AT&T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

G.R. No. 185969, November 19, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioner AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc, a domestic

corporation engaged in the business of rendering information, promotional, supportive
and liaison services, entered into a Service Agreement with AT&T Communications
Services International, Inc. (AT&T-CSI), a non-resident foreign corporation. With this
agreement, it secured Assignment Agreements to provide services to the Philippine
affiliates of Mastercard International, Inc. (a non-resident foreign corporation) and
Lexmark International, Inc. (also a non-resident foreign corporation). Payment for such
services was made in US Dollars.

On April 13, 2005 petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) an
application for refund and/or tax credit of its unutilized value-added tax (VAT) input
taxes for the taxable period of year 2003. Due to inaction of the CIR on the
administrative claim, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) in Division on April 20, 2005, seven (7) days from the time it filed its
administrative claim in order to suspend the running of the two-year prescriptive period
provided under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997.
CTA Division and CTA EN Banc denied the petition due to insufficiency of documents.
They ruled that valid official receipts and not mere sales invoices should have been
presented and submitted as support evidence. Without proper VAT official receipts, the
foreign currency payment received by petitioner from services rendered for the four (4)
quarters of taxable year 2003 cannot qualify for zero-rating for VAT purposes. Petitioner
appealed that as a civil case, a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice to justify
the grant of the claim thus invoices or receipts may be used interchangeably to
substantiate VAT.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate with
invoice as support evidence for the claim

RULING:

No. The legislature separately categorized VAT on sale of goods from VAT on
sale of services, not only by its treatment with regard to tax but also with respect to
substantiation of requirements. The construction of the statute shows that the legislature
intended to distinguish the use of an invoice from an official receipt. Sections 108 and
113 of the 1997 NIRC provide that the VAT invoice is the seller's best proof of the sale
of the goods or services to the buyer while the VAT receipt is the buyer's best evidence
of the payment of goods or services received from the seller.
 The Court held that VAT invoice and VAT receipt should not be confused as
referring to one and the same thing. The petition is denied.
The ruling of the CTA in Division and CTA En Banc on the relevancy of the
substantiation requirements is upheld.

STATUTORY PRINCIPLE APPLIED:

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a

whole and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone. The whole of Section
108 should be read in conjunction with Sections 113 and 237 so as to give life to all the
provisions intended for the sale of services. There is no conflict between the provisions
of the law that cover sale of services that are subject to zero rated sales; thus, it should
be read altogether to reveal the true legislative intent.