DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH, PETITIONER,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 188550 August 19, 2013

FACTS:

On 21 October 2003, petitioner DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH withheld and remitted to
respondent on the amount of PHP 67,688,553.51, which represented the fifteen percent (15%)
branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unit (RBU) net income remitted to
Deutsche Bank Germany (DB Germany) for 2002 and prior taxable years.

On 4 October 2005, believing that it made an overpayment of the BPRT, petitioner filed with the
BIR Large Taxpayers Assessment and Investigation Division an administrative claim for refund or
issuance of its tax credit certificate in the total amount of PHP 22,562,851.17. Petitioner
requested from the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its entitlement to
the preferential tax rate of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.

On 18 October 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA, alleging the inaction of
the BIR on its administrative claim.

THE CTA SECOND DIVISION RULING

Petitioner indeed paid the 15% BPRT on its RBU profits. However, the claim of petitioner for a
refund was denied on the ground that the application for a tax treaty relief was not filed with
ITAD prior to the payment by the former of its BPRT and actual remittance of its branch profits
to DB Germany, or prior to its availment of the preferential rate of ten percent (10%) under the
RP-Germany Tax Treaty provision.

The court a quo held that petitioner violated the fifteen (15) day period mandated under
Section III paragraph (2) of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 1-2000, which requires
that any availment of the tax treaty relief must be preceded by an application with ITAD at least
15 days before the transaction.

Motion for Reconsideration:

According to petitioner, since it has met all the conditions under Article 10 of the RP-Germany
Tax Treaty, the CTA erred in denying its claim solely on the basis of RMO No. 1-2000. The filing of
a tax treaty relief application is not a condition precedent to the availment of a preferential tax
rate.
Respondent counters that the requirement of prior application under RMO No. 1-2000 is
mandatory in character and partakes the nature of a statute having been issued pursuant to the
authority of the Secretary of Finance to promulgate rules and regulations for the
implementation of the NIRC.

The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Second Division’s Decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the failure to strictly comply with RMO No. 1-2000 will deprive persons
or corporations of the benefit of a tax treaty?

2. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a refund?

HELD:

1. No.

Laws and issuances must ensure that the reliefs granted under tax treaties are accorded
to the parties entitled thereto. The BIR must not impose additional requirements that
would negate the availment of the reliefs provided for under international agreements.
More so, when the RP-Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-requisite for the
availment of the benefits under said agreement. There is nothing in RMO No. 1-2000
which would indicate a deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty relief for failure to
comply with the 15-day period.

Tax Treaty vs. RMO No. 1-2000

Tax treaties are entered into "to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the
contracting parties and, in turn, help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxations in two
different jurisdictions." Tax conventions are drafted with a view towards the elimination
of international juridical double taxation, which is defined as the imposition of
comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same
subject matter and for identical periods.
 Simply put, tax treaties are entered into to minimize, if not eliminate the harshness of
international juridical double taxation, which is why they are also known as double tax
treaty or double tax agreements.

Even if we had affirmed the CTA in Mirant, the doctrine laid down in that Decision
cannot bind this Court in cases of a similar nature. There are differences in parties, taxes,
taxable periods, and treaties involved; more importantly, the disposition of that case was
made only through a minute resolution.

Prior Application vs. Claim for Refund

The underlying principle of prior application with the BIR becomes moot in refund cases,
such as the present case, where the very basis of the claim is erroneous or there is
excessive payment arising from non-availment of a tax treaty relief at the first instance.
In this case, petitioner should not be faulted for not complying with RMO No. 1-2000
prior to the transaction. It could not have applied for a tax treaty relief within the period
prescribed, or 15 days prior to the payment of its BPRT, precisely because it erroneously
paid the BPRT not on the basis of the preferential tax rate under the RP-Germany Tax
Treaty, but on the regular rate as prescribed by the NIRC. Hence, the prior application
requirement becomes illogical. Therefore, the fact that petitioner invoked the provisions
of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty when it requested for a confirmation from the ITAD before
filing an administrative claim for a refund should be deemed substantial compliance with
RMO No. 1-2000.

