Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 334 views

    United Airlines v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    edrixc
    United Airlines sought a refund of 5 million pesos in income tax paid in 1999, claiming it was erroneously collected on passenger flights that did not originate in the Philippines. While the court agreed those passenger taxes were overpaid, it found United Airlines had underpaid taxes on its 1999 cargo revenues by deducting commissions. As gross revenue for tax purposes includes all revenues without deductions, the underpayment of 31 million pesos offset the overpayment. Therefore, the court denied the refund claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United Airlines v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    edrixc
    334 views2 pages
    United Airlines sought a refund of 5 million pesos in income tax paid in 1999, claiming it was erroneously collected on passenger flights that did not originate in the Philippines. While the court agreed those passenger taxes were overpaid, it found United Airlines had underpaid taxes on its 1999 cargo revenues by deducting commissions. As gross revenue for tax purposes includes all revenues without deductions, the underpayment of 31 million pesos offset the overpayment. Therefore, the court denied the refund claim.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    United Airlines sought a refund of 5 million pesos in income tax paid in 1999, claiming it was erroneously collected on passenger flights that did not originate in the Philippines. While the court agreed those passenger taxes were overpaid, it found United Airlines had underpaid taxes on its 1999 cargo revenues by deducting commissions. As gross revenue for tax purposes includes all revenues without deductions, the underpayment of 31 million pesos offset the overpayment. Therefore, the court denied the refund claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    334 views2 pages

    United Airlines v. CIR

    Uploaded by

    edrixc
    United Airlines sought a refund of 5 million pesos in income tax paid in 1999, claiming it was erroneously collected on passenger flights that did not originate in the Philippines. While the court agreed those passenger taxes were overpaid, it found United Airlines had underpaid taxes on its 1999 cargo revenues by deducting commissions. As gross revenue for tax purposes includes all revenues without deductions, the underpayment of 31 million pesos offset the overpayment. Therefore, the court denied the refund claim.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    INTERNATIONAL TAX

    CTA Case No. 6449


    Date: May 18, 2006

    UNITED AIRLINES v. CIR


    Facts:
    This case seeks the refund of alleged erroneously collected income tax covering the taxable year 1999 in the total amount of FIVE
    MILLION TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTEEN PESOS AND 23/100 (P5,028,813.23).
    Petitioner is a Delaware incorporated company and allowed by the SEC through a license to establish and operate a branch in the
    Philippines and to "open an office as off-line carrier". Eventually it was allowed to act as "an on-line carrier of persons, property and
    mail between the United States and the Philippines”. Petitioner eventually discontinued passenger flights but continued cargo flights
    and appointed Aerotel as its General Sales Agent. Afterwards, it stopped its cargo flights as well. Aerotel, allegedly continued to pay
    1.5% income tax on revenues from tickets/passage documents sold in the Philippines covering passenger/cargo flights originating
    outside of the Philippines. For taxable year 1999, petitioner through Aerotel, duly filed its Quarterly Income Tax Returns within the
    legally prescribed periods. 5 In its 1999 Annual Income Tax Return filed on April 17, 2000, 6 petitioner declared Gross Philippine
    Billings ("GPB") in the amount of P1,075,582,677.00 with the corresponding 1.5% GPB tax due of P16,133,740.00 which was offset
    against the creditable taxes withheld of P7,811.00. The remaining amount of P16,125,929.00 was paid by petitioner on a quarterly
    basis. It tehn filed a refund for P15.9 million which included the 5 million mentioned above allegedly representing income taxes paid
    by petitioner in 1999 on passenger revenue from tickets sold in the Philippines, the uplifts of which did not originate in the
    Philippines.
    Issue:
    Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund of income tax erroneously or illegally collected in the amount of P5,028,813.23 for
    taxable year 1999. CORRECT, BUT IT UNDERPAID ITS OTHER TAX, so offset. 5 million was for passenger revenue but it
    underpaid for its cargo revenue.
    Ratio:
    First of all, In accord with the ruling in ACCRA Investment Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 957, petitioner has two
    years from the date of filing of the Final Adjustment Return within which to file a claim for refund of erroneously paid income tax both
    in the administrative and judicial levels. The subject claim covers erroneously paid 1.5% income tax on Gross Philippine Billings for
    taxable year 1999 for which petitioner filed its income tax return on April 17, 2000. Counting from this date, both the administrative
    claim filed on April 12, 2002 and this Petition for Review filed on April 15, 2002 were timely made.

    Is petitioner then subject to income tax on Gross Philippine Billings derived from off-line Passenger Revenue? It is evident that the
    definition of "Gross Philippine Billings" under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of the 1997 NIRC covers the gross revenue derived from the
    carriage of persons, excess baggage, cargo and mail "originating from the Philippines in a continuous and Uninterrupted flight"
    irrespective of the place or sale or issue and the place of payment of the ticket or passage document. "To originate" would mean "to
    cause the beginning of; to start (a person or thing) on a course or journey; to begin, start" (Webster's Third New International
    Dictionary). Otherwise stated, the flights carrying the passengers must have originated or started from the Philippines. Verily,
    petitioner, being an off-line international carrier, as authorized to operate by the Civil Aeronautics Board and having no passenger
    flights originating from the Philippines in a continuous and uninterrupted flight in 1999, cannot be taxed under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of
    the NIRC of 1997 on its passenger revenue from tickets sold in the Philippines, covering flights originating outside of the Philippines.

    However, it does not follow that petitioner is entitled to the refund sought for. It must be stressed that the 2.5% income tax (reduced
    to 1.5% pursuant to the RP-US Tax Treaty) imposed on Gross Philippine Billings under Section 28(A)(3)(a) of the NIRC of 1997,
    applies to gross revenues derived by an international carrier not only from the carriage of persons but also from the carriage of
    cargoes originating from the Philippines. Petitioner had cargo flights to and from the Philippines in 1999. In fact, petitioner paid the
    amount of P11,104,927.00 as 1.5% GPB tax on its cargo revenues amounting to P740,328,462.00. But in computing for the cargo
    revenue amount of P740,328,462.00, petitioner erroneously deducted the commissions and other incentives it paid to its agent.
    Based on the net cargo revenue amount of P711,816,490.07 17 which was verified to be duly supported by airway bills by the Court
    commissioned auditing firm, the commissions and other incentives deducted by petitioner amounted to P141,786,993.85 and
    P1,982,068,006.26

    For purposes of the gross Philippine billings (GPB) tax imposed on international airlines, gross revenues shall include
    commissions and other incentives paid to agents. GROSS REVENUE is subject to GPB tax on international airlines. Gross
    revenue means the entire or whole revenues without deductions.

    United Airlines is not allowed to claim for the refund as it actually underpaid its tax on cargo revenues because they
    deducted deduction from their entire or whole revenues. For GPB, one should not deduct as gross revenue means the
    entire or whole revenues without deductions. The underpaid tax for cargo revenue amounted to 31 million while the claim
    of United for overpaid tax for its passenger revenue amounted to only 5 million. The Court partly agreed with petitioner
    that indeed it overpaid its passenger revenue but it also said that they computed wrongly for their cargo revenue as they
    included the deductions when they computed for their cargo revenue tax, thus though they did overpay 5 million, they
    underpaid 31 million. So the petition was denied.

    FREDERICK D. CRISOLOGO (3A) INT’L TAX


    Dec 3, 2010 I WANT TO GO HOME EARLY ON FRIDAYS!!!
    INTERNATIONAL TAX

    FREDERICK D. CRISOLOGO (3A) INT’L TAX


    Dec 3, 2010 I WANT TO GO HOME EARLY ON FRIDAYS!!!

    You might also like