Cir Vs SC Johnson Digest

CIR VS SC JOHNSON & SON, INCS AND CA [G.R. No. 127105.
June 25, 1999]

JOHNSON AND SON, INC a domestic corporation organized and operating under the Philippine laws,
entered into a license agreement with SC Johnson and Son, United States of America(USA), a non-resident
foreign corporation based in the U.S.A. pursuant to which the [respondent] was granted the right to use the
trademark, patents and technology owned by the latter including the right to manufacture, package and
distribute the products covered by the Agreement and secure assistance in management, marketing and
production from SC Johnson and Son, U. S. A. The said License Agreement was duly registered with the
Technology Transfer Board of the Bureau of Patents, Trade Marks and Technology Transfer under Certificate
of Registration No. 8064 . For the use of the trademark or technology, SC JOHNSON AND SON, INC was
obliged to pay SC Johnson and Son, USA royalties based on a percentage of net sales and subjected the same
to 25% withholding tax on royalty payments which respondent paid for the period covering July 1992 to May
1993.00 On October 29,1993, SC JOHNSON AND SON, USA filed with the International Tax Affairs
Division (ITAD) of the BIR a claim for refund of overpaid withholding tax on royalties arguing that, since the
agreement was approved by the Technology Transfer Board, the preferential tax rate of 10% should apply to
the respondent. Respondent submits that royalties paid to SC Johnson and Son, USA is only subject to
10%withholding tax pursuant to the most-favored nation clause of the RP-US Tax Treaty in relation to the RPWest Germany Tax Treaty. The Internal Tax Affairs Division of the BIR ruled against SC Johnson and Son,
Inc. and an appeal was filed by the former to the Court of tax appeals. The CTA ruled against CIR and ordered
that a tax credit be issued in favor of SC Johnson and Son, Inc. Unpleased with the decision, the CIR filed an
appeal to the CA which subsequently affirmed in toto the decision of the CTA. Hence, an appeal on certiorari
was filed to the SC.
THE MAIN ISSUE:
WON SC JOHNSON AND SON, USA IS ENTITLED TO THE MOST FAVORED NATION TAX RATE OF
10%ON ROYALTIES AS PROVIDED IN THE RP-US TAX TREATY IN RELATION TO THE RP-WEST
GERMANY TAX TREATY.
The concessional tax rate of 10 percent provided for in the RP-Germany Tax Treaty could not apply to taxes
imposed upon royalties in the RP-US Tax Treaty since the two taxes imposed under the two tax treaties are not
paid under similar circumstances, they are not containing similar provisions on tax crediting.
The United States is the state of residence since the taxpayer, S. C. Johnson and Son, U. S. A., is based there.
Under the RP-US Tax Treaty, the state of residence and the state of source are both permitted to tax the
royalties, with a restraint on the tax that may be collected by the state of source. Furthermore, the method
employed to give relief from double taxation is the allowance of a tax credit to citizens or residents of the
United States against the United States tax, but such amount shall not exceed the limitations provided by
United States law for the taxable year. The Philippines may impose one of three rates- 25 percent of the gross
amount of the royalties; 15 percent when the royalties are paid by a corporation registered with the Philippine
Board of Investments and engaged in preferred areas of activities; or the lowest rate of Philippine tax that may
be imposed on royalties of the same kind paid under similar circumstances to a resident of a third state.
Given the purpose underlying tax treaties and the rationale for the most favored nation clause, the Tax Treaty
should apply only if the taxes imposed upon royalties in the RP-US Tax Treaty and in the RP-Germany Tax
Treaty are paid under similar circumstances. This would mean that private respondent must prove that the RPUS Tax Treaty grants similar tax reliefs to residents of the United States in respect of the taxes imposable upon
royalties earned from sources within the Philippines as those allowed to their German counterparts under the
RP Germany Tax Treaty. The RP-US and the RP-West Germany Tax Treaties do not contain similar provisions
on tax crediting. Article 24 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty, supra, expressly allows crediting against German
income and corporation tax of 20% of the gross amount of royalties paid under the law of the Philippines. On
the other hand, Article 23 of the RP-US Tax Treaty, which is the counterpart provision with respect to relief for
double taxation, does not provide for similar crediting of 20% of the gross amount of royalties paid. At the
same time, the intention behind the adoption of the provision on relief from double taxation in the two tax
treaties in question should be considered in light of the purpose behind the most favored nation clause.
What is the most favored nation clause?
The purpose of a most favored nation clause is to grant to the contracting party treatment not less favorable
than that which has been or may be granted to the most favored among other countries. It is intended to
establish the principle of equality of international treatment by providing that the citizens or subjects of the
contracting nations may enjoy the privileges accorded by either party to those of the most favored nation. The
