Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 983 views

    CIR v. BCDA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) sought a refund of 101.6 million pesos in creditable withholding tax deducted from the sale of some of its properties in Bonifacio Global City. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 8 of the law establishing BCDA, the proceeds from the sale of certain properties are appropriated by Congress and exempted from all taxes and fees. Therefore, BCDA is exempt from creditable withholding tax on the sale of those Global City properties.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR v. BCDA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    983 views2 pages
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) sought a refund of 101.6 million pesos in creditable withholding tax deducted from the sale of some of its properties in Bonifacio Global City. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 8 of the law establishing BCDA, the proceeds from the sale of certain properties are appropriated by Congress and exempted from all taxes and fees. Therefore, BCDA is exempt from creditable withholding tax on the sale of those Global City properties.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) sought a refund of 101.6 million pesos in creditable withholding tax deducted from the sale of some of its properties in Bonifacio Global City. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 8 of the law establishing BCDA, the proceeds from the sale of certain properties are appropriated by Congress and exempted from all taxes and fees. Therefore, BCDA is exempt from creditable withholding tax on the sale of those Global City properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    983 views2 pages

    CIR v. BCDA

    Uploaded by

    Chari
    The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) sought a refund of 101.6 million pesos in creditable withholding tax deducted from the sale of some of its properties in Bonifacio Global City. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 8 of the law establishing BCDA, the proceeds from the sale of certain properties are appropriated by Congress and exempted from all taxes and fees. Therefore, BCDA is exempt from creditable withholding tax on the sale of those Global City properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS.

    BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT


    AUTHORITY

    [ G.R. No. 217898, January 15, 2020 ]

    LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

    FACTS:

    BCDA was the owner of four (4) real properties in Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City. It entered into a
    contract to sell with the "Net Group," an unincorporated joint venture composed of four (4)
    corporations. The "Net Group" committed not to remit to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) the total
    amount of Php101,637,466.40 as Creditable Tax Withheld at source (CWT) to give time to respondent to
    present a certification of tax exemption.

    Respondent sought from petitioner the aforesaid certification but the CIR did not respond.

    Respondent and the "Net Group" executed the corresponding Deeds of Absolute Sale. In view of
    respondent's failure to present a certification of tax exemption, the "Net Group" deducted the amount
    of Php101,637,466.40 as CWT and issued to respondent the corresponding certificates of creditable tax
    withheld at source.4 

    Respondent wrote the BIR for refund of the amount but, again, petitioner did not respond.

    Respondent sought affirmative relief from the CTA, specifically for refund of the amount in question.
    Respondent claimed that it was exempt from all taxes and fees arising from or in relation to the sale, as
    provided under its charter, Republic Act (RA) 7227, as amended by RA 7917.

    In its answer, petitioner countered that respondent failed to support its claim for tax refund. In
    particular, respondent allegedly failed to show, by competent evidence, that the CWT was erroneously
    or illegally withheld. Respondent's claim for tax refund purportedly did not comply with the procedural
    requirements. Besides, all taxes paid to the BIR are presumed lawful and proper.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the BCDA is exempt from Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT) on the sale of its Global City
    properties.

    RULING:

    The affirmative answer is found in Section 8 of RA 7227, as amended by RA 7917, otherwise known as
    the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992.

    Section 8 is two (2) pronged. The first commands that the sale proceeds of certain properties in Fort
    Bonifacio and Villamor (Nicholas) Air Base are deemed appropriated by Congress to each of the
    aforenamed recipients and for the respective purposes specified therein. Consequently, the sale
    proceeds are not BCDA income but public funds subject to the distribution scheme and purposes
    provided in the law itself. Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 32 of the Administrative Code of 1987 directs that
    "[a]ll monies appropriated for functions, activities, projects and programs shall be available solely for the
    specific purposes for which these are appropriated." The second expressly enjoins that the proceeds of
    the sale shall not be diminished by any item or circumstance, including all forms of taxes and fees.
    The provision is self-explanatory.

    The Court has invariably ruled that when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no
    occasion for interpretation; there is only room for application.

    In light of the foregoing considerations, the standard procedural and documentary requirements for tax
    refund applicable to GOCCs in general do not apply to BCDA vis-a-vis the properties and the sale
    proceeds specified under Section 8 of RA 7227, as amended. To repeat, there is no income to speak of
    here; only the sale proceeds of specific properties which the legislature itself exempts from all taxes and
    fees.

    You might also like