax law allows in such cases is erroneous as the amount of tax 'deemed paid'
to the Philippine government for purposes of credit against the U.S. tax by the
recipient of dividends includes a portion of the amount of income tax paid by the

corporation declaring the dividend in addition to the tax withheld from the
dividend remitted. In other words, the U.S. government will allow a credit to the
U.S. corporation or recipient of the dividend, in addition to the amount of tax
actually withheld, a portion of the income tax paid by the corporation declaring
the dividend. Thus, if a Philippine corporation wholly owned by a U.S.
corporation has a net income of P100,000, it will pay P25,000 Philippine income
tax thereon in accordance with Section 24(a) of the Tax Code. The net income,
after income tax, which is P75,000, will then be declared as dividend to the U.S.
corporation at 15% tax, or P11,250, will be withheld therefrom. Under the
aforementioned sections of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, U.S. corporation
receiving the dividend can utilize as credit against its U.S. tax payable on said
dividends the amount P30,000 composed of:
(1) The tax 'deemed paid' or indirectly paid on the dividend arrived at as follows:
P75,000 x P25,000 = P18,750
100,000*
(2) The amount of 15% of P75,000 withheld = 11,250
P30,000
The amount of P18,750 deemed paid and to be credited against the U.S. tax on
the dividends received by the U.S. corporation from a Philippine subsidiary is
clearly more than 20% requirement of Presidential Decree No. 369 as 20% of
P75,000.00 the dividends to be remitted under the above example, amounts to
P15,000.00 only.
In the light of the foregoing, BIR Ruling No. 75-005 dated September 10, 1975 is
hereby amended in the sense that the dividends to be remitted by your client to
its parent company shall be subject to the withholding tax at the rate of 15% only.
This ruling shall have force and effect only for as long as the present pertinent
provisions of the U.S. Federal Tax Code, which are the bases of the ruling, are
not revoked, amended and modified, the effect of which will reduce the
percentage of tax deemed paid and creditable against the U.S. tax on dividends
remitted by a foreign corporation to a U.S. corporation." (Emphases supplied)
The 1976 Ruling was reiterated in, e.g., BIR Ruling dated 22 July 1981 addressed to Basic
Foods Corporation and BIR Ruling dated 20October 1987 addressed to Castillo, Laman, Tan and
Associates.Inotherwords,the1976RulingofHon.EfrenI.PlanawasreiteratedbytheBIReven
asthecaseatbarwaspendingbeforetheCTAandthisCourt.
4.Weshouldnotoverlookthefactthattheconceptof"deemedpaid"taxcredit,whichisembodiedin
Section 902, US Tax Code, is exactly the same "deemed paid" tax credit found in our NIRC and
whichPhilippinetaxlawallowstoPhilippinecorporationswhichhaveoperationsabroad(say,inthe
UnitedStates)andwhich,therefore,payincometaxestotheUSgovernment.

Section30(c)(3)and(8),NIRC,provides:

"Sec. 30. Deductions from Gross Income. -- In computing net income, there
shall be allowed as deductions -- x x x
(c) Taxes. -- x x x

x x x x x x x x x
(3) Credits against tax for taxes of foreign countries. -- If the taxpayer signifies in
his return his desire to have the benefits of this paragraphs, the tax imposed by
this Title shall be credited with x x x
(a) Citizen and Domestic Corporation. -- In the case of a citizen of the
Philippines and of domestic corporation, the amount of net income, war
profits or excess profits, taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year to any
foreign country." (Emphases supplied)
UnderSection30(c)(3)(a),NIRC,above,theBIRmustgiveataxcredit toa Philippinecorporation
fortaxesactuallypaidbyittotheUSgovernmente.g.,fortaxescollectedbytheUSgovernment
ondividendremittancestothePhilippinecorporation.ThisSectionoftheNIRCistheequivalentof
Section901oftheUSTaxCode.
Section 30 (c)(8), NIRC, is practically identical with Section 902 of the US Tax Code, and
providesasfollows:

"(8) Taxes of foreign subsidiary. -- For the purposes of this subsection a

domestic corporation which owns a majority of the voting stock of a foreign
corporation from which it receives dividends in any taxable year shall be deemed
to have paid the same proportion of any income, war-profits, or excess-profits
taxes paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country, upon or with
respect to the accumulated profits of such foreign corporation from which such
dividends were paid, which the amount of such dividends bears to the amount of
such accumulated profits: Provided, That the amount of tax deemed to have been
paid under this subsection shall in no case exceed the same proportion of the tax
against which credit is taken which the amount of such dividends bears to the
amount of the entire net income of the domestic corporation in which such
dividends are included. The term 'accumulated profits' when used in this
subsection in reference to a foreign corporation, means the amount of its gains,
profits, or income in excess of the income,, war-profits, and excess-profits taxes
imposed upon or with respect to such profits or income and the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue shall have full power to determine from the accumulated
profits of what year or years such dividends were paid treating dividends paid in
the first sixty days of any year as having been paid from the accumulated profits
of the preceding year or years (unless to his satisfaction shown otherwise), and in
other respects treating dividends as having been paid from the most recently
accumulated gains, profits, or earnings. In the case of a foreign corporation, the
income, war-profits, and excess-profits taxes of which are determined on the
basis of an accounting period of less than one year, the word 'year' as used in this
subsection shall be construed to mean such accounting period." (Emphases
supplied)
Under the above quoted Section 30 (c)(8), NIRC, the BIR must give a tax credit to a Philippine
parent corporation for taxes "deemed paid" by it, that is, e.g., for taxes paid to the US by the US
subsidiary of a Philippineparent corporation. The Philippine parent or corporate stockholder is
"deemed"underourNIRCtohavepaidaproportionatepartoftheUScorporateincometaxpaidby
itsUSsubsidiary,althoughsuchUStaxwasactuallypaidbythesubsidiaryandnotbythePhilippine
parent.

Clearly,the"deemedpaid"taxcreditwhich,underSection24(b)(1),NIRC,mustbeallowedby
USlawtoP&GUSA,isthesame"deemedpaid"taxcreditthatPhilippinelawallowstoaPhilippine
corporationwithawhollyormajorityownedsubsidiaryin(forinstance)theUS.The"deemedpaid"
taxcreditallowedinSection902,USTaxCode,isnomoreacreditfor"phantomtaxes"thanisthe
"deemedpaid"taxcreditgrantedinSection30(c)(8),NIRC.
III
1.TheSecondDivisionoftheCourt,inholdingthattheapplicabledividendtaxrateintheinstantcase
wastheregularthirtyfivepercent(35%)rateratherthanthereducedrateoffifteenpercent(15%),
heldthatP&GPhil.hadfailedtoprovethatitsparent,P&GUSA,hadinfactbeengivenbytheUS
taxauthoritiesa"deemedpaid"taxcreditintheamountrequiredbySection24(b)(1),NIRC.

