Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WARNER-LAMBERT PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
-
Vet'S US
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent .
X -
This suit
credit
or
J:
total
J:
claim
amounts
represer.t i r.g
erroneously
involves a
the
P171,856.57
fot~
of
of
P449,657. 2 4
manufacturer's
paid
Pet it i or.er
the
by
is
petit ior.er
kno wn
trademarks.
is
domest i c
and
health - care
and
and
for
allegedly
tax
sales
the
year
1983
inclusive.
corporati o n
er.gaged
sale
c e rtain
of
confecti o nery
and
identified
under
different
pharmaceutical
manufactured
Trade
manufacture
pharmaceutical,
products
refund or tax
P277,800.67
in
for
Corporation
it
soap
by
under the
"Neko"
brand,
Manufacturing Services
<MSTC
for
2 56
short>,
and
domestic
DEC I SION
CTA CASE NO. 392S
- 2corpot~at
417G Del
Aver-rue,
Quezon City,
pac~.agir-rg
cor-rtract
pursuar-rt
<Exh.
I,
to a
pp.
94-103,
Mor-rte
Inc.,
of
the
fot~
petitioner filed
the
in the total
period
<Exhs.
It
issued
January
A to G-2,
appeat~s
BIR
1984,
thereof
q~arters
percentage tax
1,
1983
pp. 77-92,
that
Rulir-rg
to
135-84,
August
30,
1984
1984,
addressed
included
payments for
CTA rec. ).
5~
to
respcYrder-rt
MSTC,
wit:
"Gentlemen:
In reply to your letter dated June
28,
1984
requesting
a
ruling
as
to
whether you should be classified as a
manufacturer or contractor,
pleas e
be
informed
that
for
operating
and/or
maintaining a complete line of equipment,
manpower ar-rd facilities for toilet soap
production
for
the
purpose
of
manufacturing your own house brand of
soap e.g.
NEKO soap for your client
Warr-rer Lambert Philippines, Inc., whereir-r
you provide the soap base comprising
97.G~
of the soap and your client the
soap additives ccmprisir-rg 2.4~ thet~eof,
you
come
within
the
purview
of
manufacturer as defined
under Section
187Cx> of the Tax Code.
Accordingly, you
are subject to the 10~ sales tax on the
NEKO
soap
as
prescribed
in
Sections
to
,I
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 392S
- 3-
view
of
letter dated
for a
the
Apri 1
ruling,
18,
1985,
petitioner
requested
amount
soap
it
of
P449,651.00
its
respcndent
allegedly
paid
cot~responding
rett~ oactive
for
et~t~oneously
giver
in
total
NEKO
said
to
to
the
inasmuch as the
the
end
that
it
may
taxes
erroneously
paid
by
it
<Exh.
K,
petitior.er
filed
the
ir.stant
t~eview.
Respor.der.t
in
h is
answer
ar.d
as
s pecial
petition
Petitionet~
therefore,
is
that:
rnanufacturet~
admittedly
and
Rev ~nue
Code;
lr
an
act ion
fot"'
refund
of
taxes,
the
258
DECISION
CTA CASE NO.
392S
- 4taxes
the
collected.
paid
remitted
ot~
et~ rone o us 1 y
were
4.
of an exemption.
The main issue presented before this Co urt
is
applicable
provisions
of
the
as amended by P.D.
National
No.
1358,
199.
Percentage Tax on Sales
be
_.!..A:..:r_t:::..,.!!.i.=c:. :l!:...:e::..:s::;.
There shall
levied, assessed, and collected once only
on every original sale, barter, exchange,
and
similar
transaction
either
for
nominal
or
valuable
cor.siderat _ion,
intended to transfer ownership of,
or
title to,
the at~ t icles not covered in
Sect ions 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 201,
a tax equivalent to ten (10~) . per centum
of the gross value
in money o f
the
articles so sold, bartered, exchanged, or
transfert~ ed,
such tax to be paid by the
manufacturer
or
producer:
xxx.
<Underscoring supplied.>
o::::..:..f_.....;O=t~h~e:.!r
_
Petitioner
inadvertently
which
is
contends
paid
supposed
that
percentage
to
be
paid
beca.tse
tax
by
on
it
has
Neko
soap
MSTC,
it
is
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 392!5
- !5-
respondent
insists
petitioner
that
being
petitioner's
percentage
tax
the reccrd
shows:
TOT~ ~S
AIO.HT
CORRESPIH) Itt;
RTR fi.J,
C. R. fi.J.
DATE
TO t1<0 !P)
UST QTR.)
0874426
0886230
4/20/83
1, 092,705.00
41,843.93
(2ND QTR.)
1187002
2259306
7/20/83
1,363,643.00
69,762.53
!3RD QTR.)
1796728
2156664
10/20/83
1,595,897.00
76,300.23
!4TH QTR.)
1889182
9511894
1/20/84
1,178,386.00
89,893.98
T 0 T AL
227,800.67
1984
UST QTR.)
2750783
3612561
3/21/84
3,475,610.00
52,893.90
!2ND QTR.)
275574
3613071
6/20/84
2,683,518.00
81,737.29
!3RD QTR.)
3802031
4602634
9/20/84
2, 173, 418. 00
37,225.38
T 0 T A L
T 0 T AL
<See Exh.
K,
171,856.57
---449,657.24
supra.)
2 60
'
DECISION
CTA CASE NO.
