Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gentlemen :
This refers to your letter dated August 22, 2008 requesting on behalf of your
client, Luzon Hydro Corporation ("LHC"), for confirmation of your opinion that the
return by LHC of liquidated damages to the contractor of its power station as a result
of a compromise settlement is deductible from gross income since the said amount
was previously reported as taxable income when received and that its return is not
subject to any withholding tax.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 1
It is also represented that due to the delay in the completion of the Project,
LHC considered the Contractor liable for breach of contract. Thus, LHC drew against
the LC the amount of US$13.95 million (P667,674,810) and US$4.03 million
(P197,515,962) in 2000 and 2001, respectively. LHC reported the amount of
liquidated damages received as part of its taxable income in its income tax returns
("ITR") for the years 2000 and 2001, respectively.
The Contractor protested the claim for liquidated damages. Thus, in November
2000, LHC and the Contractor elevated their claims and counter-claims arising from
the delay in the completion of the Project to an Arbitration Tribunal operating under
the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce sitting in Singapore and later in
Australia. 1(1)
Finally, it is represented that before the issues could be finally settled, LHC and
the Contractor decided in 2008 to enter into an out-of-court settlement (the
"Settlement") to avoid a drawn out legal battle and avoid further litigation expenses.
As part of the Settlement, LHC agreed to return part of the liquidated damages
amounting to US$14 million.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 2
the amount of US$14.0 million, which was part of the sum previously
reported as gross income of LHC in the years 2000 and 2001, is an
allowable deduction from LHC's gross income for tax purposes in the
year 2008, the year of return or repayment.
(b) The adjusting entry made in LHC's books for the difference between the
amount recognized as a provision of US$24.533 million and the actual
amount paid of US$14.0 million has no tax implications since adjusting
entries for excess provisions are not recognized for tax purposes. These
are treated as reconciling items in the ITR.
(c) The payment for the return of the liquidated damages in the amount
US$14.0 million to the Contractor is not subject to creditable
withholding tax since it is not among those items enumerated in the
withholding tax regulations and it does not constitute an income
payment for goods or services. aAHDIc
The payment by LHC of the sum of US$14.0 million to the Contractor, which
sum LHC previously reported as part of its taxable income, is an allowable deduction
from the gross income of LHC in 2008, whether such payment is viewed as a return of
previously reported income or as a settlement payment under an out-of-court
compromise.
This ruling followed the doctrine laid down in North American Oil
Consolidated v. Burnet, 5(5) where the US Supreme Court enunciated the so-called
"claim-of-right" doctrine. This doctrine provides that if a taxpayer receives earnings
under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received
income even though one may claim he is not entitled to the money. Should it later
appear that the taxpayer was not entitled to keep the money, the taxpayer would be
entitled to a deduction in the year of repayment.
res judicata. 7(7) Under Section 76 of the Income Tax Regulations, "judgments or other
binding judicial adjudication, on account of damages for patent infringement, personal
injuries, or other cause are deductible from gross income when the claim is so
adjudicated or paid, unless taken under other methods or accounting which clearly
reflect the correct deduction, less any amount of such damages as may have been
compensated for by insurance or otherwise. . . ."
Furthermore, in BIR Ruling No. DA-400-2004 dated July 22, 2004, the BIR
held that a taxpayer may claim as deductions from its gross income payments made
under a court-approved compromise agreement for the full and final settlement of the
Arbitration Case and the Court Case which the parties filed against each other. Thus,
this Office held that:
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 4
accrued" or "paid or incurred", unless in order clearly to reflect the income
such deductions or credits should be taken as of a different period."
On the above basis, PGI may claim as deductions from its gross
income for the year 2004 the full settlement of the Historical Issues with
NPC/PSALM under the court-approved compromise agreement in order to
clearly reflect the income of the Company. Consequently, the settlement in
full of the Historical Issues with NPC/PSALM may be allowed as deductions
from PGI's gross income for taxable year 2004."
In LHC's case, the litigation which gave rise to the payment of US$14.0 million
arose from the delay in the construction of the Project, which is central to the business
operations of LHC. Hence, there should be no question that the settlement amount
arose from LHC's business activities.
Section 45 (A) of the Tax Code, 8(8) provides the statutory basis for the time of
claiming deductions. It states:
"SEC. 45. Period for which Deductions and Credits Taken. — The
deductions provided for in this Title shall be taken for the taxable year in
which 'paid or accrued' or 'paid or incurred', dependent upon the method of
accounting upon the basis of which the net income is computed, unless in
order to clearly reflect the income, the deductions should be taken as of a
different period. . . ."
The Tax Code is clear that only those expenses which are "paid or accrued" or
"paid or incurred" during the taxable year are deductible for tax purposes. Mere
provisions or estimates are not deductible for tax purposes because they are neither
"paid or accrued" or "paid or incurred" during the taxable year. TAaHIE
The requisite that it must have been paid or incurred during the taxable
year is further qualified by Section 45 of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) which states that: "[t]he deduction provided for in this Title shall be
taken for the taxable year in which 'paid or accrued' or 'paid or incurred',
dependent upon the method of accounting upon the basis of which the net
income is computed . . .".
The accrual method relies upon the taxpayer's right to receive amounts
or its obligation to pay them, in opposition to actual receipt or payment, which
characterizes the cash method of accounting. \Amounts of income accrue
where the right to receive them become fixed, where there is created an
enforceable liability. Similarly, liabilities are accrued when fixed and
determinable in amount, without regard to indeterminacy merely of time of
payment.