We believe, in the first place, that we must distinguish between the legal question before this
Court from questions of administrative implementation arising after the legal question has been
answered. The basic legal issue is, of course, this: which is the applicable dividend tax rate in the
instant case: the regular thirtyfive percent (35%) rate or the reduced fifteen percent (15%) rate?
ThequestionofwhetherornotP&GUSAisinfactgivenbytheUStaxauthoritiesa"deemedpaid"
tax credit in the required amount, relates to the administrative implementation of the applicable
reducedtaxrate.
Inthesecondplace,Section24(b)(1),NIRC,doesnotinfactrequirethatthe"deemedpaid"tax
creditshallhaveactuallybeengrantedbeforetheapplicabledividendtaxrategoesdownfromthirty
fivepercent(35%)tofifteenpercent(15%).Asnotedseveraltimesearlier,Section24(b)(1),NIRC,
merelyrequires,inthecaseatbar,thattheUSA"shallallowacreditagainstthetaxduefrom[P&G
USA for] taxes deemed to have been paid in the Philippines x x x." There is neither statutory
provisionnorrevenueregulationissuedbytheSecretaryofFinancerequiringtheactualgrantofthe
"deemed paid" tax credit by the US Internal Revenue Service to P&GUSA before the preferential
fifteenpercent(15%)dividendratebecomesapplicable.Section24(b)(1),NIRC,doesnotcreatea
tax exemption nor does it provide a tax credit it is a provision which specifies when a particular
(reduced)taxrateislegallyapplicable.
Inthethirdplace,thepositionoriginallytakenbytheSecondDivisionresultsinaseverepractical
problemofadministrativecircularity.TheSecondDivisionineffectheldthatthereduceddividendtax
rateisnotapplicableuntiltheUStaxcreditfor"deemedpaid"taxesisactuallygivenintherequired
minimumamountbytheUSInternalRevenueServicetoP&GUSA.But,theUS"deemedpaid"tax
creditcannotbegivenbytheUStaxauthoritiesunlessdividendshaveactuallybeenremittedtothe
US,whichmeansthatthePhilippinedividendtax,attheratehereapplicable,wasactuallyimposed
[11]

andcollected. ItisthispracticaloroperatingcircularitythatisinfactavoidedbyourBIRwhenit
[12]

issues rulings that the tax laws of particular foreign jurisdictions (e.g., Republic of Vanuatu,
[13]

[14]

Hongkong, Denmark, etc.)complywiththerequirementssetoutinSection24(b)(1),NIRC,for

applicability of the fifteen percent (15%) tax rate. Once such a ruling is rendered, the Philippine
subsidiarybeginstowithholdatthereduceddividendtaxrate.
A requirement relating to administrative implementation is not properly imposed asa condition
for the applicability, as a matter of law, of a particular tax rate. Upon the other hand, upon the
determination or recognition of the applicability of the reduced tax rate, there is nothing to prevent
the BIR from issuing implementing regulations that would require P&GPhil., or any Philippine
corporationsimilarlysituated,tocertifytotheBIRtheamountofthe"deemedpaid"taxcreditactually
subsequently granted by the US tax authorities to P&GUSA or a US parent corporation for the
taxable year involved. Since the US tax laws can and do change, such implementing regulations
couldalsoprovidethatfailureofP&GPhil.tosubmitsuchcertificationwithinacertainperiodoftime,
would result in the imposition of a deficiency assessment for the twenty (20) percentage points

differential.ThetaskofthisCourtistosettlewhichtaxrateisapplicable,consideringthestateofUS
law at a given time.Weshould leave details relating to administrative implementation where they
properlybelongwiththeBIR.
2.Aninterpretationofataxstatutethatproducesarevenueflowforthegovernmentisnot,forthat
reason alone, necessarily the correct reading of the statute. There are many tax statutes or
provisionswhicharedesigned,nottotriggeroffaninstantsurgeofrevenues,butrathertoachieve
longerterm and broadergauge fiscal and economic objectives. The task of our Court is to give
effect to the legislative design and objectives as they are written into the statute even if, as in the
caseatbar,somerevenueshavetobeforegoneinthatprocess.

TheeconomicobjectivessoughttobeachievedbythePhilippineGovernmentbyreducingthe
thirtyfivepercent(35%)dividendratetofifteenpercent(15%)aresetoutinthepreambularclauses
ofP.D.No.369whichamendedSection24(b)(1),NIRC,intoitspresentform:

"WHEREAS, it is imperative to adopt measures responsive to the requirements

of a developing economy foremost of which is the financing of economic
development programs
WHEREAS, nonresident foreign corporations with investments in the
Philippines are taxed on their earnings from dividends at the rate of 35%
WHEREAS, in order to encourage more capital investment for large projects an
appropriate tax need be imposed on dividends received by non-resident foreign
corporations in the same manner as the tax imposed on interest on foreign loans
x x x x x x x x x"
(Emphases supplied)
Moresimplyput,Section24(b)(1),NIRC,seekstopromotetheinflowofforeignequityinvestmentin
the Philippines by reducing the tax cost of earning profits here and thereby increasing the net
dividends remittable to the investor. The foreign investor, however, would not benefit from the
reductionofthePhilippinedividendtaxrateunlessitshomecountrygivesitsomerelieffromdouble
taxation(i.e.,secondtiertaxation)(thehomecountrywouldsimplyhavemore"postR.P.tax"income
to subject to its own taxing power) by allowing the investor additional tax credits which would be
applicable against the tax payable to such home country. Accordingly, Section 24 (b)(1), NIRC,
requiresthehomeordomiciliarycountrytogivetheinvestorcorporationa"deemedpaid"taxcredit
at least equal in amount to the twenty (20) percentage points of dividend tax foregone by the
Philippines,intheassumptionthatapositiveincentiveeffectwouldtherebybefeltbytheinvestor.
Theneteffectupontheforeigninvestormaybeshownarithmeticallyinthefollowingmanner:

P65.00 --------- Dividends remittable to P&G-USA (please see page 16 above)

- 9.75 --------- Reduced R.P. dividend tax withheld by P&G-Phil.
P55.25 --------- Dividends actually remitted to P&G-USA
P55.25
x 46% --------- Maximum US corporate income tax rate
P25.415 --------- US corporate tax payable by P&G-USA without tax credits

P25.415
- 9.75 --------- US tax credit for RP dividend tax withheld by P&G-Phil. at
15% (Section 901, US Tax Code)
P15.66 --------- US corporate income tax payable after Section 901 tax credit.
P55.25
-15.66
P39.59 --------- Amount received by P&G-USA net of R.P. and U.S. taxes
without "deemed paid" tax credit.
P25.415
-29.75 --------- "Deemed paid" tax credit under Section 902 US Tax Code
(please see page 18 above)
- 0 - --------- US corporate income tax payable on dividends remitted by
P&G-Phil. to P&G-USA after Section 902 tax credit.
P55.25 --------- Amount received by P&G-USA net of RP and US taxes after
Section 902 tax credit.
It will be seen that the "deemed paid" tax credit allowed by Section 902, US Tax Code, could
offset the US corporate income tax payable on the dividends remitted by P&GPhil.The result, in
fine,couldbethatP&GUSAwouldafterUStaxcredits,stillwindupwithP55.25,thefullamountof
the dividends remitted to P&GUSA net of Philippine taxes. In the calculation of the Philippine
Government, this should encourage additional investment or reinvestment in the Philippines by
P&GUSA.
3.ItremainsonlytonotethatunderthePhilippinesUnitedStatesConvention"WithRespecttoTaxes
[15]

onIncome," thePhilippines,byatreatycommitment,reducedtheregularrateofdividendtaxtoa
maximumoftwentypercent(20%)ofthegrossamountofdividendspaidtoUSparentcorporations:

"Article 11. -- Dividends

x x x x x x x x x
(2) The rate of tax imposed by one of the Contracting States on dividends
derived from sources within that Contracting State by a resident of the other
Contracting State shall not exceed -(a) 25 percent of the gross amount of the dividend or
(b) When the recipient is a corporation, 20 percent of the gross amount of the
dividend if during the part of the paying corporation's taxable year which
precedes the date of payment of the dividend and during the whole of its
prior taxable year (if any), at least 10 percent of the outstanding shares of the
voting stock of the paying corporation was owned by the recipient
corporation."

x x x x x x x x x"
(Emphases supplied)
The Tax Convention, at the same time, established a treaty obligation on the part of the United
States that it "shall allow" to a US parent corporation receiving dividends from its Philippine
subsidiary"a[tax]creditfortheappropriateamountoftaxespaidoraccruedtothePhilippinesbythe
[16]

Philippine[subsidiary]." Thisis,ofcourse,preciselythe"deemedpaid"taxcreditprovidedforin
Section902,USTaxCode,discussedabove.Clearly,thereishereonthepartofthePhilippinesa
deliberate undertaking to reduce the regular dividend tax rate of thirtyfive percent (35%). Since,
however, the treaty rate of twenty percent (20%) is a maximum rate, there is still a differential or
additionalreductionoffive(5)percentagepointswhichcomplianceofUSlaw(Section902)withthe
requirementsofSection24(b)(1),NIRC,makesavailableinrespectofdividendsfromaPhilippine
subsidiary.
WeconcludethatprivaterespondentP&GPhil.isentitledtothetaxrefundortaxcreditwhichit
seeks.
WHEREFORE,foralltheforegoing,theCourtResolvedtoGRANTprivaterespondent'sMotion
forReconsiderationdated11May1988,toSETASIDEthe Decision of the Second Division of the
Courtpromulgatedon15April1988,andinlieuthereof,toREINSTATEandAFFIRMtheDecisionof
theCourtofTaxAppealsinCTACaseNo.2883dated31January1984andtoDENYthePetitionfor
Reviewforlackofmerit.Nopronouncementastocosts.

Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, and Romero, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., joins J. Paras in his dissenting opinion.
Fernan, C.J., on leave.
Cruz and Bidin, JJ., see concurring opinion.

[1]

Wereferhere(unlessotherwiseexpresslyindicated)totheprovisionsoftheNIRCastheyexistedduringtherelevant
taxableyearsandatthetimetheclaimforrefundwasmade.WeshallhereafterrefersimplytotheNIRC.

[2]

Section20(n),NIRC(asrenumberedandrearrangedbyExecutiveOrderNo.273,1January1988).

[3]

E.g.,Section51(e),NIRC:
"Sec.51.Returnsandpaymentoftaxeswithheldatsource.xxx
xxxxxxxxx
(e)Surchargeandinterestforfailuretodeductandwithhold.Ifthewithholdingagent,inviolationofthe
provisions of the preceding section and implementing regulations thereunder, fails to deduct and withhold the
amountoftaxrequiredundersaidsectionandregulations,heshallbeliabletopayinadditiontothetaxrequiredto
be deducted and withheld, asurcharge of fifty per centum if the failure is due to willful neglect or with intent to
defraudtheGovernment,ortwentyfivepercentumifthefailureisnotduetosuchcauses,plusinterestattherate
offourteenpercentumperannumfromthetimethetaxisrequiredtobewithhelduntilthedateofassessment.
xxxxxxxxx"
Section251(Id.):
"Sec. 251. Failure of a withholding agent to collect and remit tax. Any person required to collect,
accountfor,andremitanytaximposedbythisCodewhowillfullyfailstocollectsuchtax,oraccountforandremit
suchtax,orwillfullyassistsinanymannertoevadeanysuchtaxorthepaymentthereof,shall,inadditiontoother

penaltiesprovidedforunderthisChapter,beliabletoapenaltyequaltothetotalamountofthetaxnotcollected,or
notaccountedforandremitted."(Emphasessupplied)
[4]

HoustonStreetCorporationv. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 84 F. 2nd.821 (1936) Bank of Americav. Anglim,

138F.2nd.7(1943).

[5]

15SCRA1(1965).

[6]

15SCRAat4.

[7]

ThefollowingdetailedexaminationofthetenorandimportofSections901and902oftheUSTaxCodeis,regrettably,
madenecessarybythe fact that the original decision of the Second Division overlooked those Sections in their
entirety.Intheoriginalopinionin160SCRA560(1988),immediatelyafterSection902,USTaxCodeisquoted,
thefollowingappears:"ToOurmind,thereisnothingintheaforecitedprovisionthatwouldjustifytaxreturnofthe
disputed15%totheprivaterespondent"(160SCRAat567).NofurtherdiscussionofSection902wasoffered.

[8]

Sometimes also called a "derivative" tax credit or an "indirect" tax credit Bittker and Ebb,United States Taxation of
ForeignIncomeandForeignPersons,319(2ndEd.,1968).

[9]

AmericanChicleCo.v.U.S.,316US450,86L.ed.1591(1942)W.K.Buckley,Inc.v.C.I.R.,158F.2d.158(1946).