2. Yes, petitioner is entitled to a refund.

Under Section 28(A)(5) of the NIRC, any profit remitted to its head office shall be subject to a
tax of 15% based on the total profits applied for or earmarked for remittance without any
deduction of the tax component.

However, paragraph 6 Article 10 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty provides that where a
resident of the Federal Republic of Germany has a branch in the Republic of the Philippines,
this branch may be subjected to the branch profits remittance tax withheld at source in
accordance with Philippine law but shall not exceed 10% of the gross amount of the profits
remitted by that branch to the head office.

By virtue of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty, we are bound to extend to a branch in the
Philippines, remitting to its head office in Germany, the benefit of a preferential rate
equivalent to 10% BPRT.
FULL TEXT

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 188550 August 19, 2013

DEUTSCHE BANK AG MANILA BRANCH, PETITIONER,

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
 DECISION

SERENO, CJ.:

This is a Petition for Review1 filed by Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch (petitioner) under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA En Banc)
Decision2 dated 29 May 2009 and Resolution3 dated 1 July 2009 in C.T.A. EB No. 456.

THE FACTS

In accordance with Section 28(A)(5)4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997,
petitioner withheld and remitted to respondent on 21 October 2003 the amount of PHP
67,688,553.51, which represented the fifteen percent (15%) branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) on
its regular banking unit (RBU) net income remitted to Deutsche Bank Germany (DB Germany) for
2002 and prior taxable years.5

Believing that it made an overpayment of the BPRT, petitioner filed with the BIR Large Taxpayers
Assessment and Investigation Division on 4 October 2005 an administrative claim for refund or
issuance of its tax credit certificate in the total amount of PHP 22,562,851.17. On the same date,
petitioner requested from the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its entitlement
to the preferential tax rate of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.6

Alleging the inaction of the BIR on its administrative claim, petitioner filed a Petition for Review 7 with
the CTA on 18 October 2005. Petitioner reiterated its claim for the refund or issuance of its tax credit
certificate for the amount of PHP 22,562,851.17 representing the alleged excess BPRT paid on
branch profits remittance to DB Germany.

THE CTA SECOND DIVISION RULING8

After trial on the merits, the CTA Second Division found that petitioner indeed paid the total amount
of PHP 67,688,553.51 representing the 15% BPRT on its RBU profits amounting to PHP
451,257,023.29 for 2002 and prior taxable years. Records also disclose that for the year 2003,
petitioner remitted to DB Germany the amount of EURO 5,174,847.38 (or PHP 330,175,961.88 at
the exchange rate of PHP 63.804:1 EURO), which is net of the 15% BPRT.

However, the claim of petitioner for a refund was denied on the ground that the application for a tax
treaty relief was not filed with ITAD prior to the payment by the former of its BPRT and actual
remittance of its branch profits to DB Germany, or prior to its availment of the preferential rate of ten
percent (10%) under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty provision. The court a quo held that petitioner
violated the fifteen (15) day period mandated under Section III paragraph (2) of Revenue
Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 1-2000.

Further, the CTA Second Division relied on Mirant (Philippines) Operations Corporation (formerly
Southern Energy Asia-Pacific Operations [Phils.], Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 9 (Mirant)
where the CTA En Banc ruled that before the benefits of the tax treaty may be extended to a foreign
corporation wishing to avail itself thereof, the latter should first invoke the provisions of the tax treaty
and prove that they indeed apply to the corporation.