For a taxpayer using the accrual method, the determinative question is,
when do the facts present themselves in such a manner that the taxpayer must
recognize income or expense? The accrual of income and expense is permitted
when the all-events test has been met. This test requires: (1) fixing of a right
to income or liability to pay; and (2) the availability of the reasonable accurate
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 6
determination of such income or liability. (Underscoring supplied) HEScID
The controversy and dispute over the enforcement of the award therefore
barred the creation of an enforceable liability against the Contractor as only the
finality of the Philippine court's decision would determine whether LHC is liable or
not. In short, at that time, the liability was contingent and the requisites under the
"all-events test" were not met. Thus, LHC did not claim as a tax deduction the
expense estimate provided for.
Since the provision itself is not deductible, and in fact, was not deducted by
LHC for tax purposes, any adjustment to the provision, such as a reduction made
when the parties finally settled the arbitration case between them, cannot also be
recognized as income. Such adjustment did not give rise to any taxable transaction or
inflow of income or cash receipts into the taxpayer. This is no different from
allowance for bad debts and adjustments to the provisions thereto made every year by
many taxpayers. It bears stressing that only bad debts actually ascertained to be
worthless and charged off within the taxable year are deductible. 10(10) TcDIEH
This finds supports in the case of Citytrust Investment Philippines, Inc. vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue 11(11) where the CTA held that provisions for
probable losses are not deductible expense and a reversal entry of overprovision in
prior years did not give rise to taxable income. We quote the ruling of the CTA as
follows:
Provision for probable losses, unlike bad debts written-off is not a deductible
expense as far as computing the taxable income is concerned. Conversely, a
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 7
reversal entry (overprovision) cannot be considered as income." 12(12)
Withholding tax
The return of the US$14 million to the Contractor, as payee, does not constitute
an income payment subject to any kind of withholding tax.
In BIR Ruling No. DA-086-2007 dated February 13, 2007, this Office held that
the list of income payments under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, as amended,
is exclusive and payments not listed therein are not subject to the creditable
withholding tax. Considering that the payment or return of the liquidated damages
previously received and recognized as income is not among those listed in RR No.
2-98, as amended, the same is not subject to any withholding tax.
(M) Income payments made by the top ten thousand (10,000) private
corporations to their local/resident supplier of goods and local/resident
supplier of services other than those covered by other rates of withholding tax.
— Income payments made by any of the top ten thousand (10,000) private
corporations, as determined by the Commissioner, to their local/resident
supplier of goods and local/resident supplier of services, including
non-resident alien engaged in trade or business in the Philippines.
The term "regular suppliers" refers to suppliers who are engaged in business
or exercise of profession/calling with whom the taxpayer-buyer has transacted
at least six (6) transactions, regardless of amount per transaction, either in the
previous year or current year. The same rules apply to local/resident supplier
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 8
of services other than those covered by separate rates of withholding tax." IHSTDE
However, since the payment does not pertain to a payment for the supply of
goods or services, but rather, as a return of liquidated damages erroneously claimed
and received, the above provision should not apply.
(b) The adjusting entry made in LHC's books for the difference between the
amount recognized as a provision of US$24.533 million and the actual
amount paid of US$14.0 million has no tax implications since adjusting
entries for excess provisions are not recognized for tax purposes. These
are treated as reconciling items in the ITR.
(c) The payment for the return of the liquidated damages in the amount of
US$14.0 million to the Contractor is not subject to creditable
withholding tax since it is not among those items enumerated in the
withholding tax regulations and it does not constitute an income
payment for goods or services.
This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented.
However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then
this ruling shall be considered null and void.
By:
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 9
Legal Service
Bureau of Internal Revenue
Footnotes
1. ICC International Court of Arbitration Case No. 11264/ESR/TE/MW/AVH.
2. CA-G.R. SP No. 94316.
3. Belle Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5930, April
4, 2002; See Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,
G.R. No. 159647, April 15, 2005, where the Supreme Court discussed the effects of
sales discounts and sales returns.
4. 8 T.C. 622, March 27, 1947.
5. 286 U.S. 417 (1932).
6. Spouses Wilfredo and Swarnie Aromin vs. Paulo Floresca, et al., G.R. No. 160994,
July 27, 2006.
7. Article 2037, Civil Code.
8. National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended.
9. G.R. No. 172231, February 12, 2007.
10. Section 34 (E), Tax Code.
11. CTA Case No. 4443, January 18, 1994.
12. Emphasis supplied.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 10
Endnotes
1 (Popup - Popup)
1. ICC International Court of Arbitration Case No. 11264/ESR/TE/MW/AVH.
2 (Popup - Popup)
2. CA-G.R. SP No. 94316.
3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Belle Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5930, April
4, 2002; See Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,
G.R. No. 159647, April 15, 2005, where the Supreme Court discussed the effects of
sales discounts and sales returns.
4 (Popup - Popup)
4. 8 T.C. 622, March 27, 1947.
5 (Popup - Popup)
5. 286 U.S. 417 (1932).
6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Spouses Wilfredo and Swarnie Aromin vs. Paulo Floresca, et al., G.R. No. 160994,
July 27, 2006.
7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Article 2037, Civil Code.
8 (Popup - Popup)
8. National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 11
9 (Popup - Popup)
9. G.R. No. 172231, February 12, 2007.
10 (Popup - Popup)
10. Section 34 (E), Tax Code.
11 (Popup - Popup)
11. CTA Case No. 4443, January 18, 1994.
12 (Popup - Popup)
12. Emphasis supplied.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Taxation Encyclopedia 2016 12