[10]

In his dissenting opinion, Paras,J. writes that "the amount of the tax credit purportedly being allowed is not fixed or
ascertained,hencewedonotknowwhetherornotthetaxcreditcontemplatediswithinthelimitssetforthinthe
law" (Dissent, p. 6) Section 902 US Tax Code does not specify particular fixed amounts or percentages as tax
creditswhatitdoesspecifyinSection902(A)(2)and(C)(1)(B)isaproportionexpressedinthefraction:
dividendsactuallyremittedbyP&GPhil.toP&GUSA
______________________________________________
amountofaccumulatedprofitsearnedbyP&GPhil.inexcessofincometax
TheactualorabsoluteamountofthetaxcreditallowedbySection902willobviouslydependontheactualvalues
of the numerator and the denominator used in the fraction specified. The point is that the establishment of the
proportionorfractioninSection902rendersthetaxcredittherealloweddeterminateanddeterminable.

*ThedenominatorusedbyCom.PlanaisthetotalpretaxincomeofthePhilippinesubsidiary.UnderSection902(c)(1)

(B),USTaxCode,quotedearlier,thedenominatorshouldbetheamountofincomeofthesubsidiaryinexcessof
[Philippine]incometax.
[11]

The US tax authorities cannot determine the amount of the "deemed paid" credit to be given because the correct
proportion cannot be determined: the numerator of the fraction is unknown, until remittance of the dividends by
P&GPhil.isinfacteffected.Pleaseseecomputation,supra,p.17.

[12]

BIRRulingdated21March1983,addressedtotheTaxDivision,Sycip,Gorres,VelayoandCompany.

[13]

BIR Ruling dated 13 October 1981, addressed to Mr. A.R. Sarvino, ManagerSecurities, Hongkong and Shanghai
BankingCorporation.

[14]

BIRRulingdated31January1983,addressedtotheTaxDivision,Sycip,Gorres,VelayoandCompany.

[15]

Textin7PhilippineTreatySeries523signedon1October1976andeffectiveon16October1982uponratificationby
bothGovernmentsandexchangeofinstrumentsofratification.

[16]

Art.23(1),TaxConventionthesametreatyimposesasimilarobligationuponthePhilippinestogivetothePhilippine
parentofaUS subsidiary a tax credit for the appropriate amount of US taxes paid by the US subsidiary. (Art.

23[2],id)Thus,Sec.902USTaxCodeandSec.30(c)(8),NIRC, have been in effect been converted into treaty

commitmentsoftheUnitedStatesandthePhilippines,respectively,inrespectofUSandPhilippinecorporations.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

CONCURRINGOPINION
BIDIN,J.:

Iagreewiththeopinionofmyesteemedbrother,Mr.JusticeFlorentinoP.Feliciano.However,I
wish to add some observations of my own, since I happen to be the ponente in Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Wander Philippines, Inc. (160 SCRA 573 [1988]), a case which reached a
conclusion that is diametrically opposite to that sought to be reached in the instant Motion for
Reconsideration.
1.Inpage5ofhisdissentingopinion,Mr.JusticeEdgardoL.Parasarguesthatthefailureofpetitioner
CommissionerofInternalRevenuetoraisebeforetheCourtofTaxAppealstheissueofwhoshould
betherealpartyininterestinclaimingarefundcannotprejudicethegovernment,assuchfailureis
merelyaproceduraldefectandthatmoreover,thegovernmentcanneverbeinestoppel,especially
inmattersinvolvingtaxes.Inaword,thedissentingopinioninsiststhaterrorsofitsagentsshould
notjeopardizethegovernment'sposition.

The above rule should not be taken absolutely and literally if it were, the government would
never lose any litigation which is clearly not true. The issue involved here is not merely one of
procedureitisalsooneoffairnesswhetherthegovernmentshouldbesubjecttothesamestringent
conditionsapplicabletoanordinarylitigant.AstheCourthaddeclaredinWander:

"x x x To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the
court and challenge the position he had accepted at the administrative level,
would be to sanction a procedure whereby the Court -- which is supposed to
review administrative determinations -- would not review, but determine and
decide for the first time, a question not raised at the administrative forum. x x x"
(160 SCRA at 566-577)
Hadpetitionerbeenforthrightearlierandrequiredfromprivaterespondentproofofauthorityfrom
its parent corporation, Procter and Gamble USA, to prosecute the claim for refund, private
respondent would doubtless have been able to show proof of such authority. By any account, it
wouldberankinjusticenowatthislatestagetorequirepetitionertosubmitsuchproof.
2. In page 8 of his dissenting opinion, Paras, J., stressed that private respondent had failed: (1) to
show the actual amount credited by the US government against the income tax due from P & G
USAonthedividendsreceivedfromprivaterespondent(2)topresentthe1975incometaxreturnof
P&GUSAwhenthedividendswerereceivedand(3)tosubmitanydulyauthenticateddocument
showingthattheUSgovernmentcreditedthe20%taxdeemedpaidinthePhilippines.

I agree with the main opinion of my colleague, Feliciano, J., specifically in page 23 et seq.
thereof, which, as I understand it, explains that the US tax authorities are unable to determine the
amountofthe"deemedpaid"credittobegivenP&GUSAsolongasthenumeratorofthefraction,
i.e.,dividendsactuallyremittedbyP&GPhiltoP&GUSA,isstillunknown.Statedinotherwords,
untildividendshaveactuallybeenremittedtotheUS(whichpresupposesanactualimpositionand
collectionoftheapplicablePhilippinedividendtaxrate),theUStaxauthoritiescannotdeterminethe
"deemedpaid"portionofthetaxcreditsoughtbyP&GUSA.Torequireprivaterespondenttoshow
documentary proof of its parent corporation having actually received the "deemed paid" tax credit
from the proper tax authorities, would be like putting the cart before the horse. The only way of
cuttingthroughthis (what Feliciano,J.,termed) "circularity" is for our BIR to issue rulings (as they
havebeendoing)totheeffectthatthetaxlawsofparticularforeignjurisdictions,e.g.,USA,comply
with the requirements in our tax code for applicability of the reduced 15% dividend tax rate.
Thereafter,thetaxpayercanberequiredtosubmit,withinareasonableperiod,proofoftheamount
of"deemedpaid"taxcreditactuallygrantedbytheforeigntaxauthority.Imposingsucharesolutory
conditionshouldresolvetheknottyproblemofcircularity.
3.Page8ofthedissentingopinionofParas,J.,furtherdeclaresthattaxrefunds,beinginthenatureof
tax exemptions, are to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the
exemptionandthatrefundscannotbepermittedtoexistupon"vagueimplications."

Notwithstanding the foregoing canon of construction, the fundamental rule is still that a judge
mustascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentembodiedinaparticularprovisionoflaw.Ifa
statute(includingataxstatutereducingacertaintaxrate)isclear,plainandfreefromambiguity,it
must be given its ordinary meaning and applied without interpretation. In the instant case, the
dissentingopinionofParas,J.,itselfconcedesthatthebasicpurposeofPres.DecreeNo.369,when
itwaspromulgatedin1975toamendSection24(b),[1]oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode,was
"to decrease the tax liability" of the foreign capital investor and thereby to promote more inward
foreign investment. The same dissenting opinion hastens to add, however, that the granting of a
reduceddividendtaxrate"ispremisedonreciprocity."
4.NowhereintheprovisionsofP.D.No.369orintheNationalInternalRevenueCodeitselfwouldone
findreciprocityspecifiedasaconditionforthegrantingofthereduceddividendtaxrateinSection24
(b), [1], NIRC. Upon the other hand, where the lawmaking authority intended to impose a
requirement of reciprocity as a condition for grant of a privilege, the legislature does so expressly
and clearly. For example, the gross estate of noncitizens and nonresidents of the Philippines
normallyincludesintangiblepersonalpropertysituatedinthePhilippines,forpurposesofapplication
oftheestatetaxanddonor'stax.However, under Section 98 of the NIRC (as amended by P.D.

1457),notaxeswillbecollectedbythePhilippinesinrespectofsuchintangiblepersonalpropertyif
the law or the foreign country of which the decedent was a citizen and resident at the time of his
death allows a similar exemption from transfer or death taxes in respect of intangible personal
propertylocatedinsuchforeigncountryandownedbyPhilippinecitizensnotresidinginthatforeign
country.

Thereisnostatutoryrequirementofreciprocityimposedasaconditionforgrantofthereduced
dividendtaxrateof15%.Moreover,fortheCourttoimposesucharequirementofreciprocitywould
betocontradictthebasicpolicyunderlyingP.D.369whichamendedSection24(b),[1],NIRC.P.D.
369 was promulgated in the effort to promote the inflow of foreign investment capital into the
Philippines.Arequirementofreciprocity,i.e.,arequirementthattheU.S.grantasimilarreductionof
U.S. dividend taxes on remittances by the U.S. subsidiaries of Philippine corporations, would
assumeadesireonthepartoftheU.S.andofthePhilippinestoattracttheflowofPhilippinecapital
intotheU.S..ButthePhilippinespreciselyisacapitalimporting,andnotacapitalexportingcountry.
If the Philippines had surplus capital to export, it would not need to import foreign capital into the
Philippines.Inotherwords,torequiredividendtaxreciprocityfromaforeignjurisdictionwouldbeto
actively encourage Philippine corporations to invest outside the Philippines, which would be
inconsistentwiththenotionofattractingforeigncapitalintothePhilippinesinthefirstplace.
5.Finally,inpage15ofhisdissentingopinion,Paras,J.,bringsupthefactthat:

"Wander cited as authority a BIR ruling dated May 19, 1977, which requires a
remittance tax of only 15%. The mere fact that in this Procter and Gamble case,
the BIR desires to charge 35% indicates that the BIR ruling cited in Wander has
been obviously discarded today by the BIR. Clearly, there has been a change of
mind on the part of the BIR."
As pointed out by Feliciano, J., in his main opinion, even while the instant case was pending
before the Court of Tax Appeals and this Court, the administrative rulings issued by the BIR from
1976untilaslateas1987,recognizedthe"deemedpaid"creditreferredtoinSection902oftheU.S.
TaxCode.Todate,nocontraryrulinghasbeenissuedbytheBIR.
Foralltheforegoingreasons,privaterespondent'sMotionforReconsiderationshouldbegranted
andIvoteaccordingly.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

CONCURRINGOPINION
CRUZ,J.:

Ijoin Mr. Justice Feliciano in his excellent analysis of the difficult issues we are now asked to
resolve.
AsIunderstandit,theintentionofSection24(b)ofourTaxCodeistoattractforeigninvestorsto
thiscountrybyreducingtheir35%dividendtaxrateto15%iftheirownstateallowsthemadeemed
paidtaxcreditatleastequalinamounttothe20%waivedbythePhilippines.Thistaxcreditwould
offsetthetaxpayablebythemontheirprofitstotheirhomestate.Ineffect,boththePhilippinesand
the home state of the foreign investors reduce their respective tax "take" of those profits and the
investorswindupwithmoreleftintheirpockets.Underthisarrangement,thetotaltaxestobepaid
by the foreign investors may be confined to the 35% corporate income tax and 15% dividend tax
only,bothpayabletothePhilippines,withtheUStaxliabilitybeingoffsetwhollyorsubstantiallyby
theUS"deemedpaid"taxcredits.
Withoutthisarrangement,theforeigninvestorswillhavetopaytothelocalstate(inadditionto
the35%corporateincometax)a35%dividendtaxandanother35%ormoretotheirhomestateora
totalof70%ormoreonthesameamountofdividends.Inthiscircumstance,itisnotlikelythatmany
such foreign investors, given the onerous burden of the twotier tax system, i.e., local state plus
homestate,willbeencouragedtodobusinessinthelocalstate.
It is conceded that the law will "not trigger off an instant surge of revenue," as indeed the tax
collectible by the Republic from the foreign investor is considerably reduced. This may appear
unacceptable to the superficial viewer. But this reduction is in fact the price we have to offer to
persuadetheforeigncompanytoinvestinourcountryandcontributetooureconomicdevelopment.
The benefit to us may not be immediately available in instant revenues but it will be realized later,
andingreatermeasure,intermsofamorestableandrobusteconomy.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

DISSENTINGOPINION
PARAS,J.:

Idissent.
The decision of the Second Division of this Court in the case of "Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation, et al.," G.R. No. 66838,
promulgated on April 15, 1988 is sought to be reviewed in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
private respondent. Procter & Gamble Philippines (PMCPhils., for brevity) assails the Court's
findingsthat:

