Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Quezon City

FIRST DIVISION

GIC PRIVATE LIMITED

{FORMERLY, GOVERNMENT CTA Case No. 8749
OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT For: Refund
CORPORATION PRIVATE
LIMITED), Members:
Petitioner,
DEL ROSARIO, Chairperson
-versus- UY,and
MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ.

COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated:
INTERNAL REVENUE, ,,') . 1• ,

Respondent. 7
MAR 1~ 016 lj.O0 f"'
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
'~
'·

DECISION

MINDARO-GRULLA, }_.:

This is a Petition for Review filed by GIC Private Limited

(Formerly, Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation Private Limited) as petitioner, against
Commissioner of Internal Revenue as respondent, before the
Court in Division, pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 1125, An Act Creating the Court of Tax
1
Appeals, as amended , as well as Rule 4, Section 3( a)(2), in<:

1
Sec 7. Jurisdiction. ~The CTA shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein
provided:
XXX XXX
(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds or internal revenue taxes,
fees of other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period for action, in which
case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
XXX XXX
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 2 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

relation to Rule 8, Section 4(a) of the Revised Rules of the

Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) 2 , as amended.

Petitioner seeks the refund or the issuance of tax credit

certificate in the amount of Two Hundred Sixteen Million
Nine Hundred Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six
Pesos and 53/100 (P216,919,286.53), allegedly representing
the final withholding taxes (FWT) erroneously withheld on
the interest income it derived during the period covering
December 2011 to December 2012 on its investments in
Philippine Treasury Bonds (T-Bonds). 3 (

J Rule 4, Sec. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. --The Court in
Division shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by

appeal the following:
XXX XXX

(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases

involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue
Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other
applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided,
that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred
eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal
Revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of
allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does
not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided,
further, that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed
assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period
abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision
to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules;
XXX XXX

Rule 8. Sec. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal.--

(a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or
claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or
illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of
Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade &
Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken
to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided
in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act
on the appeal.
XXX XXX

3
Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order, Docket, p. 370.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 3 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

Petitioner GIC Private Limited (Formerly, Government

of Singapore Investment Corporation Private Limited) is a
non-resident foreign corporation and is wholly-owned and
controlled by the Government of Singapore, duly organized
and existing under the laws of Singapore. Its principal place
of business is located at 168 Robinson Road, #37-01 Capital
Tower, Singapore 068912. 4 Petitioner is engaged in the
management of Singapore's foreign reserves and is
authorized and mandated to open and operate the custody
of current accounts, as may be necessary for the
safekeeping of assets and cash under its management. 5

On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed

Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR),
vested with authority, among others, to act upon and
approve claims for refund or tax credit of overpaid or
erroneously paid internal revenue taxes. She holds office at
the 5th Floor, BIR National Office Building, Agham Road,
Diliman, Quezon City.

On May 20, 1999, petitioner entered into a Direct

Custodial Services Agreement 6 (DCSA) with Citibank, N.A.,
Subsidiaries and Affiliates ("Citibank" for brevity), whereby
petitioner appointed the subsidiaries and affiliates of
Citibank as its custodian; entitling them to hold certain
assets of petitioner, as well as to open and maintain custody
accounts and cash accounts for the purpose of holding the
properties and funds from time to time received by the
relevant Citibank entities for the account of petitioner. 7

On March 23, 2009, petitioner and Citibank, acting

through its Singapore branch, executed a Global Custodial
Services Schedule 8 (GCSS) as a supplement to the DCSA.
Based on the GCSS, petitioner authorized Citibank to open
sub-custody accounts with other Citibank subsidiaries and c

, Exhibit "P-2", Docket, p. 433.

~Exhibit "P-l", Docket, p. 409.
6
Exhibit "P-9-1", Docket, pp. 487-507.
7
Exhibit "P 31", Sworn Statement of Ms. Precilia Wongsosaputro, June 11, 2014, p. 4.
8
Exhibit "P 10", Docket, pp. 514-518.
 CTA Case No. 8749 Page 4 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

affiliates as "foreign sub-custodians" for the purpose of

holding the securities issued by foreign governments or
foreign companies whose principal trading market is located
outside of Singapore. Thus, Citibank Singapore branch
opened a sub-custody account for petitioner with Citibank
Philippine branch. 9

Petitioner, through Citibank, invested in various T-

Bonds with maturities of more than one ( 1) year. As
custodian, Citibank is responsible for settling petitioner's
investments in T -Bonds and in safekeeping the T -Bonds
acquired by petitioner. It is also responsible for collecting
the coupons/interests due on petitioner's T -Bond holdings
when they fall due on coupon date, and credit the same into
petitioner's custody accounts. 10

During the period of December 2011 to December

2012, petitioner derived interest income from its
investments in T -Bonds amounting to P1,084,596,432.68,
which was subjected to FWT at the rate of twenty percent
(20°/o), for a total amount of P216,919,286.53, broken down
as follows: 11

Gross
Annual ~oupon/Interest
I
I Payout
j
1

I1 Interest 1

Rate Rate Coupon

ISIN /
· SECURITY ID
IPHY6972FMZ09/ ·~
Fa<eValue ---1 (;Lt%)" __ Date Gross Amou
~ - ...... --. I
..
L PIBD1020L525 {_I'_ 1,559,250,300.00 5.8750 2.9375T 16 Dec 11 p 15 802,9: ...... I . 9,160,595.51 p 36 612,382.05
i PHY6972FKN96/
~~ PIBD0313A199 3 200,000 000.00 5.2500 2.62SO 9 Jan 12 81,000,000.00 16,800 000.00 67,200,000.00
I PHY6972FJC50/

L?IBD0511A673 ld?O,OOO,OOO.OO _ 6.2500 3.12SO 27 Jan 12 352,187,!>00.00 7o,137,5oo.oo I 281,750,000.00

PHY6972FHT01/
PIBD1019B185 950,000,000.00 7.8750 3.9375 20 Feb 12 37,106,250.00 7,181,250.00 29,925,000.0
I PHY69//FMZ09/
PIBD1020L525 1,:.:.9):.0,300.00 :..8/:.0 7.93/:. 18-Jun-17 4:.,80/,9/ /.:.6 9,160,:.9:..:.1 36,647,38/.0
I. PHY6917FKN96/
I PIBD!UUA199 3,/00,000,000 00 :../:.00 /.67:.0 9-Jul-17 84,000,000 00 16,800,000.00 6!)00,000.0
PHY69//FJC:.O/
PIBD0511A673 1,710,000,000 00 i 6.7:.00 3 17:.0 / /-Jul-17 3:.7, 181,:.00.00 /0,43/,:.0000 /81 ,;:.o,ooo.o
I
PHY6917FHT04/
PIBD1019B48:. 9:.0,000,000.00 /.8/:.0 3.93/:. //-Aug-17 3/,406):.0.00 /,481 ,/:.0.00 /9,9/:.,ooo o
PHY69//FMZ09/
PIBD1 0/0L:./:. 1,:.:.9,/:.0,300.00 :..8/:.0 7.93/:. 1 /-Dcc-1 / 4:.,80/,9/ /.:.6 9, 160,:.9:..:.1 36,64/,38/ .a I
I
Total P1,084,596.432.68 P216,919,286.53 P867,677,146.1 5 1(.

9
Exhibit "P--31", Sworn Statement of Ms. Precilia Wongsosaputro, June 11, 2014, p. 4.
10 Ibid, pp. 4-5. . :'
11
Exhibit "P 11", Docket, p. 519.
17
On semi annual basis.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 5 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

The FWT on petitioner's interest income from T -Bonds

were allegedly withheld and remitted to the BIR by the
Bureau of Treasury ("BTr" for brevity).

On December 16, 2013, petitioner filed with the BIR an

administrative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit
certificate in the amount of P216,919,286.53, representing
the FWT erroneously withheld on the interest income derived
by petitioner from its investments in T -Bonds from
December 2011 to December 2012. 13

Due to respondent's inaction on petitioner's refund

claim, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review 14 before
this Court on December 19, 2013.

In her Answer 15 filed on March 3, 2014, respondent

alleged the following defenses:

"4. Petitioner's alleged claim for tax refund/credit

is subject to administrative investigation/examination
by the respondent's Bureau.

5. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the tax

subject of this case was erroneously or illegally
collected.

6. Taxes paid and collected are presumed to

have been paid in accordance with law and
regulations, hence, not refundable.

7. Petitioner failed to prove compliance with the

governing rules relative to tax recovery or refund as
provided for under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended.~

13
Exhibit "P-26", Docket, pp. 578-588.
14
Docket, pp. 6 14.
1
~ Docket, pp. 72-74.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 6 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

8. In an action for tax refund/credit, the burden

of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by
sufficient and competent evidence its entitlement to a
claim for refund/credit, and failure to adduce sufficient
proof is fatal to the action for tax refund/credit
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Tokyo
Shipping Co., Ltd. 244 SCRA 336).

9. It cannot be over-emphasized that tax

exemption represents a loss of revenue to the
government and must, therefore, not rest on vague
inference. When claimed, it must be strictly construed
against the taxpayer who must prove that he falls
under the exception. And if an exemption is found to
exist, it must not be enlarged by construction, since
the reasonable presumption is that the State has
granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all,
and that, unless the privilege is limited to the very
terms of the statute, the favor would be extended
beyond dispute in ordinary cases.

