LAW OF BASIC TAXATION IN THE PHILIPPINES applied to be remitted abroad (.e., the sum of P7,647,058.00), or the profit actually remitted in the amount of P6,499,999.30? HELD: The 15% branch profit tax should be based on the amount of profit actually remitted. It should be noted that in a ruling dated Jan. 21, 1980, the BIR ruled that the 15% remittance tax is on the profit actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be made. This ruling was, however, subsequently revoked in Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 which held that the 15% branch profit remittance tax is imposed and collected at source so that necessarily the tax base should be the amount actually applied by the branch as profit to be remitted abroad. But even inspite of this subsequent ruling, the applicable ruling is that which was issued on Jan, 21, 1980 on account of the non-retroactivity rule in See. 327 (now, Sec. 246) of the Tax Code, which provides that the reversal rulings of the Commissioner are not to be given retroactive effect if prejudicial to the taxpayer, except in any of the three exceptions mentioned therein. The payment of the overpaid remittance tax having been made on Mar. 14, 1979, it follows that Memorandum Circular No. 8-82, dated Mar. 17, 1982, cannot be given any retroactive effect. BANK OF AMERICA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. ‘NOS. 103092 and 103106, JULY 21, 1994 FACTS: Petitioner, a foreign corporation licensed to engage in business in the Philippines, paid the 15% branch remittance tax on profits from its regular banking and foreign currency unit operations totaling P1,984,250.97 based on net profits after income tax without deducting the amount corresponding to the 15% tax. It later filed a claim for refund with the BIR of that portion corresponding to the 15% branch profit remittance tax arguing that said 15% tax should be assessed on the amount actually remitted abroad, per Sec. 24(b)(2)(ii), NIRC. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends otherwise, holding that the 15% remittance tax should be inclusive of the sum deemed remitted. ‘The CTA upheld petitioner bank’s claim for refund, but said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. HELD: Not much reliance can be placed on the ruling in Burroughs Limited v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. (G.R. No. 66653, June 19, 1986) for the conclusion reached in that case was grounded more on non-retroactivity of rulings. 156 >> ‘TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS. ‘The tax paid or withheld in case of ad valorem taxes is not deducted from the tax base because the law, in defining the tax base and in providing for tax withholding, clearly spells it out. However, there is nothing in Sec. 24(b)(2)(ii), NIRC (now, Sec. 28/AJ[5], 1997 NIRC*), which indicates that the 15% tax on branch profit remittance is on the total profit to be remitted abroad. In the 15% remittance tax, the law specifies its own tax base to be on the “profit remitted abroad.” There is absolutely nothing equivocal or uncertain about the language of the provision, The tax is imposed on the amount sent abroad, and the law then in force calls for nothing further, *N.B.: Sec, 28[A][5], 1997 NIRC, on branch profit remittance tax now provides — “(8) Tax on Branch Profits Remittances.~ Any profit remitted by a branch to its head office shall be subject to a tax of fifteen percent (15%) which shall be based on the total profits applied or earmarked for remittance without any deduction for the tax component thereof (except those activities which are registered with the Philippine Economic ‘Zone Authority). The tax shall be collected and paid in the ‘same manner as provided in Sections 57 and 58 of this Code xxx.” COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 108358, JAN. 20, 1995 FACTS: On Aug. 22, 1986, E.0. 41 was promulgated declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes, and was later amended to include estate and donor's taxes as well as taxes on business for taxable years 1981 to 1985. Private respondent R.0.H. Auto Products, Philippines, Inc. availed of the amnesty in October and November 1986 by filing its ‘Amnesty Tax Returns and paying the corresponding amnesty tax due. Prior to such availment, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed private respondent its deficiency income and business taxes for fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 1981 and Sept. 30, 1982. Private respondent responded that since it availed of the tax amnesty, the letter assessments should accordingly be withdrawn. The Commissioner denied the request on the ground that Rev. Memo Order No, 4-87, dated Feb, 9, 1987, implementing E.O. 41, had construed the amnesty coverage to include only assessments issued by the BIR after the promulgation of E.O. 41 and not to assessments 157