"(a) private respondent (PMC-Phils.) is not a proper party to claim the

refund/tax credit
"(b) there is nothing in Section 902 or other provision of the US Tax Code that
allows a credit against the U.S. tax due from PMC-U.S.A of taxes deemed to have
been paid in the Phils. equivalent to 20% which represents the difference between
the regular tax of 35% on corporations and the tax of 15% on dividends
"(c) private respondent failed to meet certain conditions necessary in order that
the dividends received by the nonresident parent company in the U.S. may be
subject to the preferential 15% tax instead of 35%." (pp. 200-201, Motion for
Reconsideration)
Privaterespondent'spositionisbasedprincipallyonthedecisionrenderedbytheThirdDivision
ofthisCourtinthecaseof"CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.WanderPhilippines,Inc.andthe
Court of Tax Appeals," G.R. No. 68375, promulgated likewise on April 15, 1988 which bears the

sameissuesasinthecaseatbar,butheldanapparentcontraryview.Privaterespondentadvances
the theory that since the Wander decision had already become final and executory it should be a
precedentindecidingsimilarissuesasinthiscaseathand.
Yet,itmustbenotedthattheWanderdecisionhadbecomefinalandexecutoryonlybyreasonof
the failure of the petitioner therein to file its motion for reconsideration in due time. Petitioner
receivedthenoticeofjudgmentonApril22,1988butfiledaMotionforReconsiderationonlyonJune
6,1988,orafterthedecisionhadalreadybecomefinalandexecutoryonMay9,1988.Considering
thatentryoffinaljudgmenthadalreadybeenmadeonMay9,1988,theThirdDivisionresolvedto
note without action the said Motion. Apparently therefore, the merits of the motion for
reconsiderationwerenotpasseduponbytheCourt.
The1987Constitutionprovidesthatadoctrineorprincipleoflawpreviouslylaiddowneitheren
bancorinDivisionmaybemodifiedorreversedbythecourtenbanc.Thecaseisnowbeforethis
Courtenbancandthedecisionthatwillbehandeddownwillputtorestthepresentcontroversy.
Itistruethatprivaterespondent,aswithholdingagent,isobligedbylawtowithholdandtopay
over to the Philippine government the tax on the income of the taxpayer, PMCU.S.A. (parent
company).However,suchfactdoesnotnecessarilyconnotethatprivaterespondentistherealparty
ininteresttoclaimreimbursementofthetaxallegedtohavebeenoverpaid.Paymentoftaxisan
obligation physically passed off by law on the withholding agent, if any, but the act of claiming tax
refundisarightthat,inastrictsense,belongstothetaxpayerwhichisprivaterespondent'sparent
company. The role or function of PMCPhils., as the remitter or payor of the dividend income, is
merelytoinsurethecollectionofthedividendincometaxesduetothePhilippinegovernmentfrom
thetaxpayer,"PMCU.S.A.,"thenonresidentforeigncorporationnotengagedintradeorbusinessin
thePhilippines,as"PMCU.S.A."issubjecttotaxequivalenttothirtyfivepercent(35%)ofthegross
incomereceivedfrom"PMCPhils."inthePhilippines"as...dividends..."(Sec.24[b],Phil.TaxCode).
Being a mere withholding agent of the government and the real party in interest being the parent
companyintheUnitedStates,privaterespondentcannotclaimrefundoftheallegedoverpaidtaxes.
SuchrightproperlybelongstoPMCU.S.A.ItisthereforeclearthatasheldbytheSupremeCourtin
aseriesofcases,theactionintheCourtofTaxAppealsaswellasinthisCourtshouldhavebeen
brought in the name of the parent company as petitioner and not in the name of the withholding
agent.This is because the action should be brought under the name of the real party in interest.
(See Salonga v. Warner Barnes, & Co., Ltd., 88 Phil. 125 Sutherland, Code Pleading, Practice, &
Forms,p.11NgoTheHuav.ChungKiatHua,L17091,Sept.30,1963,9SCRA113,Gabutasv.
Castellanes,L17323,June23,1965,14SCRA376Rep.v.PNB,L16485,January30,1945).
Rule3,Sec.2oftheRulesofcourtprovides:

"SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - Every action must be prosecuted and defended in

the name of the real party in interest. All persons having an interest in the subject
of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be joined as plaintiffs.
All persons who claim an interest in the controversy or the subject thereof
adverse to the plaintiff, or who are necessary to a complete determination or
settlement of the questions involved therein shall be joined as defendants."
ItistruethatundertheInternalRevenueCodethewithholdingagentmaybesuedbyitselfifno
remittance tax is paid, or if what was paid is less than what is due. From this, Justice Feliciano
claimsthatincaseofanoverpayment(orclaimforrefund)theagentmustbegiventherighttosue
theCommissionerbyitself(thatis,theagenthereisalsoarealpartyininterest).Hefurtherclaims
that to deny this right would be unfair. This is not so. While payment of the tax due is an
OBLIGATION of the agent, the obtaining of a refund is a RIGHT. While every obligation has a
corresponding right (and viceversa), the obligation to pay the complete tax has the corresponding
right of the government to demand the deficiency and the right of the agent to demand a refund

correspondstothegovernment'sdutytorefund.Certainly,theobligationofthewithholdingagentto
payinfulldoesnotcorrespondtoitsrighttoclaimfortherefund.Itisevidentthereforethatthereal
partyininterestinthisclaimforreimbursementistheprincipal(themothercorporation)andNOTthe
agent.
ThissuitthereforeforrefundmustbeDISMISSED.
Inlikemanner,petitionerCommissionerofInternalRevenue'sfailuretoraisebeforetheCourtof
TaxAppealstheissuerelatingtotherealpartyininteresttoclaimtherefundcannot,andshouldnot,
prejudicethegovernment.Suchismerelyaproceduraldefect.Itisaxiomaticthatthegovernment
canneverbeinestoppel,particularlyinmattersinvolvingtaxes.Thus,forexample,thepaymentby
the taxpayer of income taxes, pursuant to a BIR assessment does not preclude the government
frommakingfurtherassessments.Theerrorsoromissionsofcertainadministrativeofficersshould
neverbeallowedtojeopardizethegovernment'sfinancialposition.(See:Phil.LongDistanceTel.
Co. v. Coll. of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674 Lewin v. Galang, L15253, Oct. 31, 1960 Coll. of
Internal Revenue v. Ellen Wood McGrath, L12710, L12721, Feb. 28, 1961 Perez v. Perez, L
14874, Sept. 30, 1960 Republic v. Caballero, 79 SCRA 179 Favis v. Municipality of Sabongan,
L26522,Feb.27,1963)
As regards the issue of whether PMCU.S.A. is entitled under the U.S. Tax Code to a United
States Foreign Tax Credit equivalent to at least 20 percentage paid portion spared or waived as
otherwise deemed waived by the government, We reiterate our ruling that while apparently, a tax
credit is given, there is actually nothing in Section 902 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, as
amended by Public Law 87834 that would justify tax return of the disputed 15% to the private
respondent. This is because the amount of tax credit purportedly being allowed is not fixed or
ascertained,hencewedonotknowwhetherornotthetaxcreditcontemplatediswithinthelimitsset
forthinthelaw.WhilethemathematicalcomputationsinJusticeFeliciano'sseparateopinionappear
to be correct, the computations suffer from a basic defect, that is, we have no way of knowing or
checkingthefigureusedaspremises.InviewoftheambiguityofSec.902itself,wecanconclude
thatnorealtaxcreditwasreallyintended.Intheinterpretationoftaxstatutes,itisaxiomaticthatas
betweentheinterestofmultinationalcorporationsandtheinterestofourowngovernment,itwould
be far better, in the absence of definitive guidelines, to favor the national interest. As correctly
pointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral:

" ... the tax-sparing credit operates on dummy, fictional or phantom taxes, being
considered as if paid by the foreign taxing authority, the host country.
"In the context of the case at bar, therefore, the thirty five (35%) percent on the
dividend income of PMC-U.S.A. would be reduced to fifteen (15%) percent if &
only if reciprocally PMC-U.S.A.'s home country, the United States, not only
would allow against PMC-U.S.As U.S. income tax liability a foreign tax credit for
the fifteen (15%) percentage-point portion of the thirty five (35%) percent Phil.
dividend tax actually paid or accrued but also would allow a foreign tax 'sparing'
credit for the twenty (20%) percentage-point portion spared, waived, forgiven or
otherwise deemed as if paid by the Phil. gov't. by virtue of the tax credit sparing
proviso of Sec. 24(b), Phil. Tax Code." (Reply Brief, pp. 23-24 Rollo, pp. 239240).
Evidently,theU.S.foreigntaxcreditsystemoperatesonlyonforeigntaxesactuallypaidbyU.S.
corporate taxpayers, whether directly or indirectly.Nowhere under a statute or under a tax treaty,
does the U.S. government recognize much less permit any foreign tax credit for spared or ghost
taxes,asinrealitytheU.S.foreigntaxcreditmechanismunderSections901905oftheU.S.Internal
Revenue Code does not apply to phantom dividend taxes in the form of dividend taxes waived,

spared or otherwise considered "as if" paid by any foreign taxing authority, including that of the
Philippinegovernment.
Beyondthat,theprivaterespondentfailed:(1)toshowtheactualamountcreditedbytheU.S.
government against the income tax due from PMCU.S.A. on the dividends received from private
respondent(2)topresenttheincometaxreturnofitsparentcompanyfor1975whenthedividends
werereceivedand(3)tosubmitanydulyauthenticateddocumentshowingthattheU.S.government
creditedthe20%taxdeemedpaidinthePhilippines.
Taxrefundsareinthenatureoftaxexemptions.Assuch,theyareregardedasinderogationof
sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the
exemption.Theburdenofproofisuponhimwhoclaimstheexemptioninhisfavorandhemustbe
abletojustifyhisclaimbytheclearestgrantoforganicorstatutelaw.andcannotbepermittedto
existuponvagueimplications.(AsiaticPetroleumCo.v.Llanes,49Phil.466NorthernPhil.Tobacco
Corp. v. Mun. ofAgoo, La Union, 31 SCRA 304 Rogan v. Commissioner, 30 SCRA 968 Asturias
SugarCentral,Inc.v.CommissionerofCustoms,29SCRA617DavaoLightandPowerCo.Inc.v.
CommissionerofCustom,44SCRA122).Thus,whentaxexemptionisclaimed,itmustbeshown
indubitablytoexist,foreverypresumptionisagainstit,andawellfoundeddoubtisfataltotheclaim
(Farringtonv.Tennessee&CountryShelby,95U.S.679,686ManilaElectricCo.v.Vera,L29987,
Oct.22,1975ManilaElectricCo.v.Tabios,L23847,Oct.22,1975,67SCRA451).
Itwillberememberedthatthetaxcreditappertainingtoremittancesabroadofdividendearned
here in the Philippines was amplified in Presidential Decree No. 369 promulgated in 1975, the
purpose of which was to "encourage more capital investment for large projects." And its ultimate
purpose is to decrease the tax liability of the corporation concerned. But this granting of a
preferential right is premised on reciprocity, without which there is clearly a derogation of our
country'sfinancialsovereignty.Nosuchreciprocityhasbeenproved,nordoesitactuallyexist.At
thisjuncture,itwouldbeusefultobearinmindthefollowingobservations:
The continuing and everincreasing transnational movement of goods and services, the
emergence of multinational corporations and the rise in foreign investments has brought about
tremendous pressures on the tax system to strengthen its competence and capability to deal
effectivelywithissuesarisingfromtheforegoingphenomena.
Internationaltaxationreferstotheoperationalizationofthetaxsystemonaninternationallevel.
As it is, international taxation deals with the tax treatment of goods and services transferred on a
globalbasis,multinationalcorporationsandforeigninvestments.
Sincetheguidingphilosophybehindinternationaltradeisfreeflowofgoodsandservices,itgoes
withoutsayingthattheprincipalobjectiveofinternationaltaxationistoseethroughthisidealbyway
of feasible taxation arrangements which recognize each country's sovereignty in the matter of
taxation,theneedforrevenueandtheattainmentofcertainpolicyobjectives.
The institution of feasible taxation arrangements, however, is hard to come by.To begin with,
internationaltaxsubjectsareobviouslymorecomplicatedthantheirdomesticcounterparts.Hence,
thedeviseoftaxationarrangementstodealwithsuchcomplicationsrequiresawelterofinformation
and data buildup which generally are not readily obtainable and available.Also, caution must be
exercisedsothatwhatevertaxationarrangementsaresetup,thesamedonotgetinthewayoffree
flowofgoodsandservices,exchangeoftechnology,movementofcapitalandinvestmentinitiatives.
Acardinalprincipleadheredtoininternationaltaxationistheavoidanceofdoubletaxation.The
phenomenon of double taxation (i.e., taxing an item more than once) arises because of global
movement of goods and services. Double taxation also occurs because of overlaps in tax
jurisdictionsresultinginthetaxationoftaxableitemsbythecountryofsourceorlocation(sourceor
situs rule) and the taxation of the same items by the country of residence or nationality of the
taxpayer(domiciliaryornationalityprinciple).

Anitemmay,therefore,betaxedinfullinthecountryofsourcebecauseitoriginatedthere,and
inanothercountrybecausetherecipientisaresidentorcitizenofthatcountry.Ifthetaxesinboth
countriesaresubstantialandnotaxreliefisoffered,theresultingdoubletaxationwouldserveasa
discouragementtotheactivitythatgivesrisetothetaxableitem.
[1]

As a way out of double taxation, countries enter into tax treaties. A tax treaty is a bilateral
convention (but may be made multilateral) entered into between sovereign states for purposes of
eliminatingdoubletaxationonincomeandcapital,preventingfiscalevasion,promotingmutualtrade
[2]

andinvestment,andaccordingfairandequitabletaxtreatmenttoforeignresidentsornationals.

