WEEKLY TAX UPDATES [September 1, 2026]

[REFUND CLAIMS FOR ERRONEOUSLY PAID VAT MAY BE GRANTED UPON SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED AS INPUT TAX CREDIT] [REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER RMC NO. 99-2021 CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO REFUND CLAIMS FILED BEFORE ITS ISSUANCE] [A PETITION FILED WITHOUT THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL’S IMPRIMATUR IS DEFECTIVE & DISMISSIBLE]

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), filed a Petition for Review seeking to reverse the earlier Decision and Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division, which partially granted the refund claim of the Respondent Boehringer Ingelheim (Philippines), Inc., for erroneously paid Value-Added Tax (VAT) on its importation of prescription drugs and medicines for diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension from January 23, 2020 to April 20, 2020. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to substantiate its claim for refund at the administrative level and that the subject VAT had already been reported and claimed as input tax credits. On the other hand, the Respondent maintained that it submitted sufficient evidence before both the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the CTA to prove that the VAT sought to be refunded was never utilized as input tax credits. Likewise, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 99-2021 was inapplicable since the claim was filed before its issuance. In ruling, the Court held that the BIR counsels lacked authority to file the Petition because no written deputization from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the principal counsel of the Government, was attached. Furthermore, the Respondent sufficiently established that the VAT subject of the claim for refund was not utilized as input tax credits and that the Petitioner failed to identify any evidence showing otherwise. Consequently, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit, and the earlier Decision and Resolution on the partial grant of refund are AFFIRMED. [COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM (PHILIPPINES), INC., CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 3108, JULY 28, 2026]

[OFFICIAL RECEIPTS/INVOICES MUST CLEARLY STATE THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 113] [A GENERIC DESCRIPTION SUCH AS “SERVICE FEE” IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIATE ZERO-RATED SALES] [STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH INVOICING REQUIREMENTS IS REQUIRED FOR VAT REFUND CLAIMS]

The Petitioner, NCH Customer Support Services, Inc., filed a Petition for Review seeking the refund or issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) for its alleged unutilized input Value-Added Aax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales for the fourth (4^th) quarter of Taxable Year 2019. The Petitioner argued that it had complied with all requisites for a refund or issuance of a TCC under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. Specifically, it maintained that it was a VAT-Registered taxpayer, timely filed both administrative and judicial claims, rendered services to Non-Resident Foreign Corporations (NRFCs) not doing business in the Philippines, received payments in acceptable foreign currency duly accounted for in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules, and properly substantiated its claimed input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales. On the other hand, the Respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), contended that the Petition should be denied for failure to sufficiently substantiate its administrative claim for refund and that the partial denial of the claim by the BIR VAT Credit Audit Division was proper. In ruling, the Court held that while the Petitioner established the timely filing of its administrative and judicial claims and proved that its clients were NRFCs, it failed to sufficiently establish the zero-rated nature of certain services it rendered. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to present the original Service Agreement covering the subject period for the services rendered to Ladbrokes Digital Australia Pty. Ltd. (LDA), thereby failing to prove that the services fell within those contemplated under Section 108(B)(2). The Court further found that the Official Receipts (ORs) presented as proof of its zero-rated sales merely described the transactions as “Service Fee” without specifying the nature of the services actually rendered as required under Section 113(B)(3) of the NIRC. The Court emphasized that a generic description such as “Service Fee” is insufficient to satisfy the substantiation requirements for VAT refund claims. In view of this, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. [NCH CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. VS. COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE, CTA CASE NO. 10842, JULY 10, 2026]