CTA affirms P625-million refund for Dole Philippines

THE COURT of Tax Appeals (CTA) upheld its division’s earlier decision ordering the Bureau of Internal Revenue to refund P625 million to food producer and marketer Dole Philippines.

Acting on a petition for review filed by the BIR, the tax court sitting in full court affirmed its Third Division’s order to issue Dole a tax refund/tax credit certificate of P625,279,175.14 for tax year 2011.

“[ T] he Court En Banc finds no compelling reason to deviate from the conclusions arrived at by the Court in Division in partially granting refund as the same is supported by pieces of evidence, which substantiate Dole’s compliance with the requirements for refund,” the CTA said.

The case stemmed from the BIR’s non- action on the administrative claim for refund for excess input Value-Added Tax ( VAT) for the taxable year 2011, filed by Dole on Jan. 30, 2013. Dole sought a petition for review on June 28 that year.

The Third Division partially granted the claim for input VAT refund after ruling that 96.1276% out of the actual zero- rated sales claimed by Dole were valid. The amount to be refunded was adjusted to P625,279,175.14 from P778,786,831.34.

BIR filed a motion for reconsideration but this was dismissed by the court. BIR then sought the tax court en banc for a petition for review.

The tax bureau also said Dole “failed to comply with mandatory invoicing requirements,” adding that the documents presented such as purchase invoices, official receipts, airway bills, bills of lading, bank credit advice and certificates of bank remittances were “hearsay evidence.”

The full tax court in turn said: “The Court observes that the points and arguments in the present Petition for Review had already been painstakingly discussed and substantially resolved by the CTA Third Division.”

CTA ruled that Dole “has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate,” noting that the company has passed the requisites for a tax refund case.

The tax court also pointed out that “the exhibits being assailed by the petitioner are all documentary evidence and when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.”

The 14-page decision dated April 25 was penned by Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan.