Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

We d n e s d a y, A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 1 7 Search This Blog

CIR v. Puregold Duty Free, Inc. Search

Facts: Pages
Puregold is engaged in the sale of various consumer goods exclusively Home
within the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ), and operates its store Accounts
under the authority and jurisdiction of Clark Development" Corporation
(CDC) and CSEZ.
About Me

edelayana
As an enterprise located within CSEZ and registered with the CDC, Puregold
had been issued Certificate of Tax Exemption No. 94-4, later superseded by student of law and
politics
Certificate of Tax Exemption No. 98-54, which enumerated the tax
View my complete
incentives granted to it, including tax and duty-free importation of goods. profile
The certificates were issued pursuant to Sec. 5 of Executive Order No. (EO)
80, extending to business enterprises operating within the CSEZ all the Labels
incentives granted to enterprises within the Subic Special Economic Zone
Constitutional Law
(SSEZ) under RA 7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and
Corporate Law
Development Act of 1992." Credit Transactions
Criminal Law
Notably, Sec. 12 of RA 7227 provides duty-free importations and exemptions Criminal Procedure
of businesses within the SSEZ from local and national taxes. Thus, in Judicial Ethics
accordance with the tax exemption certificates granted to respondent Labor Law
Puregold, it filed its Annual Income Tax Returns and paid the five percent Land Titles and Deeds

(5%) preferential tax, in lieu of all other national and local taxes for the Legal Ethics
Natural Resources
period of January 1998 to May 2004.
Partnership
Property
On July 25, 2005, in Coconut Oil Refiners v. Torre, however, this Court
Public International Law
annulled the adverted Sec. 5 of EO 80, in effect withdrawing the preferential Statutory Construction
tax treatment heretofore enjoyed by all businesses located in the CSEZ. Torts

On November 7, 2005, then Deputy Commissioner for Special

Report Abuse
Concerns/OIC-Large Taxpayers Service of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) Kim Jacinto-Henares issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice
regarding unpaid VAT and excise tax on wines, liquors and tobacco products
imported by Puregold from January 1998 to May 2004. In due time,
Puregold protested the assessment.

Pending the resolution of Puregold's protest, Congress enacted RA 9399,

specifically to grant a tax amnesty to business enterprises affected by this
Court's rulings in John Hay People's Coalition v. Limand Coconut Oil
Refiners. Under RA 9399, availment of the tax amnesty relieves the qualified
taxpayers of any civil, criminal and/or administrative liabilities arising from,
or incident to, nonpayment of taxes, duties and other charges.

On July 27, 2007, Puregold availed itself of the tax amnesty under RA 9399,
filing for the purpose the necessary requirements and paying the amnesty tax.

Nonetheless, on October 26, 2007, Puregold received a formal letter of

demand from the BIR for the payment of Two Billion Seven Hundred Eighty
Million Six Hundred Ten Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos and
Fifty-One Centavos (P2,780,610,174.51), supposedly representing deficiency
VAT and excise taxes on its importations of alcohol and tobacco products
from January 1998 to May 2004.

In its response-letter, Puregold, thru counsel, requested the cancellation of

the assessment on the ground that it has already availed of the tax amnesty
under RA 9399. This notwithstanding, the BIR issued on June 23, 2008 a
Final Decision on Disputed Assessment stating that the availment of the tax
amnesty under RA 9399 did not relieve Puregold of its liability for
deficiency VAT, excise taxes, and inspection fees under Sec. 13l(A) of the
1997 National Internal Revenue Code (1997 NIRC).

Held:
The allegation of the CIR regarding the principal place of business of
Puregold cannot be considered on appeal; Puregold is entitled to avail of the
tax amnesty under RA 9399
It is well settled that matters that were neither alleged in the pleadings nor
raised during the proceedings below cannot be ventilated for the first time on
appeal13 and are barred by estoppel.14 To allow the contrary would
constitute a violation of the other party's right to due process, and is contrary
to the principle of fair play. In Ayala Land Incorporation v. Castillo,15 this
Court held that:

It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and
not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by
estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to
the attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a
reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
To consider the alleged facts and arguments belatedly raised would
amount to trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and
due process.

During the proceedings in the CTA, the CIR never challenged Puregold's
eligibility to avail of the tax amnesty under RA 9399 on the ground that its
principal place of business, per its Articles of Incorporation, is in Metro
Manila and not in Clark Field, Pampanga.

RA 9399, as couched, does not prescribe that the amnesty-seeking taxpayer

has its principal office inside the CSEZ. It merely requires that such taxpayer
be registered and operatingwithin the said zone, stating that "registered
business enterprises operating x x x within the special economic zones and
freeports created pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7227, as
amended, such as the Clark Special Economic Zone x x x may avail
themselves of the benefits of remedial tax amnesty herein granted."

The following evidence also satisfactorily show that Puregold has been
selling its goods exclusively within the CSEZ: (1) Exhibit "T' - Puregold's
BIR Certificate of Registration; (2) Exhibits "U", "U-1" to "U-16" Several
BIR Permits issued to Puregold for use of cash registers; and (3) Exhibit
"W"- BIR Certification that Puregold has no branch.

