Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 324 views

    Digest 12 Deutsche Bank Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Princess Rosshien Hortal
    1) Deutsche Bank Manila Branch paid PHP 67.6 million in branch profit remittance tax and filed for a refund of an alleged overpayment of PHP 22.5 million. It also requested confirmation of entitlement to the 10% preferential tax rate under the Philippines-Germany Tax Treaty. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals denied the refund request, ruling that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, which requires taxpayers to apply for tax treaty relief with the Bureau of Internal Revenue at least 15 days before the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance like RMO No. 1-2000 should not deprive taxpayers of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest 12 Deutsche Bank Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Princess Rosshien Hortal
    324 views1 page
    1) Deutsche Bank Manila Branch paid PHP 67.6 million in branch profit remittance tax and filed for a refund of an alleged overpayment of PHP 22.5 million. It also requested confirmation of entitlement to the 10% preferential tax rate under the Philippines-Germany Tax Treaty. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals denied the refund request, ruling that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, which requires taxpayers to apply for tax treaty relief with the Bureau of Internal Revenue at least 15 days before the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance like RMO No. 1-2000 should not deprive taxpayers of the

    Original Description:

    Hmm

    Original Title

    Digest 12 Deutsche Bank vs Cir

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Deutsche Bank Manila Branch paid PHP 67.6 million in branch profit remittance tax and filed for a refund of an alleged overpayment of PHP 22.5 million. It also requested confirmation of entitlement to the 10% preferential tax rate under the Philippines-Germany Tax Treaty. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals denied the refund request, ruling that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, which requires taxpayers to apply for tax treaty relief with the Bureau of Internal Revenue at least 15 days before the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance like RMO No. 1-2000 should not deprive taxpayers of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    324 views1 page

    Digest 12 Deutsche Bank Vs Cir

    Uploaded by

    Princess Rosshien Hortal
    1) Deutsche Bank Manila Branch paid PHP 67.6 million in branch profit remittance tax and filed for a refund of an alleged overpayment of PHP 22.5 million. It also requested confirmation of entitlement to the 10% preferential tax rate under the Philippines-Germany Tax Treaty. 2) The Court of Tax Appeals denied the refund request, ruling that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-2000, which requires taxpayers to apply for tax treaty relief with the Bureau of Internal Revenue at least 15 days before the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance like RMO No. 1-2000 should not deprive taxpayers of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH vs.

    CIR

    Facts:

    After payment of its branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) amounting PHP 67,688,553.51, petitioner
    then filed for refund of its alleged overpayment of PHP 22,562,851.17. Petitioner also requested from the
    International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its entitlement to the preferential tax rate of
    10% under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty. Since no action from BIR, petitioner elevated to CTA. CTA ruled
    that prior application for a tax treaty relief is mandatory (pursuant to RMO No. 1-2000, which requires
    that any availment of the tax treaty relief must be preceded by an application with ITAD at least 15 days
    before the transaction), and noncompliance with this prerequisite is fatal to the taxpayer’s availment of
    the preferential tax rate.
    For recit purposes:
    CTA 2nd Div: denied on the ground that the application for a tax treaty relief was not filed with
    ITAD prior to the payment by the former of its BPRT, or prior to its availment of the preferential
    rate of ten percent (10%) under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty provision and that it violated violated
    the fifteen (15) day period mandated under Section III paragraph (2) of Revenue Memorandum
    Order (RMO) No. 1-2000.
    CTA En Banc: Affirmed; that a ruling from the ITAD of the BIR must be secured prior to the
    availment of a preferential tax rate under a tax treaty; and that the 15-day rule for tax treaty relief
    application under RMO No. 1-2000 cannot be relaxed.

    Issue: W/N the failure to strictly comply with RMO No. 1-2000 will deprive persons or corporations of the
    benefit of a tax treaty.

    Ruling:
    No. The denial of a relief based on a tax treaty due to the failure of a taxpayer to comply with
    RMO would impair the value of the tax treaty and the State's duty to comply in good faith with the tax
    treaty. (Art. 2, Sec. II, 1987 Consti)
    The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must take precedence over an administrative issuance.
    An administrative issuance such as a Revenue Memorandum Order should not operate to divest the
    entitlement to a relief granted by a tax treaty. Further, nothing in RMO No. 1-2000 which would indicate
    a deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty relief for failure to comply with the 15-day period.

    You might also like