THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has partially granted the appeal of Chevron Holdings, Inc. for a tax refund claim to the modified amount of P49.8 million of unutilized value-added tax (VAT) attributed to zero-rated sales for the four quarters of 2014.
In a 33-page resolution on March 16, the court’s first division ordered the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) to refund or issue a tax credit certificate representing the holding firm’s excess VAT for 2014.
The petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under the state of Delaware in the United States. It is licensed under the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bureau of Internal Revenue to transact business in the Philippines as its regional operation headquarters. The company provides information technology and finance, and human resource to its subsidiaries in the Asia-Pacific and North America regions.
CIR, the respondent, has the authority under the law to decide, approve and grant claims for tax refunds.
The company’s appeal was for the court to reconsider a previous decision to grant excess VAT at a reduced P6.4 million, claiming that it is entitled to P84.2 million of excess VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for 2014.
It added that the court made a mistake that the documents submitted by the company were insufficient to prove its entitlement to the full amount of P84.2 million.
“It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund,” the CTA said.
After re-evaluating the supplemental evidence submitted by the company, the CTA ruled that the petitioner sufficiently proved that it was entitled to a total VAT refund of P49.8 million or an additional amount of P43.3 million from the previous tax refund.
“In view of the foregoing, as petitioner was able to discharge its burden for its entitlement to a refund in the total amount of P49.8 million, representing its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the first to fourth quarter of CY 2014, the court finds no reason not to grant the same to petitioner,” the CTA ruled. — John Victor D. Ordoñez