A more general way of mitigating the impact of double taxation is to recognize the foreign tax
eitherasataxcreditoranitemofdeduction.
Whether the recipient resorts to tax credit or deduction is dependent on the tax advantage or
savingsthatwouldbederivedtherefrom.
Aprincipaldefectofthetaxcreditsystemiswhenlowtaxratesorspecialtaxconcessionsare
grantedinacountryfortheobviousreasonofencouragingforeigninvestments.Forinstance,ifthe
usualtaxrateis35percentbutaconcessionrateaccruestothecountryoftheinvestorratherthan
totheinvestorhimself.Toobviatethis,ataxsparingprovisionmaybestipulated.Withtaxsparing,
taxesexemptedorreducedareconsideredashavingbeenfullypaid.

To illustrate:
"X" Foreign Corporation income 100
Tax rate (35%) 35
RP income 100
Tax rate (general, 35% concession rate, 15%) 15
1. "X" Foreign Corp. Tax Liability without Tax Sparing
"X" Foreign Corporation income 100
RP income 100
Total Income 200
"X" tax payable 70
Less: RP tax 15
Net "X" tax payable 55
2. "X" Foreign Corp. Tax Liability with Tax Sparing
"X" Foreign Corp. income 100
RP income 100
Total income 200

"X" Foreign Corp. tax payable 70

Less: RP tax (35% of 100, 35
the difference of 20%-between
35% and 15%, deemed paid to RP)
Net "X" Foreign Corp. tax payable 35
By way of resume, We may say that the Wander decision of the Third Division cannot, and
shouldnotresultinthereversaloftheProcter&Gambledecisionforthefollowingreasons:
1) The Wander decision cannot serve as a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. It was
promulgated on the same day the decision of the Second Division was promulgated, and while
Wanderhasattainedfinalitythisissimplybecausenomotionforreconsiderationthereofwasfiled
withinareasonableperiod.Thus, said Motion for Reconsideration was theoretically never taken
intoaccountbysaidThirdDivision.
2)Assumingthatstaredecisiscanapply,WereiteratewhataformernotedjuristMr.JusticeSabino
Padillaaptlysaid:"Morepregnantthananythingelseisthatthecourtshallberight."Wehereby
citesettleddoctrinesfromatreatiseonCivilLaw:

"We adhere in our country to the doctrine of stare decisis (let it stand, et non
quieta movere) for reasons of stability in the law. The doctrine, which is really
adherence to precedents,' states that once a case has been decided one way, then
another case, involving exactly the same point at issue, should be decided in the
same manner.
"Of course, when a case has been decided erroneously such an error must not be
perpetuated by blind obedience to the doctrine of stare decisis. No matter how
sound a doctrine may be, and no matter how long it has been followed thru the
years, still if found to be contrary to law, it must be abandoned. The principle of
stare decisis does not and should not apply when there is a conflict between the
precedent and the law (Tan Chong v. Sec. of Labor, 79 Phil. 249).
While stability in the law is eminently to be desired, idolatrous reverence for
precedent, simply, as precedent, no longer rules. More pregnant than anything
else is that the court shall be right (Phil., Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 59 Phil. 30)."
3)WanderdealswithtaxrelationsbetweenthePhilippinesandSwitzerland,acountrywithwhichwe
haveapendingtaxtreatyourProcter&GamblecasedealswithrelationsbetweenthePhilippines
andtheUnitedStates,acountrywithwhichwehadnotaxtreaty,atthetimethetaxeshereinwere
collected.
4)Wander cited as authority a BIR Ruling dated May 19, 1977, which requires a remittance tax of
only15%.ThemerefactthatinthisProcterandGamblecasetheB.I.R.desirestocharge35%
indicatesthattheB.I.R.RulingcitedinWanderhasbeenobviouslydiscardedtodaybytheB.I.R.
Clearly,therehasbeenachangeofmindonthepartoftheB.I.R.
5)Wanderimposesataxof15%withoutstatingwhetherornotreciprocityonthepartofSwitzerland
exists.ItisevidentthatwithoutreciprocitythedesiredconsequencesofthetaxcreditunderP.D.
No.369wouldberenderedunattainable.

6)Intheinstantcase,theamountofthetaxcreditdeductibleandotherpertinentfinancialdatahave
notbeenpresented,andthereforeevenwereweinclinedtograntthetaxcreditclaimed,wefind
ourselvesunabletocomputetheproperamountthereof.
7)Andfinally,asstatedattheveryoutset,Procter&GamblePhilippinesorP.M.C(Phils.)isnotthe
properpartytobringupthecase.

ACCORDINGLY,thedecisionoftheCourtofTaxAppealsshouldbeREVERSEDandthemotion
forreconsiderationofourowndecisionshouldbeDENIED.

[1]

There are two types of credit systems.The first, is the underlying credit system which requires the other contracting
state to credit not only the 15% Philippine tax into company dividends but also the 35% Philippine tax on
corporationsinrespectofprofitsoutofwhichsuchdividendswerepaid.ThePhilippinecorporationisassuredof
sufficient creditable taxes to cover their total tax liabilities in their home country and in effect will no longer pay
taxes therein. The other type provides that if any tax relief is given by the Philippines pursuant to its own
developmentprogram,theothercontractingstatewillgrantcreditfortheamountofthePhilippinetaxwhichwould
havebeenpayablebutforsuchrelief.

[2]

ThePhilippines,forone,hasenteredintoanumberoftaxtreatiesinpursuitoftheforegoingobjectives.Theextentof
taxtreatiesenteredintobythePhilippinesmaybeseenfromthefollowingtabulation:
Table1RPTaxTreaties
RPWestGermanyRatifiedonJan.1,1985
RPMalaysiaRatifiedonJan.1,1985
RPNigeria,ConcludedinSeptember,
NetherlandsOctoberandNovember,1985,
andSpainrespectively(documents
readyforsignature)
RPYugoslaviaNegotiatedinBelgrade,
Sept.30Oct.4,1985
PendingRatificationSignedRatified
RPItalyDec.5,1980Nov.28,1983
RPBrazilSept.29,1983
RPEastGermanyFeb.17,1984
RPKoreaFeb.21,1984
PendingSignatureNegotiationsconcludedon
RPSweden(renegotiated)May11,1978
RPRomaniaFeb.1,1983
RPSriLankaJune10,1083
RPNorwayNov.11,1983
RPIndiaMarch30,1984
RPNigeriaSept.27,1985
RPNetherlandsOct.8,1985
RPSpainNov.22,1985

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

G.C.A.