10. Finally, basic is the rule that tax refunds are

in the nature of tax exemptions are to be construed
strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same
(Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 154028, July 27, 2005).
Moreover, statutes in derogation of sovereignty such
as those containing exemption from taxation should
be strictly construed in favor of the State (PLOT vs.
City of Davao, 399 SCRA 442)."

The case was scheduled for a pre-trial conference on

April 25, 2014. 16 Accordingly, respondent filed her Pre-Trial
Brief17 on April 21, 2014; while petitioner submitted its Pre-
Trial Brief18 on June 13, 2014.

On July 11, 2014, the parties submitted their Joint

Stipulation of Facts and Issues 19 . The same was admitted~

16
Docket, p. 75.
11
Dockel, pp. 88-91.
18
Docket, pp. 92-101.
19
Docket, pp. 348 356.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 7 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

by the Court in a Resolution 20 dated July 21, 2014. The

Court then issued a Pre-Trial Order 21 on August 5, 2014,
thereby terminating the pre-trial.

During trial, petitioner presented Atty. Gia Angeli R.

Geraldez - Junior Associate at Salvador and Associates Law
Office 22 and Ms. Precilia Wongsosaputro 23 - Vice President at
the Securities and Fund Services Department of Citibank
Philippine Branch as its witnesses. Subsequently, petitioner
presented and formally offered Exhibits "P-1" to "P-33-1", 24
which were all admitted by the Court in a Resolution 25 dated
January 5, 2015.

Petitioner's documentary exhibits are as follows:

Exhibit Description

P-1 Petitioner's Memorandum and Articles of

Association dated May 22, 1981

P-2 Certification on change of name issued by

the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory
Authority of Singapore on December 13,
2013

P-3 Certification issued by the Ministry of

Finance of the Republic of the Singapore
on January 9, 2 0 14

P-4 Certification of Non-Registration of

Company issued by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) dated July
8, 2014

P-4-1 Certification of Non-Registration of

Company issued by the Securities and
Exchange Commission dated June 27,
2014

P-5 Certification from the Bureau of Treasury

(BTr) issued on February 11, 2014 ~
20
Docket, p. 358.
21
Docket, pp. 370-379.
:u Exhibit "P-30", Docket, pp. 294-302.
23
Exhibit "P-31", Docket, pp. 307-332.
14
Docket, pp. 394-406.
~~ Docket, pp. 660 661.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 8 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

confirming the amount of final taxes

withheld from the coupons or interest
income derived by the treasury bonds (T-
Bonds) recorded under Citibank N.A.'s
(Citibank) Custodian Account with the BTr
for the period December 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2012

P-6-1 BTr's Statement of Interest Payment of

Coupon/Maturity due by GS (Government
Securities) Holders of Citibank for the
period December 1, 2011 to December
31, 2012

P-6-2 BTr's Statement of Interest Payment of

Coupon/Maturity due by GS Holders of
Citibank for the period December 1, 2011
to December 31, 2012

P-7 -1, P-7- BTr Journal Entry Vouchers (JEVs)

la, P-7-2, P- covering the withholding of final tax on
7-2a, P-7-3, coupons and the remittance of the FWTs
P-7-3a, P-7- to the BIR
4, P-7-4a, P-
7-5, P-7-Sa,
P-7-6, P-7-
6a, P-7-7, P-
7-7a, P-7-8,
P-7-8a , P-7-
9, P-7-9a

P-8 Certificate of Final Tax Withheld at Source

(BIR Form No. 2306) issued by the BTr in
favour of Citibank covering FWT in the
total amount of Php242,816,565.56

P-9-1 Direct Custodial Services Agreement

between petitioner and Citibank, N.A.
Subsidiaries and Affiliates dated May 20,
1999

P-9-2 Amendment Agreement between

petitioner and Citibank, N.A., Subsidiaries
and Affiliates dated April 30, 2000

P-9-3 Amendment Agreement between

petitioner and Citibank, N.A., Subsidiaries
and Affiliates dated June 21, 2006~
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 9 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

P-10 Global Custodial Services Schedule

between petitioner and Citibank, N.A.
dated March 23, 2009

P-11 Citibank's Coupon Entitlement Report for

petitioner for the period December 2011
to December 2012

P-12, P-12-1, Schedule of Bond Exchange Offer,

P-13-1, P-13- Confirmations of Sale, and Trade
2, P-13-3, P- Confirmations covering petitioner's T-
14-1, P-14-2, Bonds
P-15-1, P-15-
2, P-15-3, P-
15-4, P-15-5,
P-15-6, P-15-
7, P-15-8, P-
15-9

P-16, P-17, MT566 Confirmation Advice covering the

P-18, P-19, remittance of coupons from Citibank to
P-20, P-21, petitioner
P-22, P-23,
P-24