essence of the principle is to allow the taxpayer in one state to avail of more liberal provisions granted in
another tax treaty to which the country of residence of such taxpayer is also a party provided that the subject
matter of taxation, in this case royalty income, is the same as that in the tax treaty under which the taxpayer is
liable. The RP-US Tax Treaty does not give a matching tax credit of 20 percent for the taxes paid to the
Philippines on royalties as allowed under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty, private respondent cannot be
deemed entitled to the 10 percent rate granted under the latter treaty for the reason that there is no payment of
taxes on royalties under similar circumstances.
TAXATION RELATED TOPICS: What is the purpose of a tax treaty?
The purpose of these international agreements is to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting
parties in order to help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxation in two different jurisdictions. The goal of
double taxation conventions would be thwarted if such treaties did not provide for effective measures to
minimize, if not completely eliminate, the tax burden laid upon the income or capital of the investor. Thus, if
the rates of tax are lowered by the state of source, in this case, by the Philippines, there should be a
concomitant commitment on the part of the state of residence to grant some form of tax relief, whether this be
in the form of a tax credit or exemption. Otherwise, the tax which could have been collected by the Philippine
government will simply be collected by another state, defeating the object of the tax treaty since the tax burden
imposed upon the investor would remain unrelieved. If the state of residence does not grant some form of tax
relief to the investor, no benefit would redound to the Philippines, i.e., increased investment resulting from a
favorable tax regime, should it impose a lower tax rate on the royalty earnings of the investor, and it would be
better to impose the regular rate rather than lose much-needed revenues to another country.
What is international double taxation and the rationale for doing away with it?
International juridical double taxation is defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on
the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods; The apparent rationale for
doing away with double taxation is to encourage the free flow of goods and services and the movement of
capital, technology and persons between countries, conditions deemed vital in creating robust and dynamic
economies.
When is there double taxation?
Double taxation usually takes place when a person is resident of a contracting state and derives income from,
or owns capital in, the other contracting state and both states impose tax on that income or capital.
What are the methods of eliminating double taxation?
First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of residence with
regard to certain classes of income or capital. In some cases, an exclusive right to tax is conferred on one of the
contracting states; however, for other items of income or capital, both states are given the right to tax, although
the amount of tax that may be imposed by the state of source is limited.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or
limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the
state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent
upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.
What are the methods of relief under the second method?
There are two methods of relief, the exemption method and the credit method.
Exemption method, the income or capital which is taxable in the state of source or situs is exempted in the
state of residence, although in some instances it may be taken into account in determining the rate of tax
applicable to the taxpayers remaining income or capital.
Credit method, although the income or capital which is taxed in the state of source is still taxable in the state of
residence, the tax paid in the former is credited against the tax levied in the latter.
The basic difference between the two methods is that in the exemption method, the focus is on the income or
capital itself, whereas the credit method focuses upon the tax.
What is the rationale of reducing tax rates in negotiating tax treaties?

In negotiating tax treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up
a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed by the other
country.
What are tax refunds?
Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and as such they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign
authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.
Who has the burden of proof in tax exemption?
The burden of proof is upon him who claims the exemption in his favor and he must be able to justify his claim
by the clearest grant of organic or statute law.

Cir Vs SC Johnson Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cir Vs SC Johnson Digest

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

Cir Vs SC Johnson Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIR VS SC JOHNSON & SON, INCS AND CA [G.R. No. 127105.

June 25, 1999]

What is the rationale of reducing tax rates in negotiating tax treaties?

You might also like