Cir VS PLDT

CIR VS PLDT
FACTS:
PLDT is a grantee of a franchise under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7082 to install, operate and maintain a telecom
system throughout the Philippines.
It imports various equipment, machineries and spare parts for its business on different occasion from 1992 to
1994.
PLDT paid the BIR the amount of P164, 510,953.00, broken down as follows: (a) compensating tax of
P126,713,037.00; advance sales tax of P12,460,219.00 and other internal revenue taxes of P25,337,697.00.
For similar importations made between March to May 1994, PLDT paid P116, 041,333.00 value-added tax (VAT).
On March 15, 1994, PLDT addressed a letter to the BIR seeking a confirmatory ruling on its tax exemption
privilege under Section 12 of R.A. 7082, with a provision that: the grantee, shall pay a franchise tax
equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the telephone or other telecommunications businesses
transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns, and the said percentage shall be in
lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof.
When its claim was not acted upon by the BIR, PLDT went to the CTA.
The CTA ruled for PLDT, but punctuated by a dissenting opinion of Associate Judge Saga who maintained that the
phrase in lieu of all taxes found in Section 12 of R.A. No. 7082, supra, refers to exemption from direct taxes
only and does not cover indirect taxes, such as VAT, compensating tax and advance sales tax.
The CIR appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the CTAs decision. Hence, the SC addressed the main issue
tendered herein.
ISSUE: WON the 3% franchise tax exempts the PLDT from paying all other taxes, including indirect taxes.
HELD: NO.
Direct taxes are those exacted from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them. They are
impositions for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business he is engaged in.
Indirect taxes are taxes wherein the liability for the payment of the tax falls on one person but the burden thereof
can be shifted or passed on to another person, such as when the tax is imposed upon goods before reaching the
consumer who ultimately pays for it.
The NIRC classifies VAT as an indirect tax the amount of which may be shifted or passed on to the buyer,
transferee or lessee of the goods. The 10% VAT on importation of goods is in the nature of an excise tax levied
on the privilege of importing articles. It is imposed on all taxpayers who import goods. It is not a tax on the
franchise of a business enterprise or on its earnings, as stated in Section 2 of RA 7082.
Advance sales tax has the attributes of an indirect tax because the tax-paying importer of goods for sale or of
raw materials to be processed into merchandise can shift the tax or lay the economic burden of the tax on the
purchaser by subsequently adding the tax to the selling price of the imported article or finished product.
Compensating tax also partakes of the nature of an excise tax payable by all persons who import articles,
whether in the course of business or not.
The liability for the payment of the indirect taxes lies with the seller of the goods or services, not in the buyer
thereof. Thus, one cannot invoke ones exemption privilege to avoid the passing on or the shifting of the VAT to
him by the manufacturers/suppliers of the goods he purchased. Hence, it is important to determine if the tax
exemption granted to a taxpayer specifically includes the indirect tax which is shifted to him as part of the
purchase price, otherwise it is presumed that the tax exemption embraces only those taxes for which the buyer is
directly liable. Since RA 7082 did not specifically include indirect taxes in the exemption granted to PLDT, the
latter cannot claim exemption from VAT, advance sales tax and compensating tax.
The clause in lieu of all taxes in Section 12 of RA 7082 is immediately followed by the qualifying clause on
this franchise or earnings thereof, suggesting that the exemption is limited to taxes imposed directly on PLDT
since taxes pertaining to PLDTs franchise or earnings are its direct liability. Accordingly, indirect taxes, not
being taxes on PLDTs franchise or earnings, are not included in the exemption provision.
PLDTs allegation that the Bureau of Customs assessed the company for advance sales tax and compensating
tax for importations entered between October 1, 1992 and May 31, 1994 when the value-added tax system
already replaced, if not totally eliminated, advance sales and compensating taxes, is with merit. Pursuant to
Executive Order No. 273, a multi-stage value-added tax was put into place to replace the tax on original and
subsequent sales tax. Therefore, compensating tax and advance sales tax were no longer collectible internal
revenue taxes under the NIRC when the Bureau of Customs made the assessments in question and collected the
corresponding tax. Stated a bit differently, PLDT was no longer under legal obligation to pay compensating tax
and advance sales tax on its importation from 1992 to 1994. A refund of the amounts paid as such taxes is thus
proper.
P87,257,031.00 of compensating tax + P7,416,391.00 advanced sales tax = P94,673,422.00 total refund.

Cir VS PLDT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cir VS PLDT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cir VS PLDT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIR VS PLDT

You might also like