PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. NO. 172892
DATE: June 13, 2013
PONENTE:
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
FACTS:
The Monetary Board of the BSP prohibited the Rural Bank of Tuba (Benguet), Inc.
(RBTI) from doing business in the Philippines, placed it under receivership and
designated the PDIC as receiver. PDIC
conducted an evaluation of RBTI’s
financial condition and determined that RBTI remained insolvent. Monetary Board
issued Resolution directing PDIC to proceed with the liquidation of RBTI.
ISSUE/S:
Whether a bank placed under liquidation has to secure a tax clearance from the
BIR before the project of distribution of the assets of the bank can be
approved by the liquidation court.
RULING:
NO. Section 52(C) of the Tax Code of 1997 is not applicable to banks ordered
placed under liquidation by the Monetary Board, and a tax clearance is not a
prerequisite to the approval of the project of distribution of the assets of a
bank under liquidation by the PDIC.
Thus,
this Court has held that the RTC, acting as liquidation court under Section 30
of the New Central Bank Act, commits grave abuse of discretion in ordering the
PDIC, as liquidator of a bank ordered closed by the Monetary Board, to first secure
a tax clearance from the appropriate BIR Regional Office, and holding in
abeyance the approval of the project of distribution of the assets of the
closed bank by virtue thereof. Three reasons have been given.
First,
Section 52(C) of the Tax Code of 1997 pertains only to a regulation of the
relationship between the SEC and the BIR with respect to corporations
contemplating dissolution or reorganization. On the other hand, banks under
liquidation by the PDIC as ordered by the Monetary Board constitute a special
case governed by the special rules and procedures provided under Section 30 of
the New Central Bank Act, which does not require that a tax clearance be
secured from the BIR.
Second,
only a final tax return is required to satisfy the interest of the BIR in the
liquidation of a closed bank, which is the determination of the tax liabilities
of a bank under liquidation by the PDIC. In view of the timeline of the
liquidation proceedings under Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act, it is
unreasonable for the liquidation court to require that a tax clearance be first
secured as a condition for the approval of project of distribution of a bank
under liquidation.
To
our mind, what the BIR should have requested from the RTC, and what was within
the discretion of the RTC to grant, is not an order for PDIC, as liquidator of
RBBI, to secure a tax clearance; but, rather, for it to submit the final return
of RBBI. The first paragraph of Section 30(C) of the Tax Code of 1997, read in
conjunction with Section 54 of the same Code, clearly imposes upon PDIC, as the
receiver and liquidator of RBBI, the duty to file such a return.
The
filing by PDIC of a final tax return, on behalf of RBBI, should already address
the supposed concern of the BIR and would already enable the latter to
determine if RBBI still had outstanding tax liabilities.
The
unreasonableness and impossibility of requiring a tax clearance before the
approval by the RTC of the Project of Distribution of the assets of the RBBI
becomes apparent when the timeline of the proceedings is considered.
The
BIR can only issue a certificate of tax clearance when the taxpayer had
completely paid off his tax liabilities. The certificate of tax clearance
attests that the taxpayer no longer has any outstanding tax obligations to the
Government.
Should
the BIR find that RBBI still had outstanding tax liabilities, PDIC will not be
able to pay the same because the Project of Distribution of the assets of RBBI
remains unapproved by the RTC; and, if RBBI still had outstanding tax
liabilities, the BIR will not issue a tax clearance; but, without the tax
clearance, the Project of Distribution of assets, which allocates the payment
for the tax liabilities, will not be approved by the RTC. It will be a
chicken-and-egg dilemma.
Third,
it is not for this Court to fill in any gap, whether perceived or evident, in
current statutes and regulations as to the relations among the BIR, as tax
collector of the National Government; the BSP, as regulator of the banks; and
the PDIC, as the receiver and liquidator of banks ordered closed by the BSP. It
is up to the legislature to address the matter through appropriate legislation,
and to the executive to provide the regulations for its implementation.
There
is another reason. The position of the BIR, insisting on prior compliance with
the tax clearance requirement as a condition for the approval of the project of
distribution of the assets of a bank under liquidation, is contrary to both the
letter and intent of the law on liquidation of banks by the PDIC.
The
law expressly provides that debts and liabilities of the bank under liquidation
are to be paid in accordance with the rules on concurrence and preference of
credit under the Civil Code. Duties, taxes, and fees due the Government enjoy
priority only when they are with reference to a specific movable property,
under Article 2241(1) of the Civil Code, or immovable property, under Article
2242(1) of the same Code. However, with reference to the other real and
personal property of the debtor, sometimes referred to as "free
property," the taxes and assessments due the National Government, other
than those in Articles 2241(1) and 2242(1) of the Civil Code, such as the
corporate income tax, will come only in ninth place in the order of preference.
On the other hand, if the BIR’s
contention that a tax clearance be secured first before the project of
distribution of the assets of a bank under liquidation may be approved, then
the tax liabilities will be given absolute preference in all instances,
including those that do not fall under Articles 2241(1) and 2242(1) of the
Civil Code. In order to secure a tax clearance which will serve as proof that
the taxpayer had completely paid off his tax liabilities, PDIC will be
compelled to settle and pay first all tax liabilities and deficiencies of the
bank, regardless of the order of preference under the pertinent provisions of
the Civil Code. Following the BIR’s
stance, therefore, only then may the project of distribution of the bank’s assets be approved and the other
debts and claims thereafter settled, even though under Article 2244 of the
Civil Code such debts and claims enjoy preference over taxes and assessments
due the National Government. The BIR effectively wants this Court to ignore
Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act and disregard Article 2244 of the Civil
Code. However, as a court of law, this Court has the solemn duty to apply the
law. It cannot and will not give its imprimatur to a violation of the laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment