Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Top Stories

Editor's Pick

Tax court declines to review geothermal company’s P30.43-M refund claim

THE Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has affirmed a division ruling which had rejected Philippine Geothermal Production Company, Inc.’s (PGPCI) refund claim worth P30.43 million representing excess input value-added tax (VAT) paid on zero-rated sales dating back to 2013.

In an 11-page decision on June 14 and made public on June 17, the full CTA court said the company had failed to present a certificate of endorsement from the Department of Energy (DoE) to avail of tax incentives provided to renewable energy developers.

“In this case, petitioner (PGPCI) failed to produce the DoE certificate of endorsement relative to its alleged sales of renewable energy for the second and third quarters of the taxable year 2013 as mandated by the DoE,” according to the ruling, written by Associate Justice Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo. “Therefore, the court in division is correct in denying the petitioner’s refund of alleged excess and unutilized input VAT.”

PCPCI had argued that its certification as a renewable energy developer of geothermal sources proved its entitlement to VAT zero-rating on its sales.

The tax court ruled that despite its registration as a developer, the company failed to comply with the requirements set forth by the Energy department.

“A claim for unutilized input value-added tax is in the nature of a tax exemption,” the court said. “Thus, strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by the law is required of the taxpayer and petitioner failed in this regard.”

Under the DoE’s rules and regulations, renewable energy developers may avail of tax incentives only after securing a certificate of endorsement from the department.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena argued that the company did not need to secure the endorsement to apply for a refund.

“It is clear from the foregoing that the DoE certificate of endorsement is only required in order for the petitioner to enjoy the income tax holiday and the duty-free incentives; however, such requirement is not needed for VAT zero-rating purposes,” she said. “Hence, the non-presentation of the same should not bar petitioner from applying for a refund of its excess input VAT.”

Ms. Villena voted to remand the case to another division of the CTA for proper calculation of the excess input VAT due to the company. — John Victor D. Ordoñez

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Editor's Pick

The Board of Investments (BoI) has cleared Sinoma Energy Conservation (Cebu) Waste Heat Recovery Co. Inc. to serve as the operator of a 4.5-megawatt...


At a time when the world is battling to get through the dreaded coronavirus pandemic, protective face masks have come out to be the...

Editor's Pick

BEWARE the “lessons of history” as drawn by charlatans, ignoramuses, or tyrants, for they will be daft, wrong, and possibly disastrous. The self-serving amateur...

Editor's Pick

The world’s food-import bill is set to jump even more than expected to a record this year, increasing the threat of hunger, especially in...

Disclaimer:, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice.
The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2022 Secrets Of Richdads. All Rights Reserved.