392~
- 6-
And,
analyzing
readily
be
question,
seen
the
to
soap
were
can
periods
the
manufacturer's
Neko
it
schedule,
during
that
petitioner's
corresponding
above
sales
irtcluded
in
taxes
irt
the
Of
petitioner
see
can
3,
pat~.
However,
rec.>.
safely
is
admittedly
Petition for
manufacturer
Review,
p.
1,
CTA
say
petitioner
that
is
more
of
We
a
Accounting Supervisor
in
toilet
mar.ufactm~ing
are Persona,
Nova,
bills
p~ice
separately
BIR;
filed
tax,
<Exh.
that
a
L>,
via
and
which
that as
sales
invoice
manufacturer's
indicated,
and
remit
wherein
sales
the
and
evidenced
paid
by
Confirmation
the
the
are
to
the
same
manufacturer's
corresponding
Receipts
251
and
BIR
the
tax
retut~r.
as
is
petitioner
selling
it
MSTC
amor.g
soap,
that
MSTC
sales
returns
Payment
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 392S
Orders
<Exhs.
year endiYg
L-1
to
as evidenced
and
BI R
the
by the
tax
of
fot~
that
1984,
MSTC
annual
calendat~
the
also
returns and
corresponding
Paymer-.t
Hearing
L-4> ;
December 31,
manufacturer's sales
M>
7 -
filed
paid
sales tax
the
returns
its
tax,
<Exh.
Confirmation Receipts
Oders
<Exhs.
March
12,
to
M-8.
ESee
This
. 1987J>.
and
t. s. Y1.,
testimony
remained undisputed.
Ur-,der
the
BIR
Ruling
manufacturer
subject
to
of
10~
the
135-84,
Neko
soap
sales
tax
MSTC
ay,d
on
is
as
cor-.sidered
SJ..tch,
its
sales
of
facts,
it
of
is
the
product.
From
the
abundar-t ly
one
by
fot~egoing
clear
MSTC
that
and
the
fir-.dir-.g
two
sales
other
by
taxes
it
were
petit ior-.er,
is
paid,
on
the
same i tern.
I t must
be noted
that
under the
assessed
sale,
and
of
producer
<Sec.
Just ice,
November
1 000 >
collected
to mean the
exchange
Phi 1
aforecited,
only
barter or exchange.
interpreted
the
5,
articles
Ccm.
14,
first
by
Act
1946;
provisions of
the
No.
the tax
once
on
is
every
barter or
mar-.ufact urer
503;
People v.
Op.
ot~
Sec.
of
Pastor,
77
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 392S
- 8It
will
offered
be
its
this
Court,
case
on
evidence
counsel
the
without
stressed
basis
offering
allegations
in
>.
wh ich
for
of
were
all
respondent
the
his
petitioner
admitted
by
submitted
records
answer
and
<See
his
pleadings,
minutes
held on May 3,
In short,
his evidence,
after
that
of
1989,
the
p.
151,
respondent
failed to present
oral cr otherwise,
in Sltppcrt of his
case.
for
Well-settled
is
judgment
the
proof as
to the
understood
material
party and
on
to
and
to
the
truth
have
his
that
pleadings
of
his
admitted
relevant
t~est
rule
orte
without
prays
oftering
allegations must
the
truth
allegations of
motion
who
for
of
the
all
be
the
opposing
judgment
OYt
t h'e
<Bauerman
Evangelista v.
v.
De la Rosa,
Casa,
et.
10
al.,
Phi 1.
76 Phil.
386;
115>.
Commissioner
3232,
June 26,
Commissioner
3213,
July 28,
of
Internal
Revenue,
CTA
Case
v.
No.
Internal
Revenue,
CTA
Case
No.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 392S
- 9-
Commissioner
of
June 5,
4231,
Internal
CTA
Revenue,
Case
No.
Phil. Banker
August
3378,
petitioner
in
1991 >.
30,
its
The allegations
petition
for
review
may
petitioner
soap.
the
in this
light,
is
rtot
We are of
the
the opiniort
of
manufacturet~
Nekc
burden of
that
pt~ oving
the
sales tax
thereor
to
the
Ruling
135-84
effect
pursuant
suffice
it
argument
should
to
to
148
circular
proves
is
Ccde,
retroactive
where
the
revocatior.,
cases
or
circulars
thereof
the
taxpayer
of Tax
Appeals,
Cor. sequent 1 y,
beneficial
inclir.ed to
grar.t
,.
2.., 6.. 'i
will
be
<ABS-CBN Broadcasting
to
L-52306,
if
the
the
108
ruling
taxpayer,
Tax
rto
or
[1981]).
the
have
in
Court
of
327
retroactive
BIR
only
to
given
BIR
rulings
application
v.
be
that
that
the
Corp.
respor.dent
state
by
prejudicial
not
Sect ion
promulgated
modification
of
SCRA
or
the
Hence, this
DECISION
CTA CASE NO.
392S
-
WHEREFORE,
judgrner.t
is
rendered
in
favor
cf
petit ioY.er.
or credit
10 -
erroneously
paid
as
manufacturer's
of P44'3,657.24
sales
tax
for
1 '3'32.
B~LA
DADIVAB~~RRALEB
Acting Associate Judge
,I
265
..
'
DECISION
CTA CASE NO.
392~
- 11 C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N
hereby
certify
that
this
decision
was
the
Court
of
Tax
Appeals
in
accordance
with
<t~G.~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presidir,g Judge
Court of Tax Appeals
266