January 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. 173602 : January 15, 2007] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE :
[G.R. 173602 : January 15, 2007]
BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated January 15, 2007.
G.R. 173602 - (BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE)
This resolves the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 9, 2006 denying its earlier petition for review on certiorari.
The assailed Resolution denied the petition for petitioner's failure to submit a verified statement of date of receipt of the assailed judgment and of filing of the motion for reconsideration, as required by Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56, of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner claims that the statement of material dates i.e., date of receipt of the assailed judgment and the filing of the motion for reconsideration was set out in the petition for review. However, typographical errors made it appear that the dates were omitted.
Briefly, the facts may be stated as follows:
On June 11, 2002, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Assessment Notice No. DST2-98-000017 with corresponding letter of demand on the petitioner for its liability in the amount of P13,884,159.90 representing Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) deficiencies accruing from special savings account product denominated as Investment Savings Account (ISA) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998.
Petitioner protested the assessment on the ground that ISA is not subject to DST because under Section 180 of the Tax Code, a "certificate of deposit" subject to DST must have the features of a time deposit; petitioner's ISA is an innovative product which is a crossbreed between a regular savings deposit and a time deposit.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) whereat its recourse was docketed as CTA Case No. 6588.
In a decision dated August 5, 2005, the First Division of the CTA denied the petition for review and ordered the petitioner to pay the subject deficiency DST plus 20% delinquency interest per annum fro, May 31, 2002 until fully paid, pursuant to Section 249(C) of the Tax Code.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the First Division in its resolution of October 11, 2005.
In time, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CTA en banc.
On April 7, 2006 the CTA en banc rendered the herein challenged decision affirming the findings of its First Division that petitioner's ISA is the equivalent of the certificate of deposit and which would make it subject to documentary stamp tax under Section 180 of the NIRC.
The CTA en banc likewise declared hat in practice, a time deposit transaction is covered by a certificate of deposit while petitioner's ISA transaction is through a passbook. Despite the differences in the form of the documents, the CTA en banc ruled that a time deposit and ISA have essentially the same attributes and features. It explained that like time deposit, ISA transactions bear a fixed term or maturity because the bank acknowledges receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the bank promises to pay the depositor, bearer or to the order of a bearer on a specified period of time. Section 180 of the 1997 NIRC does not prescribed the form of a certificate of deposit. It may be any "written acknowledgement by a bank of the receipt of money on deposit." The definition of a certificate of deposit is all encompassing to include a savings account deposit such as ISA.
As we see it, even without the technical lapse earlier observed in our October 9, 2006 resolution, the petition must still be denied, there being no reversible error committed by the CTA en banc.
Dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems, the CTA has necessarily developed an expertise in the subject of taxation that this Court has recognized time and again. For this reason, the findings of fact of a division of the CTA, particularly when affirmed en banc, are generally conclusive on this Court absent grave abuse of discretion or palpable error, which are not present in this case.[1]
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY, there being no compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of our October 9, 2006 resolution.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. 173602 - (BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE)
This resolves the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 9, 2006 denying its earlier petition for review on certiorari.
The assailed Resolution denied the petition for petitioner's failure to submit a verified statement of date of receipt of the assailed judgment and of filing of the motion for reconsideration, as required by Sections 4(b) and 5, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5(d), Rule 56, of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner claims that the statement of material dates i.e., date of receipt of the assailed judgment and the filing of the motion for reconsideration was set out in the petition for review. However, typographical errors made it appear that the dates were omitted.
Briefly, the facts may be stated as follows:
On June 11, 2002, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Assessment Notice No. DST2-98-000017 with corresponding letter of demand on the petitioner for its liability in the amount of P13,884,159.90 representing Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) deficiencies accruing from special savings account product denominated as Investment Savings Account (ISA) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998.
Petitioner protested the assessment on the ground that ISA is not subject to DST because under Section 180 of the Tax Code, a "certificate of deposit" subject to DST must have the features of a time deposit; petitioner's ISA is an innovative product which is a crossbreed between a regular savings deposit and a time deposit.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) whereat its recourse was docketed as CTA Case No. 6588.
In a decision dated August 5, 2005, the First Division of the CTA denied the petition for review and ordered the petitioner to pay the subject deficiency DST plus 20% delinquency interest per annum fro, May 31, 2002 until fully paid, pursuant to Section 249(C) of the Tax Code.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the First Division in its resolution of October 11, 2005.
In time, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CTA en banc.
On April 7, 2006 the CTA en banc rendered the herein challenged decision affirming the findings of its First Division that petitioner's ISA is the equivalent of the certificate of deposit and which would make it subject to documentary stamp tax under Section 180 of the NIRC.
The CTA en banc likewise declared hat in practice, a time deposit transaction is covered by a certificate of deposit while petitioner's ISA transaction is through a passbook. Despite the differences in the form of the documents, the CTA en banc ruled that a time deposit and ISA have essentially the same attributes and features. It explained that like time deposit, ISA transactions bear a fixed term or maturity because the bank acknowledges receipt of a sum of money on deposit which the bank promises to pay the depositor, bearer or to the order of a bearer on a specified period of time. Section 180 of the 1997 NIRC does not prescribed the form of a certificate of deposit. It may be any "written acknowledgement by a bank of the receipt of money on deposit." The definition of a certificate of deposit is all encompassing to include a savings account deposit such as ISA.
As we see it, even without the technical lapse earlier observed in our October 9, 2006 resolution, the petition must still be denied, there being no reversible error committed by the CTA en banc.
Dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems, the CTA has necessarily developed an expertise in the subject of taxation that this Court has recognized time and again. For this reason, the findings of fact of a division of the CTA, particularly when affirmed en banc, are generally conclusive on this Court absent grave abuse of discretion or palpable error, which are not present in this case.[1]
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY, there being no compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of our October 9, 2006 resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. The Philippine American Accident Insurance Company, Inc., The Philippine American Assurance Company, Inc., And the Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 141658, 453 SCRA 668 (2005).
