Metro Pacific Corporation Vs CIR

ALOBIN, Flor Kenneth LLB – 3B Taxation II
METRO PACIFIC CORPORATION VS. CIR

CTA Case No. 8318, June 11 2014
DOCTRINE:
In case where property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in
money or money's worth, then the amount by which the fair market value (FMV) of the
property exceeded the value of the consideration shall be deemed a gift, and shall be
included in computing the amount of gifts made during the calendar year.
FACTS:
Petitioner MPC sold to Columbus Holdings, Inc. (CHI) 2,597,197 common shares in
Bonifacio Land Corporation (BLC).
Further, petitioner, through Atty. Tagao, requested respondent for "confirmation that the
sale of Bonifacio Land Corporation (BLC) shares of stocks owned by MPC to Columbus
Holdings, Inc. (CHI) is not subject to donor's tax as provided in Section 100 of the
Internal Revenue Code] as it is an ordinary business transaction negotiated in good
faith by unrelated parties for legitimate business purposes.
Petitioner, as seller, filed CGT Return with the BIR LTS-Regular and the DST. The said
CGT return showed that there was no tax due or paid for the transaction.
The CIR confirmed that the sales transaction over the BLC shares between petitioner as
seller and CHI as buyer is not subject to donor's tax because it is an ordinary
commercial transaction negotiated in good faith between unrelated parties and
motivated by legitimate business reasons.
Later, petitioner received a Notice for Informal Conference (Notice) from respondent
BIR LTS-Regular, informing petitioner that the subject transaction is actually subject to
donor's tax.
In response, petitioner wrote respondent requesting for the re-evaluation of the factual
information presented by petitioner and for the cancellation of the tax assessment
shown in the Notice, which was received by respondent through the BIR LTS-Regular.
Petitioner received BIR LTS Regular a Final Assessment Notice (FAN), details of
discrepancy and Audit Result/ Assessment Notice, reiterating its demand for payment of
deficiency donor's tax.
Petitioner filed its formal protest, however, the same was denied by the respondent.
Thus, the petitioner filed the instant Petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not MPC is liable for the deficiency donor's tax assessment.
LAW:
BIR rulings recognize that Section 100 is not absolute and admits of certain
exceptions. In BIR Ruling [DA-652-06] dated November 6, 2006 and BIR Ruling No.
033-02 dated August 16, 2002, the BIR ruled that as long as the transaction is
conducted at arm's length such that a bonafide business arrangement or the
dealings are done in the ordinary course of business, a sale for less than an
adequate consideration is not subject to donor's tax. Moreover, in BIR Ruling DA-
398-95 dated November 14, 1995, the BIR also held that the transfer of 1,000,000
shares in a Philippine corporation for US$1.00 is not subject to donor's tax because
there was no intent on the part of the seller to donate. The BIR also ruled that a
transaction is not subject to donor's tax under Section 100 of the Tax Code if there is
no intention to donate and the transaction is undertaken for a legitimate or bonafide
business purpose. (BIR Ruling [DA-(S40M-004)007-08, July 4, 2008; BIR Ruling
[DA-075-03], March 11, 2003; BIR Ruling [DA-023-02], February 19, 2002.
Section 100 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended,
provides that: 'SEC 100. Transfer for Less Than Adequate and Full Consideration. -
Where property other than real property referred to in Section 24(D) is transferred for
less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth then the
amount by which the fair market value of the property exceeded the value of the
consideration shall, for the purpose of the tax imposed by this Chapter, be deemed a
gift and shall be included in computing the amount of gifts made during the calendar
year.
Furthermore, Revenue Regulations No. 6-2008 provides that:
SECTION 7. Sale, Barter or Exchange of Shares of Stock Not Traded Through a

Local Stock Exchange Pursuant to Secs. 24(C), 25(A)(3), 25(8), 27{0)(2),
28{A)(7)(C), 28{8)(5)(C) of the Tax Code, as Amended.-
Xxx XXX XXX {c.1) Determination of Selling Price.-
In determining the selling price, the following rules shall apply:
XXX XXX XXX
(c.1.4) In case the fair market value of the shares of stock sold bartered or
exchanged is greater than the amount of money and/or fair market value of the
property received the excess of the fair market value of the shares of stock sold
bartered or exchanged over the amount of money and the fair market value of
property, if anv, received as consideration shall be deemed a gift subject to the )<-
DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8318 Page 10 of 36 donor's tax under Sec. 100 of the
Tax Code, as amended.
It is noteworthy to state that the above provisions do not mention of any exempt
transactions. The above provision is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity.
Hence, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application. (Cebu
Portland Cement Co. vs. Municipality of Naga, Cebu, et. al., G.R. No. 24116-17,
August 22, 1968). XXX XXX XXX Foregoing considered, the taxpayer's claim for
exemption from donor's tax has no legal basis. It is hereby declared that BIR Ruling
DA (DT-065)715-2009 dated November 27, 2009 is null and void ab initio as it
contravenes a direct provision of the NIRC of 1997.
ARGUMENTS:
On June 16, 2010, petitioner received a Notice For Informal Conference (Notice)
dated June 7, 2010, from respondent, through Mr. Rey Asteria L. Tambis, Head
Revenue Executive Assistant of BIR LTS-Regular, informing petitioner that the
subject transaction is actually subject to donor's tax in the amount of
P184,601,490.61, inclusive of penalties.
In response to the above Notice, petitioner wrote respondent on July 1, 2010

requesting for the re-evaluation of the factual information presented by petitioner and
for the cancellation of the tax assessment shown in the Notice, which was received
by respondent through the BIR LTS-Regular on the same date.
On September 2, 2010, respondent through Nestor S. Valeroso, Assistant

Commissioner of BIR LTS-Regular, issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN),
with the corresponding details of discrepancy, which was received by petitioner on
September 16, 2010.
On October 11, 2010, petitioner, after obtaining an extension of time from the BIR
LTS-Regular to file its protest until said date, filed its protest on the PAN which was
received by respondent through SIR LTS-Regular on the same date.
On October 19, 2010, petitioner filed a letter dated October 15, 2010, addressed to
respondent through the SIR LTS-Regular, requesting for the resolution of the legal
issue raised in the PAN.
On January 14, 2011, petitioner received from respondent, through Zenaida G.

Garcia, Assistant Commissioner of the SIR LTSRegular a Final Assessment Notice
(FAN) dated January 7, 2011, details of discrepancy and Audit Result/ Assessment
Notice No. DT- 2010-0001, reiterating its demand for payment of deficiency donor's
tax, in the total amount of P199, 736,445.50, inclusive of penalties.
COURT RULING/CONCLUSION:
YES. Petitioners claim for donor’s tax exemption has no legal basis.
Section 100 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, is clear that in case where property is
transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth,
then the amount by which the fair market value (FMV) of the property exceeded the
value of the consideration shall be deemed a gift, and shall be included in computing
the amount of gifts made during the calendar year. It is thus, important to determine the
"fair market value" (FMV) of the property sold or transferred, and whether it exceeded
the value of the consideration.
Petitioner alleges, on the assumption that the subject shares were sold for less than
their "fair market value", that the subject transaction was an ordinary business
transaction negotiated in good faith by unrelated parties for legitimate purposes operate
to exclude the subject transaction from the coverage of Section 100 of the NIRC, the
same being a transfer which is bona fide, at arm's length.
After a careful reading of the bases cited by petitioner, the court find that the alleged
exemption/exception from the donor's tax under the said provision of law was not clearly
established therein.

Metro Pacific Corporation Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metro Pacific Corporation Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metro Pacific Corporation Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALOBIN, Flor Kenneth LLB – 3B Taxation II

METRO PACIFIC CORPORATION VS. CIR

Furthermore, Revenue Regulations No. 6-2008 provides that:

SECTION 7. Sale, Barter or Exchange of Shares of Stock Not Traded Through a

In response to the above Notice, petitioner wrote respondent on July 1, 2010

On September 2, 2010, respondent through Nestor S. Valeroso, Assistant

On January 14, 2011, petitioner received from respondent, through Zenaida G.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.