The Supreme Court ruled that Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) was entitled to tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480, thus canceling the deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) assessment on its Universal Savings Account (UNISA) for 1999. This decision clarified the scope of tax amnesty and its implications on previously assessed tax liabilities. This case is a good example of how claiming for tax amnesty can result in a cancellation of a final assessment. Metrobank had taken necessary steps to take advantage of such opportunity.
Passbook vs. Certificate: Does a Savings Account Attract DST?
This case revolves around whether Metrobank’s UNISA, a special savings account evidenced by a passbook, was subject to DST under Section 180 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 9243. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) argued that UNISA was similar to a certificate of deposit, making it subject to DST. Metrobank, on the other hand, contended that UNISA was different from a time deposit and, therefore, not taxable under the then-existing law. At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Section 180 of the NIRC and whether a passbook-based savings account could be equated to a certificate of deposit.
Initially, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) sided with the CIR, affirming the deficiency DST assessment against Metrobank. The CTA relied on previous Supreme Court rulings, such as the Banco de Oro (BDO) and International Exchange Bank (IEB) cases, which held that similar special savings accounts evidenced by passbooks were subject to DST. However, an intervening event altered the course of the case: Metrobank availed itself of the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act No. 9480. This law granted amnesty on all unpaid national internal revenue taxes for the taxable year 2005 and prior years, provided certain conditions were met. Metrobank claimed that it had fully complied with the requirements for tax amnesty, thereby entitling it to immunity from the DST assessment.
The CIR opposed Metrobank’s availment of tax amnesty, arguing that Metrobank was merely a withholding agent for the DST, and that the assessment had already attained finality. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments. The Court emphasized that Metrobank was assessed as directly liable for the DST, not as a withholding agent. Moreover, the Court found that the assessment had not reached finality because the CIR continued to act on Metrobank’s protest, and the CTA had taken cognizance of Metrobank’s appeals.
Building on this principle, the Supreme Court emphasized that Republic Act No. 9480’s coverage was broad, encompassing “any and all internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005 and prior years.” The CIR’s attempt to limit the amnesty only to income tax was rebuffed, with the Court affirming that the immunity extended to DST as well. Crucially, the CIR did not dispute Metrobank’s compliance with the requirements for tax amnesty. The Court also referenced another CTA case and the Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC) case, where it was determined that Metrobank was a qualified tax amnesty applicant.
In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of Metrobank, reversing the CTA’s decision and canceling the DST assessment. This decision underscores the importance of tax amnesty programs in providing taxpayers with an opportunity to settle past tax liabilities and start anew. This case shows the importance of availing opportunities to reduce or extinguish tax obligations under existing laws.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | Whether Metrobank was liable for deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) on its Universal Savings Account (UNISA) for 1999 and whether it was entitled to tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480. |
| What is Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)? | DST is a tax imposed on documents, instruments, loan agreements, and papers evidencing the acceptance, assignment, sale or transfer of an obligation, right, or property incident thereto. |
| What is a Tax Amnesty Program? | A tax amnesty is a general pardon or the intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of violation of a tax law, giving tax evaders a chance to start with a clean slate. |
| What is Republic Act No. 9480? | It is an Act enhancing revenue administration and collection by granting an amnesty on all unpaid internal revenue taxes imposed by the National Government for the taxable year 2005 and prior years. |
| What was Metrobank’s Universal Savings Account (UNISA)? | UNISA is a special savings account offered by Metrobank with higher interest rates for depositors able to maintain a substantial average daily balance with a passbook |
| Why did the CIR assess Metrobank for deficiency DST? | The CIR treated Metrobank’s UNISA as a certificate of deposit drawing interest, subject to DST under Section 180 of the NIRC, because depositors must maintain a holding period to earn the premium rate. |
| On what basis did Metrobank seek tax amnesty? | Metrobank availed itself of the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act No. 9480, claiming it was qualified and had fully complied with the requirements, entitling it to immunity from unpaid taxes prior to 2005. |
| What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide? | The Supreme Court granted Metrobank’s petition, reversed the CTA’s decision, and cancelled the deficiency DST assessment due to Metrobank’s valid availment of the Tax Amnesty Program. |
In light of this ruling, taxpayers should consider whether they can qualify for any past and future tax amnesty. This ruling will serve as a guide for taxpayers when navigating the intricacies of tax amnesty laws and claiming entitlements for availment.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 178797, August 04, 2009
Leave a Reply