CIR Vs Euro-Philippines Airline Services
CIR Vs Euro-Philippines Airline Services
CIR Vs Euro-Philippines Airline Services
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
REYES, JR., J:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking to set aside the Decision[2] dated July 14, 2015 and Resolution[3] dated
December 22, 2015 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in case CTA EB Case No.
1106 affirming the Decision of the CTA Special First Division which cancelled and
withdrew the assessments for deficiency value-added tax, as well as interest and
surcharges.
THE ANTECEDENTS
Euro-Phil received a Formal Assessment Notice (FAN)[5] dated September 13, 2010
from petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on 14 September 2010 in the
aggregate amount of P4,271,228,20.00 consisting of assessment of Value Added Tax
(VAT), among others, for the taxable year ending March 31, 2007 with Details of
Discrepancies.[6]
Following the lapse of the 180-day period within which to resolve the protest, Euro-Phil
filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals Special First Division (CTA-
First Division) praying, among others, for the cancellation of the FAN issued by CIR for
deficiency VAT. Euro-Phil argued therein that the receipts that are supposedly subject
to 12% VAT actually pertained to "services rendered to persons engaged exclusively in
international air transport" hence, zero-rated.[8]
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 1 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
The CTA- Special First Division rendered a Decision[9] on 25 July 2013 finding Euro-Phil
is rendering services to persons engaged in international air transport operations and,
as such, is zero-rated under Section 108 of the NIRC of 1997. The said decision
disposed thus:[10]
xxxx
SO ORDERED."[11]
CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the said Decision covering only the
value-added tax that was denied therein. Such motion was denied for lack of merit in a
Resolution dated 18 November 2013.[12]
CIR then appealed before the CTA En Banc alleging that CTA Special First Division erred
in not holding that Euro-Phil's services is subject to 12% VAT.[13]
The CTA En Banc rendered a Decision[14] denying the petition and sustaining the CTA
Special First Division with which CTA Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario (Justice
Del Rosario) concurred with Dissenting Opinion.[15] The said decision disposed thus:
SO ORDERED.[16]
CIR moved for reconsideration of the said decision insisting that the presentation of
VAT official receipts with the words "zero-rated" imprinted thereon is indispensable to
cancel the value-added tax (VAT) assessment against Euro-Phil.[17] However, it was
denied in a Resolution[18] dated December 22, 2015 with a dissenting opinion[19] from
CTA Presiding Justice (Justice del Rosario), to quote as follows, pertinent to the issue of
VAT:
In the case at bar, respondent is assessed for deficiency VAT for services it
rendered as passenger sales agent of British Airways PLC. Respondent
invokes that services rendered by VAT-registered persons to persons
engaged in international air transport operations is subject to zero percent
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 2 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
(0%) rate, pursuant to Section 108 of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) of 1997, as amended.
In fine, the issue of compliance with Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended, is vital in the disposition of the present controversy which the
Court should consider, lest an indispensable requirement for the availment
of VAT zero-rating is blatantly ignored.
For all the foregoing, I VOTE to grant petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
and UPHOLD the VAT assessment."[20]
Hence, this petition with CIR adopting Justice Del Rosario's dissent and that Euro-Phil
had to comply with the invoicing requirements to be entitled to zero rating of VAT.[21]
CIR also takes exception to the doctrine of "issues cannot be raised the first time on
appeal."
The Issues
2. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc erred in finding that the
transaction sale made by respondent is entitled to the benefit of zero-rated VAT
despite its failure to comply with invoicing requirements as mandated by law.
Our Ruling
Euro-Phil contends that CIR raised new matters in its Petition for Review with the CTA
En Banc and does it again in this Petition for Review which should not be allowed by
this Court.
We agree.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 3 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
Here, it is not disputed that CIR raised the issue that the alleged failure to present VAT
official receipts with the imprinted words "zero rated" adopting the dissent of Justice
Del Rosario, only at the latter stage of the appeal on Motion for Reconsideration of the
CTA En Banc's decision. Accordingly, with the doctrine that issues may not be raised for
the first time on appeal, CIR should not be allowed by this Court to raise this matter.
Moreover, while the issue arose from the dissent of Justice Del Rosario, the law is clear
on the matter. Section 108 of the NIRC of 1997 imposes zero percent (0%) value-
added tax on services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons to
persons engaged in international air transport operations, as it thus provides:
(A) x x x x
(1) x x x x
xxxx
xxxx
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 4 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
Here, there is no dispute that Euro-Phil is VAT registered. Next, it is also not disputed
that the services rendered by Euro-Phil was to a person engaged in international air-
transport operations. Thus, by application, Section 108 of the NIRC of 1997 subjects
the services of Euro-Phil to British Airways PLC, to the rate of zero percent VAT.