THE CTA EN BANC RULING10

The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Second Division’s Decision dated 29 August 2008 and
Resolution dated 14 January 2009. Citing Mirant, the CTA En Banc held that a ruling from the ITAD
of the BIR must be secured prior to the availment of a preferential tax rate under a tax treaty.
Applying the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, the CTA En Banc took into consideration
that this Court had denied the Petition in G.R. No. 168531 filed by Mirant for failure to sufficiently
show any reversible error in the assailed judgment.11 The CTA En Banc ruled that once a case has
been decided in one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be
decided in the same manner.

The court likewise ruled that the 15-day rule for tax treaty relief application under RMO No. 1-2000
cannot be relaxed for petitioner, unlike in CBK Power Company Limited v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.12 In that case, the rule was relaxed and the claim for refund of excess final withholding
taxes was partially granted. While it issued a ruling to CBK Power Company Limited after the
payment of withholding taxes, the ITAD did not issue any ruling to petitioner even if it filed a request
for confirmation on 4 October 2005 that the remittance of branch profits to DB Germany is subject to
a preferential tax rate of 10% pursuant to Article 10 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.

ISSUE

This Court is now confronted with the issue of whether the failure to strictly comply with RMO No. 1-
2000 will deprive persons or corporations of the benefit of a tax treaty.

THE COURT’S RULING

The Petition is meritorious.

Under Section 28(A)(5) of the NIRC, any profit remitted to its head office shall be subject to a tax of
15% based on the total profits applied for or earmarked for remittance without any deduction of the
tax component. However, petitioner invokes paragraph 6, Article 10 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty,
which provides that where a resident of the Federal Republic of Germany has a branch in the
Republic of the Philippines, this branch may be subjected to the branch profits remittance tax
withheld at source in accordance with Philippine law but shall not exceed 10% of the gross amount
of the profits remitted by that branch to the head office.

By virtue of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty, we are bound to extend to a branch in the Philippines,
remitting to its head office in Germany, the benefit of a preferential rate equivalent to 10% BPRT.

On the other hand, the BIR issued RMO No. 1-2000, which requires that any availment of the tax
treaty relief must be preceded by an application with ITAD at least 15 days before the transaction.
The Order was issued to streamline the processing of the application of tax treaty relief in order to
improve efficiency and service to the taxpayers. Further, it also aims to prevent the consequences of
an erroneous interpretation and/or application of the treaty provisions (i.e., filing a claim for a tax
refund/credit for the overpayment of taxes or for deficiency tax liabilities for underpayment). 13

The crux of the controversy lies in the implementation of RMO No. 1-2000.

Petitioner argues that, considering that it has met all the conditions under Article 10 of the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty, the CTA erred in denying its claim solely on the basis of RMO No. 1-2000. The
filing of a tax treaty relief application is not a condition precedent to the availment of a preferential
tax rate. Further, petitioner posits that, contrary to the ruling of the CTA, Mirant is not a binding
judicial precedent to deny a claim for refund solely on the basis of noncompliance with RMO No. 1-
2000.

Respondent counters that the requirement of prior application under RMO No. 1-2000 is mandatory
in character. RMO No. 1-2000 was issued pursuant to the unquestioned authority of the Secretary of
Finance to promulgate rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the NIRC. Thus,
courts cannot ignore administrative issuances which partakes the nature of a statute and have in
their favor a presumption of legality.

The CTA ruled that prior application for a tax treaty relief is mandatory, and noncompliance with this
prerequisite is fatal to the taxpayer’s availment of the preferential tax rate.

We disagree.

A minute resolution is not a binding precedent

At the outset, this Court’s minute resolution on Mirant is not a binding precedent. The Court has
clarified this matter in Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue14 as follows:

It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a
disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA
ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final. When a minute
resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive
requirements, the challenged decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are
deemed sustained. But what is its effect on other cases?

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties, it
constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same
parties and issues) is involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. Thus, in CIR v. Baier-
Nickel, the Court noted that a previous case, CIR v. Baier-Nickel involving the same parties and the
same issues, was previously disposed of by the Court thru a minute resolution dated February 17,
2003 sustaining the ruling of the CA. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the previous case "ha(d) no
bearing" on the latter case because the two cases involved different subject matters as they were
concerned with the taxable income of different taxable years.

Besides, there are substantial, not simply formal, distinctions between a minute resolution and a
decision. The constitutional requirement under the first paragraph of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution that the facts and the law on which the judgment is based must be expressed clearly
and distinctly applies only to decisions, not to minute resolutions. A minute resolution is signed only
by the clerk of court by authority of the justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the certification
of the Chief Justice. Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the
Philippine Reports. Finally, the proviso of Section 4(3) of Article VIII speaks of a decision. Indeed, as
a rule, this Court lays down doctrines or principles of law which constitute binding precedent in a
decision duly signed by the members of the Court and certified by the Chief Justice. (Emphasis
supplied)

Even if we had affirmed the CTA in Mirant, the doctrine laid down in that Decision cannot bind this
Court in cases of a similar nature. There are differences in parties, taxes, taxable periods, and
treaties involved; more importantly, the disposition of that case was made only through a minute
resolution.
Tax Treaty vs. RMO No. 1-2000

Our Constitution provides for adherence to the general principles of international law as part of the
law of the land.15The time-honored international principle of pacta sunt servanda demands the
performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of the states that enter into the agreement.
Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties, and obligations under the treaty must be performed
by them in good faith.16 More importantly, treaties have the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction. 17

Tax treaties are entered into "to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting
parties and, in turn, help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxations in two different
jurisdictions."18 CIR v. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. further clarifies that "tax conventions are drafted
with a view towards the elimination of international juridical double taxation, which is defined as the
imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same
subject matter and for identical periods. The apparent rationale for doing away with double taxation
is to encourage the free flow of goods and services and the movement of capital, technology and
persons between countries, conditions deemed vital in creating robust and dynamic economies.
Foreign investments will only thrive in a fairly predictable and reasonable international investment
climate and the protection against double taxation is crucial in creating such a climate." 19

Simply put, tax treaties are entered into to minimize, if not eliminate the harshness of international
juridical double taxation, which is why they are also known as double tax treaty or double tax
agreements.

"A state that has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations those
modifications that may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken." 20 Thus,
laws and issuances must ensure that the reliefs granted under tax treaties are accorded to the
parties entitled thereto. The BIR must not impose additional requirements that would negate the
availment of the reliefs provided for under international agreements. More so, when the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-requisite for the availment of the benefits under
said agreement.

Likewise, it must be stressed that there is nothing in RMO No. 1-2000 which would indicate a
deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty relief for failure to comply with the 15-day period. We
recognize the clear intention of the BIR in implementing RMO No. 1-2000, but the CTA’s outright
denial of a tax treaty relief for failure to strictly comply with the prescribed period is not in harmony
with the objectives of the contracting state to ensure that the benefits granted under tax treaties are
enjoyed by duly entitled persons or corporations.

Bearing in mind the rationale of tax treaties, the period of application for the availment of tax treaty
relief as required by RMO No. 1-2000 should not operate to divest entitlement to the relief as it
would constitute a violation of the duty required by good faith in complying with a tax treaty. The
denial of the availment of tax relief for the failure of a taxpayer to apply within the prescribed period
under the administrative issuance would impair the value of the tax treaty. At most, the application for
a tax treaty relief from the BIR should merely operate to confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to
the relief.

The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must take precedence over the objective of RMO No. 1-
2000. Logically, noncompliance with tax treaties has negative implications on international relations,
1âwphi1

and unduly discourages foreign investors. While the consequences sought to be prevented by RMO
No. 1-2000 involve an administrative procedure, these may be remedied through other system
management processes, e.g., the imposition of a fine or penalty. But we cannot totally deprive those
who are entitled to the benefit of a treaty for failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance
requiring prior application for tax treaty relief.

