Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code Whether or not the failure to strictly comply
of 1997, on October 21, 2003, the petitioner with the provisions of RMO No. 1-2000 will
remitted to the respondent the amount of Php deprive persons or corporations the benefit of a
67,688,553.51, representing fifteen (15) percent tax treaty.
of the branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its
regular banking unit (RBU) net income remitted Ruling:
to the Deutsche Bank of Germany (DB No. The constitution provides for the adherence
Germany) for 2002 and prior taxable years. to the general principles of international law as
Believing that they made an overpayment of the part of the law of the land (Article II, Section
BPRT, on October 4, 2005, the petitioner filed 2).Every treaty is binding upon the parties, and
with the BIR Large Taxpayers Assessment and obligations must be performed (Article 26,
Investigation Division an administrative claim Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties).
for refund or a tax credit certificate representing There is nothing in RMO 1-2000 indicating a
the alleged excess BPRT paid (amount of Php deprivation of entitlement to a tax treaty for
22,562,851.17). The petitioners also requested failure to comply with the fifteen-day period.
from the International Tax Affairs Division The denial of availment of tax relief for the
(ITAD) for a confirmation of its entitlement to a failure to apply within the prescribed period
preferential tax rate of 10% under the RP- (under the administrative issuance) would
Germany Tax Treaty. impair the value of the tax treaty. Also, the
obligation to comply with the tax treaty must
Because of the alleged inaction of the BIR on take precedence over the objective of RMO 1-
the administrative claim, on October 18, 2005, 2000 because the non-compliance with tax
the petitioner filed a petition for review with the treaties would have negative implications on
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), reiterating its international affairs and would discourage
claim for refund or tax credit certificate foreign investments.
representing the alleged excess BPRT paid. The
claim was denied on the ground that application Dispositive:
for tax treaty relief was not filed with ITAD The petition was granted, the CTA en banc
prior to the payment of BPRT, thereby violating decision was set aside and reversed.The
the fifteen-day period mandated under Section respondent was ordered to refund or issue a tax
III, paragraph 2 of the Revenue Memorandum credit certificate (the amount of Php
Order No. 1-2000. Also, the CTA Second 22,562,851.17) in favor of the petitioner.
Division relied on an en banc decision of the
CTA that before the benefits of a tax treaty may BROWN.v.BOARDOFEDUCATIONOFTOPEKA
be extended to a foreign corporation, the latter 347U.S.483| 17 May 1954.
should first invoke the provisions of the tax
treaty and prove that they indeed apply to the FACTS:Several black children, through their
corporation (Mirant Operations Corporation v legal representatives, sought admission to
Commissioner of Internal Revenue). public schools that required or permitted
segregation based on race. They alleged that
Hence this petition. segregation was unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Petitioners contended that
segregated schools were not and could not be
made equal and that they were therefore
deprived of equal protection of the laws.
The mere existence of the power of control is To correct is the plain error committed by
enough to show its compliance with the four- the labor arbiter and NLRC by not awarding
fold test. This is the case with petitioner and the backwages. The Court relaxes strict
same is not negated by the fact the petitioner construction of procedural requirements
does not directly supervise the performance of (private respondent’s failure to appeal for
the private respondent. He works between 7AM backwages) in pursuit of justice. Thus, the
to 4PM within the premises of the petitioner, decision of the labor arbiter and NLRC are
and thus, naturally has to receive supervision modified to include backwages reckoning from
over his work from the petitioner. There are the time private was re-employed until the day
two ways to determine a regular employee, and he was illegally dismissed, as well as other
whichever is applied does not negate the fact benefits entitled to him by law.
that private respondent is a regular employee
by definition - “an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer” and that
“any employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee” (Art. 280, Labor Code).
(2). Yes.