ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138590. June 28, 1999]

STOCK TRANSFER SERVICES, INC. vs. COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28, 1999.

G.R. No. 138590 (Stock Transfer Services, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.)

Petitioner seeks to set aside the April 30, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-48965 affirming the August 18, 1998 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 5629 dismissing the judicial claim of the petitioner on the ground of prescription.

The antecedents show that petitioner STOCK TRANSFER SERVICES INC. (STSI) had income tax liabilities of P666,184.00 for the year 1995 on its taxable amount of P1,034,505.44 for the said year, the excess payment amounting to P1,268,412.00.

On March 20, 1998, petitioner filed with the BIR an application for the refund of the said amount.

As the same was not immediately acted upon, petitioner filed a judicial claim for refund with respondent Court of Tax Appeals on April 15, 1998. The same was dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, hence, the instant recourse.

The only issue to be resolved is whether or not a corporate taxpayer which filed annual adjusted final income tax return earlier than the deadline of April 15 of each year is entitled to claim the benefit of the deadline of April 15 for purposes of computing the commencement of the 2-year prescription period within which to file a claim or refund?

The rule is that the 2-year prescription period within which to file an application for refund commences to run from the date of the filing of the adjusted final tax return. Here, petitioner filed its final adjusted income tax return on April 10, 1996. It had until April 10, 1998 within which to file its claim for reimbursement of its excess payment of taxes.

However, it was only on April 15, 1998 when it filed its judicial claim for refund with respondent Court of Tax Appeals. Said court thus correctly dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied due course. Ynares-Santiago, J., took no part.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE