IFC Capitalization (Equity) Fund V CIR
IFC Capitalization (Equity) Fund V CIR
IFC Capitalization (Equity) Fund V CIR
LEONEN,J,
Chairperson,
CARANDANG,
- versus - ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO, and
DIMAAMPAO, JJ
DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
For failure to submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses, the CIR's
right to present his evidence was deemed waived. The CIR likewise failed to
file his Memorandum. Thus, the case was submitted for Decision. 10
10
Id . at 48 , 94-95 .
Id . at 48-49.
Id . at 49.
Id. at 96-97 .
Id. at 98.
Id . at 51.
't
II
Supra note 4.
Decision 3 G.R. No . 256973
xxxx
xxxx
The CTA in Division found that petitioner is exempt from income tax
pursuant to the above provision because it is a financing institution owned
and controlled or enjoyed refinancing from foreign governments.
The CTA En Banc held that petlt10ner is not exempt from stock
transaction tax since Section 32(B) of the NIRC, as amended, merely
excludes any income derived from the items enumerated therein from gross
12
Rollo, pp. 120-132.
13
Supra note 2.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 256973
income and exempts the same from taxation only under Title II of the same
law. Stock transaction tax is provided in Title V of the NIRC on Other
Percentage Taxes, to wit:
TITLE V
OTHER PERCENTAGE TAXES
xxxx
The CTA En Banc concluded that since the law is clear in excluding
only the income derived by financing institutions owned, controlled, or
enjoying refinancing from foreign governments from gross income and
thereby exempting the same from tax under Title II of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended (which pertains to income tax), the same cannot be extended to
stock transaction tax imposed under Title V of the same law (which pertains
to other percentage taxes).
The CTA En Banc even traced the legislative history of Section 127
of the NIRC and found that during the congressional deliberations, the
authors of the law intended to delineate between stock transaction tax and
income tax.
14
Supra note 3.
15
Rollo, pp. I 0-30.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 256973
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the stock transaction tax is an income
tax covered by the exemption under Section 32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC.
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny
the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of petitioner to show that
the CTA En Banc committed a reversible error in denying its claim for
refund.
On petitioner's claim that the CTA En Banc should not have taken
cognizance of the issue on whether stock transaction tax is income tax
because this was raised belatedly, We agree with the CTA En Banc that it
can validly take up an issue raised for the first time on appeal. The Revised
Rules of the CTA provides that:
xxxx
TITLE V
OTHER PERCENTAGE TAXES
xxx x
SO ORDERED.
16
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Citytrust Investment Phils., In c., 534 Phil. 517, 536 (2006).
17
Applied Food Ingredients Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Int ernal Revenue, 720 Phil. 782, 789
(2013).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 256973
Mbfflu@g
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
. ROSARIO
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Associate Justice
Decision 8 G.R. No. 256973
CERTIFICATION