P-25 Certification issued by Citibank dated

February 12, 2014 regarding petitioner's
safekeeping and securities accounts with
Citibank Manila (GIC "B" Account, GIC "C"
Account, and GIC "H" Account)

P-26 Petitioner's letter-request for refund of or

issuance of TCC for the amount of
Php216,919,286.53, representing the
FWT erroneously withheld on the interest
income derived by petitioner during the
period December 2011 to December 2012
from its investments in T-Bonds, stamped
as received by the BIR on December 16,
2013 (with attached BIR Form No. 1914)

P-27 BIR, Revenue Accounting Division

Certification No. RAD-14-03-156-Cert.
dated March 20, 2014 confirming receipt
of the FWTs on the BTr's coupon
payments to Citibank's Registry of
Scripless Securities (ROSS) Custodian
Account for the period December 2011 to
December 2012C
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 10 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

P-28 Petitioner's Special Power of Attorney

(SPA) dated December 16, 2013
authorizing Salvador & Associates
Attorneys-at-Law (S&A) to file on its
behalf an administrative claim for refund
of erroneously withheld FWT for the
period December 2011 to December 2012

P-29 Petitioner's SPA dated December 16,

2013 authorizing S&A to file
administrative and judicial claims for
refund of erroneously withheld FWT for
the period December 2011 to December
2012 on behalf of petitioner

P-30 Sworn Statement of Atty. Gia Angeli R.

Geraldez to Questions Propounded by
Atty. Mardomeo N. Raymundo, Jr.

P-30-1 Signature of Atty. Geraldez on page 9 of

her Sworn Statement dated June 11,
2014

P-31 Sworn Statement of Ms. Precilia

Wongsosaputro to Questions Propounded
by Atty. Mardomeo N. Raymundo, Jr.

P-31-1 Signature of Ms. Wongsosaputro on page

26 of her Sworn Statement dated June
11, 2014

P-32 BIR's letter dated August 1, 2014

granting petitioner's administrative claim
for refund of the amount
Php216,919,286.53, representing the
FWT erroneously withheld on the interest
income derived by petitioner during the
period December 2011 to December 2012

P-33 Supplemental Sworn Statement of Atty.

Gia Angeli R. Geraldez to Questions
Propounded by Atty. Mardomeo N.
Raymundo, Jr.

P-33-1 Signature of Atty. Geraldez on page 4 of

her Supplemental Sworn Statement dated
September 4, 2014 ~
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 11 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

Respondent, on the other hand, waived her right to

present evidence. 26 Thereafter, the Court ordered both
parties to submit their respective memoranda.

Petitioner filed its Memorandum 27 on March 25, 2015;

while respondent filed her Memorandum 28 on April 21, 2015.
Consequently, the Court deemed the case submitted for
decision on May 4, 2015. 29

The issues 30 stipulated by the parties for this Court's

resolution are as follows:

1. Whether or not petitioner is wholly-owned and

controlled by the Government of Singapore;

2. Whether or not petitioner derived interest income

in the gross amount of Php1,084,596,432.68
from its investments in Philippine T -Bonds for the
period December 2011 to December 2012;

3. Whether or not the interest income derived by

petitioner from its investments in Philippine T-
Bonds for the period December 2011 to
December 2012 was subjected to FWT at the rate
of 20°/o;

4. Whether or not the FWT on petitioner's interest

income from Philippine T -Bonds for the period
December 2011 to December 2012, amounting
to Php216,919,286.53, was remitted and paid to
the BIR;

5. Whether or not the interest income derived by

petitioner from its investments in Philippine T- C

26
Resolution dated October 7, 2014, Docket, pp. 392-393.
21
Docket, pp. 676-703.
28
Docket, pp. 707-711.
29 Rgsolution datgd May 4, 2015, Docket, p. 713.
30
StipU\~ted l~~UQ!; for R~~Dilltion, )oint Stipulat'lon of Facts and Issues, Docket, pp.
349-350.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 12 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

Bonds is exempt from income tax under Section

32(B)(7)(a), Tax Code and Section 2.57.5, RR
No. 2-98; and

6. Whether or not petitioner filed its administrative

and judicial claims for refund of or issuance of
TCC in the amount of Php216,919,286.53,
representing the FWT erroneously withheld on
the interest income derived by petitioner during
the period December 2011 to December 2012
from its investments in Philippine T -Bonds, within
the two-year prescriptive period provided under
Sections 204(C) and 229, Tax Code.

The above-enumerated issues can be summarized as

follows:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the

refund of or issuance of tax credit certificate in the
amount of P216,919,286.53, allegedly
representing the FWT erroneously withheld on the
interest income derived by petitioner during the
period covering December 2011 to December
2012 from its investments in T -Bonds.