Prior Application vs. Claim for Refund

Again, RMO No. 1-2000 was implemented to obviate any erroneous interpretation and/or application
of the treaty provisions. The objective of the BIR is to forestall assessments against corporations
who erroneously availed themselves of the benefits of the tax treaty but are not legally entitled
thereto, as well as to save such investors from the tedious process of claims for a refund due to an
inaccurate application of the tax treaty provisions. However, as earlier discussed, noncompliance
with the 15-day period for prior application should not operate to automatically divest entitlement to
the tax treaty relief especially in claims for refund.

The underlying principle of prior application with the BIR becomes moot in refund cases, such as the
present case, where the very basis of the claim is erroneous or there is excessive payment arising
from non-availment of a tax treaty relief at the first instance. In this case, petitioner should not be
faulted for not complying with RMO No. 1-2000 prior to the transaction. It could not have applied for
a tax treaty relief within the period prescribed, or 15 days prior to the payment of its BPRT, precisely
because it erroneously paid the BPRT not on the basis of the preferential tax rate under the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty, but on the regular rate as prescribed by the NIRC. Hence, the prior application
requirement becomes illogical. Therefore, the fact that petitioner invoked the provisions of the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty when it requested for a confirmation from the ITAD before filing an
administrative claim for a refund should be deemed substantial compliance with RMO No. 1-2000.

Corollary thereto, Section 22921 of the NIRC provides the taxpayer a remedy for tax recovery when
there has been an erroneous payment of tax. The outright denial of petitioner’s claim for a refund,
1âwphi1

on the sole ground of failure to apply for a tax treaty relief prior to the payment of the BPRT, would
defeat the purpose of Section 229.

Petitioner is entitled to a refund

It is significant to emphasize that petitioner applied – though belatedly – for a tax treaty relief, in
substantial compliance with RMO No. 1-2000. A ruling by the BIR would have confirmed whether
petitioner was entitled to the lower rate of 10% BPRT pursuant to the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.

Nevertheless, even without the BIR ruling, the CTA Second Division found as follows:

Based on the evidence presented, both documentary and testimonial, petitioner was able to
establish the following facts:

a. That petitioner is a branch office in the Philippines of Deutsche Bank AG, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany;

b. That on October 21, 2003, it filed its Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes
Withheld under BIR Form No. 1601-F and remitted the amount of ₱67,688,553.51 as branch
profits remittance tax with the BIR; and

c. That on October 29, 2003, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas having issued a clearance,
petitioner remitted to Frankfurt Head Office the amount of EUR5,174,847.38 (or
₱330,175,961.88 at 63.804 Peso/Euro) representing its 2002 profits remittance. 22
The amount of PHP 67,688,553.51 paid by petitioner represented the 15% BPRT on its RBU net
income, due for remittance to DB Germany amounting to PHP 451,257,023.29 for 2002 and prior
taxable years.23

Likewise, both the administrative and the judicial actions were filed within the two-year prescriptive
period pursuant to Section 229 of the NIRC.24

Clearly, there is no reason to deprive petitioner of the benefit of a preferential tax rate of 10% BPRT
in accordance with the RP-Germany Tax Treaty.

Petitioner is liable to pay only the amount of PHP 45,125,702.34 on its RBU net income amounting
to PHP 451,257,023.29 for 2002 and prior taxable years, applying the 10% BPRT. Thus, it is proper
to grant petitioner a refund ofthe difference between the PHP 67,688,553.51 (15% BPRT) and PHP
45,125,702.34 (10% BPRT) or a total of PHP 22,562,851.17.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court of Tax
Appeals En Banc Decision dated 29 May 2009 and Resolution dated 1 July 2009 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered ordering respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner Deutsche Bank AG Manila
Branch the amount of TWENTY TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED FIFTY ONE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (PHP 22,562,851.17), Philippine
currency, representing the erroneously paid BPRT for 2002 and prior taxable years.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice, Chairperson