G.R. No. 194065 . June 20, 2016
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), authorized to use an On-line Electronic Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) Metering Machine, purchased documentary stamps from the BIR and loaded them onto the machine. From March to December 2004, PBCom executed several repurchase agreements with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and used the metering machine to imprint documentary stamps on the corresponding Confirmation Letters. PBCom later asserted these agreements were exempt from DST under Section 199 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by R.A. No. 9243 , which exempts derivatives and all transactions related to the BSP. Consequently, on May 12, 2006, PBCom filed an administrative claim for a tax credit or refund of P11,063,866.67 for allegedly erroneous DST payments. Following alleged BIR inaction, PBCom filed a judicial claim with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on May 18, 2006.
The CTA Second Division partially granted the claim but reduced the refundable amount, finding that only payments made within two years before the judicial filing were not prescribed. It reckoned the two-year prescriptive period from the dates the stamps were imprinted on the Confirmation Letters. The CTA en banc affirmed but modified the reckoning point for prescription. It ruled that for metering machine users, the DST is deemed paid upon the purchase and loading of the stamps, as evidenced by the filing of a DST Declaration (BIR Form No. 2000), not upon the later imprinting on the document. This ruling further reduced the refundable amount to P5,238,495.40.

ISSUE

Whether the two-year prescriptive period for filing a claim for refund of erroneously paid DST should be reckoned from the date of imprinting the documentary stamp on the taxable document or from the date of purchase and loading of the stamps onto the DST metering machine.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CTA en banc ruling. The prescriptive period runs from the date of purchase and loading of the stamps, not from the date of imprinting. Section 229 of the NIRC requires a claim for refund to be filed within two years from the date of payment of the tax. Section 200(D) of the NIRC allows payment of DST through the imprinting of stamps via a metering machine, as prescribed by regulations. Revenue Regulations No. 05-97 provides the specific procedure, mandating that a person authorized to use a DST metering machine must file a DST Declaration (BIR Form No. 2000) each time documentary stamps are purchased for loading or reloading onto the machine. The legal logic is that the act of purchasing the stamps and filing the corresponding declaration constitutes the completion of the payment obligation to the government. The subsequent imprinting is merely the mechanical application of the pre-paid stamps to a specific document. The tax liability is settled upon loading, making that date the point from which the government’s obligation to refund any erroneous payment arises. Therefore, the two-year period under Section 229 is correctly counted from the dates PBCom filed its DST Declarations for the reloading of its metering machine.