Petitioner anchors its claim on Section 32(B)(7)(a) of

the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as
amended, which grants income tax exemption on dividend
income derived by (a) foreign governments, (b) financing
institutions owned, controlled, or those enjoying refinancing
from foreign governments, and (c) international or regional
financial institutions established by foreign governments
frorn investments in the Philippines in loans, stocks, bonds,
or other domestic securities.

Petitioner points out that it is a financial institution

wholly-owned and controlled by the Government of
Singapore whose principal objective is to preserve and
enhance the international purchasing power of Singapore's
r"~~rve5, and \t is auttlorired and mandated to open and<
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 13 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

operate custody and current accounts as may be necessary

for the safekeeping of assets and cash under its
management. 31

As a financial institution wholly-owned and controlled

by the Government of Singapore, petitioner asserts
exemption from the payment of Philippine income taxes on
any income derived from investments in Philippine T-
bonds. 32 ·

Moreover, petitioner argues that since its interest

income is exempt from income tax under Section
32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC of 1997, the income received from
its investments in T -bonds is likewise exempt from FWT
pursuant to Section 2. 57.5 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No.
2-98. 33

On the other hand, respondent contends that petitioner

failed to prove that it is wholly-owned by the Government of
Singapore since petitioner did not present sufficient evidence
to prove the same. According to respondent, petitioner did
not present any witness who could identify and has personal
knowledge of a letter dated January 9, 2015 from the
Ministry of Finance of Singapore. 34

Respondent further argues that petitioner cannot rely

on BIR Ruling (DA 130-02) in its action to claim for refund or
issuance of tax credit certificate since it is peculiar only to
Reco Grandhomes Pte Ltd, thus binding and applicable only
between the BIR and the requesting party. Moreover,
respondent states that a BIR Ruling is not a law and is more
of an opinion given upon a taxpayer's request that may be
subsequently revoked should the facts as represented are
found to be different. 35 {

31
Par. 13, Petitioner's Memorandum, Docket, pp. 680-681.
32
Par. 14, Petitioner's Memorandum, Docket, p. 681.
33 Par. 29, Petitioner's Memorandum, Docket, p. 687.
\{Q!;pDnd~nt's Memorandum, Docket, p. 709.
34

35
Ibid.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 14 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

Petitioner's argument is meritorious.

It is noteworthy that the principal issue raised in this

petition is not novel, as this Court had already resolved the
same issue in a number of earlier cases. 36

Section 32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,

provides:

"SEC. 32. Gross Income. -

XXX XXX XXX

(B) Exclusions from Gross Income. - The

following items shall not be included in gross income
and shall be exempt from taxation under this Title:

XXX XXX XXX

(7) Miscellaneous Items. -

(a) Income Derived by Foreign Government. -

Income derived from investments in the Philippines in
loans, stocks, bonds or other domestic securities, or
from interest on deposits in banks in the Philippines
by (i) foreign governments, (ii) financing institutions
owned, controlled, or enjoying refinancing from
foreign governments, and (iii) international or regional
financial institutions established by foreign
governments."

In relation thereto, Section 2. 57.5 of Revenue

Regulations No. 2-98, as amended, provides: C.

36
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation Pte. Ltd. CTA EB No. 958, March 31, 2014; Government of Singapore
Investment Corporation Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case
No. 8030, September 5, 2012; Government of Singapore Investment Corporation
Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 7726, April 29, 2010;
Gov~rnment Df Singapore Investment Corporation Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 6745, June 6, 2008.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 15 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

"SECTION 2.57 .5. Exemption from Withholding.

- The withholding of creditable withholding tax
prescribed in these Regulations shall not apply to
income payments made to the following:

XXX XXX XXX

(B) Persons enjoying exemption from payment

of income taxes pursuant to the provisions of any law,
general or special, such as but not limited to the
following:

11
XXX XXX XXX

The above provisions provide that for the interest

income received by petitioner from its investments in T-
Bonds to be exempt from income tax and consequently,
from FWT, petitioner must either be a (1) foreign
government, or (2) a financing institution owned, controlled,
or enjoying refinancing from foreign governments, or (3) an
international or regional financial institution established by
foreign governments.

To prove that it is a financial institution wholly-owned

by the Government of Singapore, petitioner submitted a
notarized and authenticated copy of the Certification 37 issued
by the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Singapore
dated January 9, 2014, signed by Mr. Derrick Wan, Director
for Reserves and Investment of Singapore, certifying that
petitioner is wholly-owned by the Government of Singapore
and was incorporated under the Singapore Companies Act
on May 22, 1981. Petitioner's principal objective is to
manage Singapore's foreign reserves. 38 It was also duly
notarized and certified by the Philippine Consul in Singapore,
Victoria Mario M. Dimagiba, Jr./ 9 to prove due execution of<