Clearly, the location of Puregold's principal office is not, standing alone, an

argument against its availment of the tax amnesty under RA 9399 because
there is no question that its actual operations were within the jurisdiction of
the CSEZ.

RA 9399 grants amnesty from liability to pay VAT and excise tax under
Section 131 of the 1997 NIRC
Anent the second error raised by petitioner, it is worth noting that the CTA
has ruled that the amnesty provision of RA 9399 covers the deficiency taxes
assessed on Puregold and rejected the arguments raised on the matter by the
CIR. It cannot be emphasized enough that the findings of the CTA merit
utmost respect, considering that its function is by nature dedicated
exclusively to the consideration of tax problems. The Court said as much in
Toshiba v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

Jurisprudence has consistently shown that this Court accords the

findings of fact by the CTA with the highest respect. In Sea-Land
Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 122605, 30 April 2001,
357 SCRA 441, 445-446], this Court recognizes that the Court of Tax
Appeals, which by the very nature of its function is dedicated
exclusively to the consideration of tax problems, has necessarily
developed an expertise on the subject, and its conclusions will not be
overturned unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of
authority. Such findings can only be disturbed on appeal if they are
not supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross
error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any
clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court must presume
that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every respect.

The petitioner, however, would have this Court rule that Puregold's liability
to pay the assessed deficiency taxes remains since these were not incurred by
respondent due to this Court's decisions in John
Hay and Coconut Oil, but are
clearly imposable taxes and duties on Puregold's importation of alcohol and
tobacco products under the 1997 NIRC. As adopted by the dissent, it is the
CIR's position that even without the aforesaid rulings, respondent as a non-
chartered SEZ remains liable for the payment of VAT and excise taxes on its
importation of alcohol and tobacco products from January 1998 to May
2004.

We cannot sanction the CIR's position as it would amount to nothing less

than an emasculation of an otherwise clear and valid law RA 9399. Clearly,
if the Court would uphold the CIR's argument that even before the rulings in
John Hay and Coconut Oil, respondent's duty-free privileges were already
withdrawn by the 1997 NIRC, this Court would in effect be negating the
remedial measure contemplated in RA 9399 against these rulings.

Furthermore, to review the factual milieu, Puregold enjoyed duty free

importations and exemptions from local and national taxes under EO 80, a
privilege which extended to business enterprises operating within the CSEZ
all the incentives granted to enterprises within SSEZ by RA 7227. Hence,
Puregold was repeatedly issued tax exemption certificates and the BIR itself
did not assess any deficiency taxes from the time the 1997 NIRC took effect
in January 1998.

Had the BIR believed that these tax incentives were already withdrawn, it
would have immediately assessed the required tax deficiency assessments
against Puregold after the promulgation of the 1997 NIRC. Yet, the BIR
itself, one year after the 1997 NIRC took effect, confirmed through BIR
Ruling No. 149-99 signed by then CIR Beethoven L. Rualo that the tax
incentives extended to CSEZ operators by EO 80 were not affected by the
1997 NIRC:

While E.O. 80 and R.A. No. 7227, as implemented by Revenue

Regulations No. 1-95, and as further implemented by 12-97, were
approved and made effective prior to January 1, 1998, the date of
effectivity of R.A. No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Code of
1997, the same are not covered by the above cited repealing provision
of the said Code. Since it is settled that a special and local statute,
providing for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a
subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and applications,
unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of
the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the
special law. It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute,
general in its terms and not expressly repealing prior special statute,
will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute.
(Steamboat Company vs. Collector, 18 Wall (US)., 478; Cass County
vs. Gillet, 100 US 585; Minnesota vs. Hitchcock, 185 US 373, 396)

Such being the case, the special income tax regime or tax incentives granted
to enterprises registered within the secured area o( Subic and Clark Special
Economic Zones have not been repealed by R.A. 8424. (emphasis supplied)
A holding to the contrary, as proposed by the dissent, will only perpetuate the
nauseating, revolting, and circuitous exercise of governmental departments
limiting, offsetting, and ultimately cancelling each other's official acts and
enactments. Consider: in Coconut Oil, this Court annulled Sec. 5 of EO 80;
then, Congress enacted RA 9399 to offset the full effect of such annulment
by granting an amnesty; and, now, the petition would have this Court nullify
the amnesty in RA 9399 by withdrawing the protection extended by the law
to CSEZ operators from its liabilities for the period prior to the promulgation
of John Hay and Coconut Oil.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the May 9, 2012

Decision and July 18, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en
banc in CTA EB No. 723 (CTA Case No. 7812) are hereby AFFIRMED.

Accordingly, the assessment against respondent Puregold Duty Free, Inc. in

the amount of Two Billion Seven Hundred Eighty Million Six Hundred Ten
Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos and Fifty-One Centavos
(P2,780,610,174.51), supposedly representing deficiency value added tax
(VAT) and excise taxes on its importations of alcohol and tobacco products
from January 1998 to May 2004, is hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE.

- August 09, 2017

Labels: Statutory Construction

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Account

Publish Preview

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.