While CIR contends that the dissenting opinion of Justice del Rosario that Euro-Phil's
failure to present and offer any proof to show that it has complied with the invoicing
requirements, deems its sale of services to British Airways PLC subject to 12% VAT, it
does not negate the established fact that British Airways PLC is engaged in
international air-transport operations.
Moreover, as dictated by Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, on the said provisions on
the "Consequences of Issuing Erroneous VAT Invoice of VAT Official Receipt,[24]
nowhere therein is a presumption created by law that the non-imprintment of the word
"zero rated" deems the transaction subject to 12 % VAT. In addition, Section 4. 113-4
of Revenue Regulations 16-2005,[25] Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of
2005, also does not state that the non-imprintment of the word "zero rated" deems the
transaction subject to 12 %VAT. Thus, in this case, failure to comply with invoicing
requirements as mandated by law does not deem the transaction subject to 12% VAT.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CTA En Banc did not
commit any reversible error.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision[26] dated July 14,
2015 and Resolution[27] dated December 22,2015 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En
Banc in CTA EB Case No. 1106 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
[*] Senior Associate Justice (Per Section 12, Republic Act No. 296, The Judiciary Act of
1948, As Amended)
[2] Penned by Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Cielito Mindaro-Grulla, with
Associate Justices Roman G. Del Rosario, Juanito C. Catanela, Jr., Jonell R. Bautista,
Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Cassanova, Esperanza Fabon-Victorino, and Ma. Belen M.
Ringpis Liban, concurring; id. at 31-48.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 5 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
[8] Id.
[15] Dissenting Opinion of CTA Presiding Justice Roman G. del Rosario; id. at 53-54
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 6 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
(2) If a VAT-registered person issues a VAT invoice or VAT official receipt for
a VAT-exempt transaction, but fails to display prominently on the invoice or
receipt the term 'VAT-exempt sale', the issuer shall be liable to account for
the tax imposed in Section 106 or 108 as if Section 109 did not apply.
"(E) xxxx
Official Receipt.—
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 7 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
The petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), which seeks to reverse
and set aside the decision of the CTA En Banc cancelling the value-added tax (VAT)
assessment issued against respondent Euro Philippines Airline Services, Inc., is
anchored on respondent's failure to comply with the invoicing requirements provided
under Section 113 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended.
The CIR asserts that since respondent failed to print the word "zero-rated" in its VAT
official receipts, the subject transaction cannot be considered as zero-rated. In support
of this argument, the CIR alludes to the case of Kepco Philippines Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue[1] (Kepco) and other VAT refund cases,[2] where the
Court has consistently ruled that the failure to print the word "zero-rated" on the
invoices or receipts is fatal to a claim for refund or credit of input VAT on zero-rated
sales. The CIR, adopting the dissenting opinion of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del
Rosario, posits that the strict compliance with the invoicing requirement in refund cases
should also be applied in this case.
However, I find the ruling in Kepco and other relevant VAT refund cases on the strict
compliance with invoicing requirement inapplicable to the instant case.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 8 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
Internal Revenue,[3] involving a claim for refund of input VAT attributable to zero-rated
sales, the Court explained that the requirement of printing the word "zero-rated" on
the invoice or receipt "is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT
from the covered sales of goods and services. x x x [T]he appearance of the word
"zero-rated" on the face of invoices covering zero-rated sales prevents buyers from
falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid. If,
absent such word, a successful claim for input VAT is made, the government would be
refunding money it did not collect."[4] In other words, the ratio for requiring the
printing of the word "zero-rated" was essentially to protect the government from
refunding a tax it did not actually collect; thus, unjustly enriching the taxpayer at the
expense of the government.
However, the "evil" of refunding taxes not actually paid is not present in this case.
Here, respondent is not claiming for a refund of its unutilized input VAT attributable to
its zero-rated sales. On the contrary, respondent is being assessed by the government
for deficiency VAT on transactions which, under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as
sufficiently proven by respondent, are clearly subject to 0% VAT rate. Thus, to apply
the strict compliance rule in this case is tantamount to allowing the government to
collect taxes not authorized by law. Upholding the deficiency VAT assessment against
respondent simply because the word "zero-rated" does not appear on the VAT official
receipts will only result in the government effectively enriching itself at the expense of
the taxpayer – the very evil which the strict compliance rule seeks to prevent in the
first place.
Verily, in light of the foregoing considerations, I concur with the denial of the CIR's
petition and affirmance of the decision and resolution of the CTA En Banc cancelling the
deficiency VAT assessment issued against respondent.
[2] Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 650 Phil. 525
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 9 of 10
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 20/09/2019, 10(32 PM
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64429 Page 10 of 10