31
Exhibit "P-3", Docket, p. 436.
38
Par. 2, Petitioner's Memorandum, Docket, p. 677.
39
Docket, pp. 434-435.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 16 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

the said document as required under Sections 19, 24, and

30 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. 40

As a rule, a Court can give due weight to documents

executed in a foreign country only if there is an
authentication issued by any Philippine Consular Office, its
officer or deputy, proving its due execution. As explained by
the Supreme Court in the case of Angelita Lopez vs. Court of
Appeals, et a/. 41 :

"xxx when the special power of attorney is

executed and acknowledged before a notary public or
other competent official in a foreign country, it cannot
be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as such in
accordance with the foregoing provision of the rules
by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul-general,
consul, vice-consul or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept of said
public document and authenticated by the seal of his
office. xxx" (

<10 SEC. 19. Classes of documents. - For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to the entered therein.
All other writings are private.
XXX
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
XXX
SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents. - Every instrument duly acknowledged or
proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.
41
G.R. No. 77008, December 29, 1987.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 17 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

Petitioner, having proven that it is a financial institution

wholly-owned and controlled by the Government of
Singapore, is therefore exempt from the payment of income
tax and final withholding tax on the interest income it
derived from its investments in Philippine T -bonds pursuant
to the provision of Section 32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC of 1997,
as amended, and Section 2. 57.5 of Revenue Regulations No.
2-98, as amended.

However, in order for petitioner to be entitled to a

refund of erroneously paid taxes, petitioner must comply
with the requisites provided by law. In this regard, Section
229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides:

"SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or

Illegally Collected. - 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:
Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even
without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any
tax, where on the face of the return upon which
payment was made, such payment appears clearly to
have been erroneously paid."

Based on the above-quoted provision, the following

requisites must be proved before a taxpayer may be entitled
to a refund: ( 1) that the tax has been erroneously or<
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 18 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

illegally collected, or the penalty has been collected without

authority, and/or any sum has been excessively or in any
manner wrongfully collected; and (2) the claim for refund or
credit must have been filed within two years from the date
of payment of the tax, or penalty, regardless of any
supervening cause that may arise after payment.

Pursuant to Section 32(B)(7)(a) of the NIRC of 1997,

as amended, the interest income earned by petitioner from
its investments in Philippine T -Bonds is exempt from income
tax. Therefore, the 20°/o final tax withheld from the interest
income earned was erroneously or illegally collected.

To prove that petitioner erroneously paid the final tax

of 20°/o on its interest income from Philippine T -Bonds,
petitioner presented the following documentary evidence:

1. Certification from the Bureau of Treasury issued on

February 11, 2014 confirming the amount of final
taxes withheld from the coupons or interest income
derived by the T -bonds recorded under Citibank
Custodian Account with the BTr for the period of
December 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 (Exhibit "P-
S");42

2. BTr's Statement of Interest Payment of

Coupon/Maturity due by Government Securities Holders
of Citibank covering the period of December 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2012 (Exhibit "P-6-1"); 43

3. BTr's Statement of Interest Payment of

Coupon/Maturity due by Government Securities Holders
of Citibank for the period of December 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2012 (Exhibit "P-6-2"); 44

4. BTr Journal Entry Vouchers covering the withholding of

final tax on coupons and the remittance of the FWTs to<

12
Docket, p. 439.
43
Docket, p. 440.
44
Docket, p. 441.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 19 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

the BIR (Exhibits "P-7-1" to "P-7-9" including

submarkings) ; 45

5. Certificate of Final Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form

No. 2306) issued by the BTr in favor of Citibank
covering FWT in the total amount of P242,816,565.46
(Exhibit "P-8"); 46

6. Citibank's Coupon Entitlement Report for petitioner for

the period covering December 2011 to December 2012
(Exhibit "P-11"); 47

7. BIR Revenue Accounting Division Certification No. RAD-

14-03-156-Cert. dated March 20, 2014, confirming
receipt of the FWTs on the BTr's coupon payments to
Citibank's Registry of Scripless Securities (ROSS)
Custodian Account for the period covering December
2011 to December 2012 (Exhibit "P-27"); 48 and

8. BIR's letter dated August 1, 2014, granting petitioner's

administrative claim for refund of the amount of
P216,919,286.53, representing the FWT erroneously
withheld on the interest income derived by petitioner
during the period December 2011 to December 2012.

