Kepco V Cir (2010)

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
[G.R. No. 181858 , November 24, 2010]

MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
1. Petitioner KEPCO Philippines Corporation (Kepco) is a VAT-registered independent power producer engaged in
the business of generating electricity
a. exclusively sells electricity to National Power Corporation (NPC), an entity exempt from taxes under
Section 13 of Republic Act No. 6395 (RA No. 6395)
2. Kepco filed an application for zero-rated sales with the Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 54 of the BIR
a. application was approved under VAT Ruling 64-01
b. for taxable year 2002, it filed four Quarterly VAT Returns declaring zero-rated sales in the aggregate
amount of P3,285,308,055.85
3. Kepco claimed expenses reportedly sustained in connection with the production and sale of electricity with NPC.
a. paid input VAT amounting to P11,710,868.86 attributing the same to its zero-rated sales of electricity with
NPC
4. Kepco filed before the CIR a claim for tax refund covering unutilized input VAT payments attributable to its zero-
rated sales transactions for taxable year 2002
5. 2 days later it filed a petition for review before the CTA.
a. CIR alleged that the claims for refund were strictly construed against the tacpayer as it was similar to a
tax exemption
b. CTA Second Division ruled that out of the total declared zero-rated sales of P3,285,308,055.85,
Kepco was only able to properly substantiateP1,451,788,865.52 as its zero-rated sales
c. CTA Second Division also disallowed the P5,170,914.20 of Kepco’s claimed input VAT because it was not
supported by “VAT Invoices” under the contemplation of the aforequoted
invoicing requirement. a “VAT Invoice,” the TIN-VAT must be printed, and not merely stamped.
i. input VAT on purchases supported by invoices or official receipts which are not NON-VAT are
disallowed because these invoices or official receipts are not considered as “VAT Invoices.”
6. CTA En Banc dismissed the petition of Kepco and ruled that “in order for Kepco to be entitled to its claim for
refund/issuance of tax credit certificate representing unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for
taxable year 2002, it must comply with the substantiation requirements under the appropriate Revenue
Regulations, i.e. Revenue Regulations 7-95”
ISSUE: whether the word “zero-rated” should be imprinted on invoices and/or official receipts as part of the invoicing
requirement
HELD:
1. the necessity of indicating “zero-rated” into VAT invoices/receipts became more apparent when the
provisions of this revenue regulation was later integrated into RA No. 9337, the amendatory law of
the 1997 NIRC.
a. SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons. – (B.2)
i. (b) “If the sale is exempt from value-added tax, the term "VAT-exempt sale" shall be
written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt;”
ii. (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term "zero-rated
sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt;
2. Kepco’s failure to indicate in its VAT invoices and receipts that the transactions were zero-rated, it failed
to comply with the correct substantiation requirement for zero-rated transactions.
3. Section 264 (formerly Section 263) of the 1997 NIRC was not intended to excuse the compliance of the
substantive invoicing requirement needed to justify a claim for refund on input VAT payments.
4. With regard to Internal Revenue Regulation 7-95 (Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations) it
specifically requires the VAT registered person to imprint TIN-VAT on its invoices or
receipts.
5. a VAT invoice is necessary for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties while a VAT official
receipt properly pertains to every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of
services
6. CIR v. Manila Mining Corporation (difference bet sales invoice and receipt):
a. “sales or commercial invoice”: a written account of goods sold or services rendered indicating
the prices charged therefor or a list by whatever name it is known which is used in the ordinary
course of business evidencing sale and transfer or agreement to sell or transfer goods and
services.
b. “receipt”: a written acknowledgment of the fact of payment in money or other settlement
between seller and buyer of goods, debtor or creditor, or person rendering services and client or
customer.
7. VAT invoice is the seller’s best proof of the sale of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the
buyer’s best evidence of the payment of goods or services received from the seller.
a. VAT invoices and receipts are normally issued by the supplier/seller alone, the said invoices and
receipts, taken collectively, are necessary to substantiate the actual amount or quantity of goods
sold and their selling price (proof of transaction), and the best means to prove the input VAT
payments (proof of payment).
b. VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as referring to one and the same thing. Certainly,
neither does the law intend the two to be used alternatively.
8. tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which represent a loss of revenue to the government.
a. exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, as taxes are the lifeblood of the
government

Kepco V Cir (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kepco V Cir (2010)

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

Kepco V Cir (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KEPCO PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

[G.R. No. 181858 , November 24, 2010]

You might also like