5 CIR Vs Goodyear

5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc.
[G.R. No. 216130, August 3, 2016, J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]
FACTS: Goodyear Philippines Inc. (respondent) is a domestic corporation organized and

existing under Philippine law.
On the other hand, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (GTRC), a U.S. foreign company,
was the sole and exclusive subscriber of all preferred shares of stocks of the respondent
Goodyear Philippines Inc. The Board of Directors of respondent authorized the redemption
of GTRC preferred shares.
Respondent filed an application for relief from double taxation with the BIR to confirm
that the redemption was not subject to Philippine Income Tax pursuant to the
Republic of the Philippines – US Tax Treaty.
As a conservative approach, respondent still withheld and remitted an amount representing
15% FWT on November 3, 2008.
On October 21, 2010, respondent filed a claim for refund before the BIR. Thereafter, or on
November 3, 2010, it filed a judicial claim before the CTA.
ISSUES & RULING:
1. Whether the filing of administrative and judicial claims only 13 days apart
satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedy.
YES. Section 229 of the Tax Code states that judicial claims for refund must be filed
within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty, providing further
that the same may not be maintained until a claim for refund or credit has been duly
filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Verily, the primary purpose of filing an administrative claim was to serve as

notice to the CIR that court action would follow unless the tax or penalty
alleged to have been collected erroneously or illegally is refunded. To clarify,
Section 229 of the Tax Code, however, does not mean that the taxpayer must
await the final resolution of its administrative claim for refund, since doing so
would be tantamount to the taxpayer’s forfeiture of its right to seek judicial
recourse should the two (2) year prescriptive period expire without the
appropriate judicial claim being filed.
In the case at bar, records show that both administrative and judicial claims for
refund of respondent for its erroneous withholding and remittance of FWT were
indubitably filed within the two-year prescriptive period.
Notably, Section 229 of the Tax Code, as worded, only required that an
administrative claim should first be filed. It bears stressing that respondent could not
be faulted for resorting to court action, considering that the prescriptive period stated
therein was about to expire.
Had respondent awaited the action of petitioner knowing fully well that the
prescriptive period was about to lapse, it would have resultantly forfeited its right to
seek a judicial review of its claim, thereby suffering irreparable damage. Thus,
respondent correctly and timely sought judicial redress, notwithstanding that its
administrative and judicial claims were filed 13 days apart.
2. Whether the net capital gain by GTRC from the redemption of its preferred
shares should be subject to 15% Final Withholding Tax (FWT).
NO.
The imposition of 15% FWT on intercorporate dividends received by a non-

resident foreign corporation is found in Section 28 (B) (5) (b) of the Tax Code
which reads:
SEC. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations. ï¿½
xxxx
(B) Tax on Nonresident Foreign Corporation. ï¿½
xxxx
(5) Tax on Certain Incomes Received by a Nonresident Foreign

Corporation.
(b) Intercorporate Dividends. ï¿½ A final withholding tax at

the rate of fifteen percent (15%) is hereby imposed on
the amount of cash and/or property dividends received
from a domestic corporation, which shall be collected and
paid as provided in Section 57 (A) of this Code, xxx
Accordingly, attention should be drawn to the statutory definition of what

constitutes "dividends," pursuant to Section 73 (A) 42 of the Tax Code which
provides that "[t]he term 'dividends' x x x means any distribution made
by a corporation to its shareholders out of its earnings or profits and
payable to its shareholders, whether in money or in other property."
In light of the foregoing, the redemption price representing the amount of its preferred
shares received by GTRC could not be treated as accumulated dividends in
arrears that could be subjected to 15% Final Withholding Tax (FWT).
Verily, respondent’s annual financial statements (AFS) covering the years 2003 to
2009 show that it did not have unrestricted retained earnings, and in fact, operated
from a position of deficit. Thus, absent the availability of unrestricted retained
earnings, the board of directors of respondent had no power to issue dividends.
It is also worth mentioning that one of the primary features of an ordinary dividend is
that the distribution should be in the nature of a recurring return on stock, which,
however, does not obtain in this case.

5 CIR Vs Goodyear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 CIR Vs Goodyear

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

5 CIR Vs Goodyear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc.

[G.R. No. 216130, August 3, 2016, J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]

FACTS: Goodyear Philippines Inc. (respondent) is a domestic corporation organized and

Verily, the primary purpose of filing an administrative claim was to serve as

The imposition of 15% FWT on intercorporate dividends received by a non-

(B) Tax on Nonresident Foreign Corporation. ï¿½

(5) Tax on Certain Incomes Received by a Nonresident Foreign

(b) Intercorporate Dividends. ï¿½ A final withholding tax at

Accordingly, attention should be drawn to the statutory definition of what

You might also like