The above-mentioned exhibits show the withholding by

the Bureau of Treasury of FWT on the interest payments
made on said securities. The Bureau of Treasury issued a
letter dated February 11, 2014 49 with attached Statement of
Taxes Withheld 5°, certified true copies of Journal Entry
Vouchers (JEVs) 51 and BIR Form No. 2306 52 . The said letter
certifies that final taxes totaling P242,816,565.56 were
withheld from the subject securities on coupon payments for
the period of December 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012,
broken down as follows: 53 (
4
~ Docket, pp. 442-483.
~ 6 Docket, p. 486.
47
Docket, p. 519.
IJB Docket, p. 589.
~9 Exhibit "P-5", Docket, p. 439.
~0 Exhibits "P-6-1" and "P-6-2", Docket, pp. 440-441.
51
Exhibits "P-7-1" to "P-7-9", Docket, pp. 442-485.
)/ Exhibit "P-8", Docket, p. 486.
~
3
Exhibit "P-6-1", Docket, p. 440. ! .
 CTA Case No. 8749 Page 20 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

~--~-~l--l-~
Rate Coupon ----::l -~~
Interest
~~---_!~!l'!__j~~ Date Face Amoun!___ -~Interest 1Gross)_ Taxes Withheld ___ (Net of Tax)
1-Feb-12 P1,046,300,000 .ool P 41,198,062.50 P 8,239,612.50 P 32,958,45o.oo !
r-- ------r --
i PIBD1019B485
e------ -----
7.8750 ~-· 22-Aug-12 1,101,300,000 :00 ··~ 43,363,687.50 8,672,737.50 34,690,950.00
: PIBD0514A673 6.2500 27-Jan-12 12,551,955,014 ~ 392,248,594~19 I 78,449,718~84 313,798,875.35
l---
fPIBD0514A673
PIBD0313A199
6.2500
5.2500
27-Jul-12
9-Jan-12
13,445,632,000 .oo I
3,255,600,000 ~
420,176,ooo.oo
85,459,500.00 I
84,o35,2oo.oo-
17,091,900.00 t-- 336, 14o,8oo.oo
68,367,600.00
I PIBD0313A199 15.2500
1

I PIBD1020L525
I
5.8750
. ~
9-Jul-12
j16-_Qec-11 1
3,246,000,000~:~-~--
1,760,960,051.00 I
85,207,500.00
51,728,201.50
j
I
17,041,500.00
10,345,640.30
68,166,000.00
41,382,561.20 I
LPIBD1020L525 j 5.8750 18-Jun-12 1,604,436,716.00 47,130,328~53 9,426,065.71 37,704,262.82 il

r~~IB~1020L525 \ 5.8750 17-Dec-12 1,619,436,716.oo I 47,570,953.53 9,514,190.71 38,056,762.82 ,

P1,214,082,827.75 P242,816,565.56 P971,266,262.19 I

The amount of P242,816,565.56 represents the entire

taxes withheld by the BTr on coupon interest payments
made to Citibank, N.A., Philippine branch per its ROSS
custody account, which is an omnibus account representing
all its clients and not just petitioner. 54 The withheld taxes
were recorded by the BTr with the corresponding JEV
numbers, as follows: 55

,---· ---··

~est (Gross)
I
Rate I Coupon
I ISIN Face Amount Taxes Withheld BTr lEV No. !
~Date I

I PIBD1019B485 20-Feb-12 P1,046,300,000.00 I p

I
41,198,062.50 p 8,239,612.50 12~02-01434 I
--·
I PIBD1019B485 7.8750 22-Aug-12 1,101,300,000.00 43,363,687.50 ! 8,672,737.50 12-08-08211-
! I 12-01-00841
IL PIBD0514A673 6.2500 27-Jan-12 12,551,955,014.00 ~·· 392,248,594.19 L~449,718:84
I

I PIBD0514A673 6.2500 27-Jul-12 13,445,632,000.00 420,176,000.00 1 84,035,200.00 12-07-07223

PIBD0313A199 5.2500 9-Jan-12 3,255,600,000.00 85,459,5oo.oo I 17,091,900.00 12-01-00228
[__

I PIBD03l3A199 5.2500 9-Jul-12 3,246,000,000.00 -85,207,500.00 t

I
17,041,500.00 12-07~06406

I PIBD1020L525 5.8750 16-Dec-11 1,760,960,051.00 51,728,201.50 10,345,640.30 11-12-12552

PIBD1020L525 5.8750 18-Jun-12 1,604, 436,716.00 i 47,130,328.53 9,426,065.71 12-06-05674
I PIBD1020L525 5.8750 17-Dec-12 1,619,436,716.00 47,570,953.53 9,514,190.71 12-12-12206
I
i I
I P1,214,082,827.75 I P242,816,565.56 II

The BTr remits the FWT to the Bureau of Internal

Revenue. The BIR, in a certification 56 issued on March 20,
2014, through its Revenue Accounting Division, stated that
the International Security Identification Numbers (ISIN) of
the afore-mentioned securities were verified from its
records, as follows: C.

Yl Exhibit "P-31", Docket, p. 628.

