Metrobank V CIR
Metrobank V CIR
Metrobank V CIR
CIR
G.R. No. 182582
April 17, 2017
J. Perlas-Bernabe
FACTS:
Luzon Hydro Corporation (LHC) borrowed $123,780,000 from Solidbank Corporation. Pursuant to
their contract, LHC is bound to shoulder all the corresponding internal revenue taxes required by law
to be deducted or withheld on the said loan as well as the filing of tax returns and remittance of the
taxes withheld to the BIR.
Later on, Metrobank acquired Solidbank and thus, assumed the latter’s rights and obligations under
the said contract. LHC paid Metrobank total amounts of $1.5M and $1.3M. LHC withheld and paid
to the BIR 10% final tax on the interest portions of the aforesaid payments. LHC remitted a total of
$106K or Php5.2M. Metrobank mistakenly remitted the aforesaid amounts to the BIR as well when
they were inadvertently included in its own Monthly Remittance Returns of Final Income Taxes
Withheld for the months of March 2001 and October 2001. Thus, on December 27, 2002, it filed a
letter to the BIR requesting for the refund thereof. CIR denied the request. CTA En Banc ruled that
the refund has already prescribed, as it was already beyond the 2year prescriptive period.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Metrobank is entitled to a refund?
HELD:
No, the petition is DENIED.
RATIO:
Sec. 204 of the NIRC provides that “No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be
allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit
or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty”.
In relation to the above, sec. 229 provides that “No suit or proceeding shall be
maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter
alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty
claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been
excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit
has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be
maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2)
years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening
cause that may arise after payment”.
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any
national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally
assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without
authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner
wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the
Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax,
penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2)
years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening
cause that may arise after payment.
CASE DOCTRINE:
Q: What are the available remedies of a claimant for refund?