Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Burmeister | GR No 166134 | January 22, 2007

FACTS:
 Burmeister is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the Philippines. A foreign consortium composed of Burmeister and Wain
Scandinavian Contractor A/S (BWSC- Denmark), Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding, Ltd.,
and Mitsui and Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with the National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR) for the operation and maintenance of NAPOCOR’s two power barges.
 The Consortium appointed BWSC-Denmark as its coordination manager. BWSC-Denmark
established Burmeister (respondent) which subcontracted the actual operation and
maintenance of NAPOCOR’s two power barges as well as the performance of other duties and
acts which necessarily have to be done in the Philippines.
 NAPOCOR paid capacity and energy fees to the Consortium in a mixture of currencies (Mark,
Yen, and Peso). The freely convertible non-Peso component is deposited directly to the
Consortium’s bank accounts in Denmark and Japan, while the Peso-denominated component is
deposited in a separate and special designated bank account in the Philippines. On the other
hand, the Consortium pays the respondent in foreign currency inwardly remitted to the
Philippines through the banking system. In order to ascertain the tax implications of the
transactions, Burmeister sought a ruling from the BIR which responded that if Burmeister
chooses to register as a VAT person and the consideration for its services is paid for in
acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the aforesaid services shall be subject to VAT at
zero-rate.
 For 1996, Burmeister filed VAT Returns reflecting a total zero-rated sales of P 147,000,000 with
VAT input taxes of P3,300,000. The next year, it availed of the Voluntary Assessment Program
(VAP) of the BIR, allegedly misrepresented certain regulations to be applicable to its case.
 Burmeister in 1999 secured a ruling from the VAT Committee that services provided by the
former is VAT-free (0%) who then filed a claim for a tax credit certificate for the erroneously
paid output VAT in 1996.
 CTA: ordered CIR to issue the tax credit certificate. Respondent’s sale of services to the
Consortium is subject to VAT at 0% pursuant to Section 108(B)(2) of the Tax Code.
 CA: affirmed CTA

ISSUE: WON respondent is entitled to the refund of the erroneously paid output VAT for the year
1996? NO

HELD:
No.
Court declares that the denial of the instant petition is not on the ground that respondent’s services
are subject to 0% VAT. Rather, it is based on the non- retroactivity of the prejudicial revocation of
BIR Ruling No. 023-95 and VAT Ruling No. 003-99, which held that respondent’s services are
subject to 0% VAT and which respondent invoked in applying for refund of the output VAT.

The Tax Code enumerates which services are zero-rated, thus:

(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the
Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for
in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
 (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, the consideration for
which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or
international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the
supply of such services to zero rate;
(4) Services rendered to vessels engaged exclusively in international shipping; and
(5) Services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors in processing, converting, or
manufacturing goods for an enterprise whose export sales exceed seventy percent (70%) of
total annual production.

Another essential condition for qualification to zero-rating under the tax code is that the
recipient of such services is doing business outside the Philippines. Services other than
processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods must likewise be performed for persons doing
business outside the Philippines. If the provider and recipient of the “other services” are both doing
business in the Philippines, the payment of foreign currency is irrelevant. Otherwise, those subject
to the regular VAT under Section 102(a) can avoid paying the VAT by simply stipulating payment in
foreign currency inwardly remitted by the recipient of services.

To interpret Section 102(b)(2) to apply to a payer-recipient of services doing business in the

Philippines is to make the payment of the regular VAT under Section 102(a) dependent on the
generosity of the taxpayer. A tax is a mandatory exaction, not a voluntary contribution.

When Section 102(b)(2) stipulates payment in acceptable foreign currency under BSP rules, the law
clearly envisions the payer-recipient of services to be doing business outside the Philippines. Only
those not doing business in the Philippines can be required under BSP rules to pay in acceptable
foreign currency for their purchase of goods or services from the Philippines.

Services covered by Section 102(b) (1) and (2) are in the nature of export sales since the payer-
recipient of services is doing business outside the Philippines. Under BSP rules, the proceeds of
export sales must be reported to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Thus, there is reason to require
the provider of services under Section 102(b) (1) and (2) to account for the foreign currency
proceeds to the BSP. Further, when the provider and recipient of services are both doing business
in the Philippines, their transaction falls squarely under Section 102(a) governing domestic sale
or exchange of services. Thus, when Section 102(b)(2) speaks of [s]ervices other than those
mentioned in the preceding subparagraph, the legislative intent is that only the services are
different between subparagraphs 1 and 2. The requirements for zero-rating, including the essential
condition that the recipient of services is doing business outside the Philippines, remain the same
under both subparagraphs.

Significantly, the amended Section 108(b) previously Section 102(b)] of the present Tax Code
clarifies this legislative intent. Expressly included among the transactions subject to 0% VAT are
[s]ervices other than those mentioned in the [first] paragraph [of Section 108(b)] rendered to a
person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not
engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the
consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance
with the rules and regulations of the BSP.
In this case, the payer-recipient of respondent’s services is the Consortium which is a joint-venture
doing business in the Philippines. While the Consortium’s principal members are non-resident
foreign corporations, the Consortium itself is doing business in the Philippines.

Respondent, as subcontractor of the Consortium, operates and maintains NAPOCOR’s

power barges in the Philippines. NAPOCOR pays the Consortium, through its non-resident partners,
partly in foreign currency outwardly remitted. In turn, the Consortium pays respondent also
in foreign currency inwardly remitted and accounted for in accordance with BSP rules. This
payment scheme does not entitle respondent to 0% VAT.

Also, the recipient of the services is the Consortium, which is doing business not outside, but
within the Philippines because it has a 15-year contract to operate and maintain NAPOCORs
two 100-megawatt power barges in Mindanao.