~~ t)(hibit "P-6-2 11 , Docket, p. 441.
~ Exhibit "P-27", Docket, p. 589.
6
 CTA Case No. 8749 Page 21 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CJR
DECISION

-------------1--------~·--

I
Date Recorded
[SIN BTr JEV No. BIR JEV No. by BIR
PIBD 1020L525 11-12-12552 2011-12-002953 29-Dec-2011,
PIBD )313A199 12-01-00228 2012-01-000203 31-Jan-2012
PIBD )514A673 12-01-00841 2012-01-000203 31-Jan-2012
PIBD 10198485 12-02-01434 2012-02-000457 29-Feb-2012
PIBD 1020L525 12-06-05674 2012-06-001510 29-Jun-2012
PIBD 0313Al99 12-07-06406 --
2012-07-001767 J__
31-Jul-2012
PIBD 05l4A673
----·-··
12-07-07223 2012-07-001767 31-Jul-2012
PIBD 10198485 12-08-08211 2012-08-002007 31-Aug-2012
PIBD 1020L525 12-12-12206 I 2012-12-002942 28-Dec-2012

This shows that the total amount of P242,816,565.56

representing final taxes withheld from interest payments of
the securities held by Citibank, N.A., Philippine branch have
been remitted by the BTr, of which P216,919,286.53
pertains to petitioner, detailed as follows: 57

ISIN I
SECURITY ID Face Value
Gross
Annual
Interest
Rate
(%)
Payout
Rate
(%)58
Coupon
Date
F- -

Gross Amount
f'"":"i'""'"'''
O%FWT
I
I
i
~
Net Amount
I

PHY69//FMZ09/
PIBD I0/0L~/~ P I .~~9,7~0,300 00 ~.81~0 7.93/~ 16-Dcc-11 p 4~.807,9/ ~-~6
I
1 p 9, 160,~9~-~ 1 p 36,64/,387 0~
II
PHY69//FKN96/ - - I
PIBD0313A199
PHY69 0 FJC~O/
3)00,000,000.00 ~-7~00 7.6/~0 9-Jan-1 / ~ 84,000,00000 ! 16,80o,ooo.oo I 61,/0o,ooo.oo 1
I
I I
i PIBD0~14A613 I I ,710,000,000.00 6.7~00 3.17~0 71-Jan-17 ___3_~~1.~00.00 10 43/,~00 00 I 781 '1~0,000.00 ~
I PHY&972FIITI"I
PIBDl019B48~ 950,000 000.00 7.8750 3.9375 20 Feb 12 37,106,250.0(~- !---· 7 181,250.00 29 925 ooo.oo I
PHY69l2FMZ09/ I
I PIBD1 0/0L~/~ 1 559 250,300.00 5.8750 2.9375 18 Jun 12 15 802 977.56 9,160,595.51 36 612 382.05 I
1 PHY6972FKN96/
~PIBD0313AI99 l1 20Q,OOO,OOO.OO 5.2500 2.6250 9 Jul 12 81 ooo,ooo.oo I 16 800 000.00 &7 200 000.{~
PHY6972FJC50/
PIBD05 11A673 _1,270,000,000.00 6.2500 3.1250 27 Jul 12 352,187,500.00 70137 500.00 281 750 000.00
! PHY6972FHT01/
i PIBD101 96185 950 000 000.00 7.8750 3.9375 n Auq 12 37 106 250.00 I 7 181 250.00 29 925 000.00
I PHY6972FMZ0t)j
~PIBD1020L525 1,559,250,300.QQ._[_ 5.8750 2.9375 17 Dec 12 1~02,977.56 9 160 595.51 36 612 382.05
i Total Pl,084,596,432.68 P216,919,286.53 P867,677,146.15 i

Based on the records of the case, the BTr remitted and

paid to the BIR the first FWT on December 21, 2011 59 .
Counting two years from such date, petitioner had until
December 21, 2013, within which to file its claim for refund.k
51
Exhibit "P-11", Docket, p. 519.
~ 8 On semi-annual basis.
9
" Exhibit "P-7-1", Docket, p. 442.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 22 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

or issuance of tax credit certificate both administratively and

judicially. Therefore, petitioner's administrative claim which
was filed on December 16, 2013 60 and its judicial claim filed
on December 19, 2013 61 were filed within the two-year
prescriptive period. Evidently, petitioner likewise satisfied
the second requirement.

In sum, the Court finds that petitioner has sufficiently

established its entitlement to a refund/tax credit of its
erroneously withheld final tax in the amount of
~216,919,286.53.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present

Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND OR TO
ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner
in the amount of TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN MILLION
NINE HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTY-SIX PESOS AND 53/100 (P216,919,286.53),
representing petitioner's erroneously withheld final tax.

SO ORDERED.

~ N. M'-"~· G~
CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RO
Presiding Justice
ER~P.UY
Associate Justice

60
Exhibit "P 26", Docket, pp. 578-588.
61
Petition for Review, Docket, pp. 6-14.
CTA Case No. 8749 Page 23 of 23
GIC Private Limited vs. CIR
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

)
Presiding Justice
Chairperson, 1st Division