Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. CIR
There is no possibility that they will be able to
GR No. 168856. August 29, 2012. MENDOZA
 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) is a duly authorized
corporation engaged in telecommunications services by virtue of a legislative
franchise.
o entered into various international service agreements with international
non-resident telecommunications companies and it handles incoming
telecommunications services for nonresident foreign
telecommunication companies and the relay of said international calls
within the Philippines
o executed several interconnection agreements with local carriers for the
receipt of foreign calls relayed by it and the distribution of such calls to
the intended local end-receiver
 From these services to non-resident foreign telecommunications companies,
ETPI generates foreign currency revenues which are inwardly remitted in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP to its US dollar accounts in
banks such as HSBC, Metrobank and Citibank.
 ETPI seasonably filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for the year 1999, confirmed by
ETPI and CIR
 ETPI filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund and/or tax credit in the
amount of P 23,070,911.75 representing excess input VAT derived from its zero-
rated sales for the period from January 1999 to December 1999.
 without waiting for the decision of the BIR, ETPI filed a petition for review before
the CTA to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period
 CTA denied the petition for lack of merit, finding that ETPI failed to imprint the
word “zero-rated” on the face of its VAT invoices or receipts, in violation of RR
795
o Also, ETPI failed to substantiate its taxable and exempt sales, the
verification of which was not included in the examination of the
commissioned independent certified public accountant
 ETPI elevated the case to the CTA-En Banc, which dismissed the petition
o in order for a zero-rated taxpayer to claim a tax credit or refund, the
taxpayer must first comply with the mandatory invoicing requirements
under the regulations  the word “zero-rated” be imprinted on the
invoice or receipt.
o purpose of this requisite is to avoid the danger that the purchaser of
goods or services may be able to claim input tax on the sale to it by the
taxpayer of goods or services despite the fact that no VAT was actually
paid thereon since the taxpayer is zero-rated.
o ETPI failed to substantiate its taxable and exempt sales
 Before the SC, ETPI argues that the NIRC allows VAT-registered taxpayers to
file a claim for refund of input taxes directly attributable to, or otherwise allocable
to, zero-rated transactions subject to compliance with certain conditions
o Also, the outright denial of its claim for refund, considering that the
zero-rated nature of the transactions has been sufficiently established
by other equally relevant and competent evidence.
o the danger to be avoided by the questioned requirement is more
theoretical than real. ETPI’s clients for its zero-rated transactions are
nonresident foreign corporations which are not covered by the
Philippine VAT system.
unduly take advantage of ETPI’s omission to print the word “zero-rated”
on its invoices and receipts
W/N ETPI’s failure to imprint the word “zero-rated” on its invoices and receipts
is fatal to its claim for tax refund or tax credit for excess input VAT – YES
 the invoicing requirements enumerated in Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 must be
observed by all VAT-registered taxpayers:
Sec. 4.108-1. Invoicing Requirements. – All VAT-registered persons shall, for every
sale or lease of goods or properties or services, issue duly registered receipts or
sales or commercial invoices which must show:
1. the name, TIN and address of seller;
2. date of transaction;
3. quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service
4. the name, TIN, business style, if any, and address of the VAT-registered
purchaser, customer or client;
5. the word “zero-rated” imprinted on the invoice covering zero-rated sales; and
6. the invoice value or consideration.
In the case of sale of real property subject to VAT and where the zonal or market
value is higher than the actual consideration, the VAT shall be separately indicated in
the invoice or receipt. Only VAT-registered persons are required to print their TIN
followed by the word “VAT” in their invoices or receipts and this shall be considered
as a “VAT invoice.” All purchases covered by invoices other than a “VAT Invoice”
shall not give rise to any input tax
 RR 7-95 was integrated in the current NIRC
 A consequence of failing to comply with the invoicing requirements is the denial
of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, as stated in RMC 42-2003
 ETPI is engaged in mixed transactions and, as a result, its claim for refund
covers not only its zerorated sales but also its taxable domestic sales and
exempt sales. Therefore, it is only reasonable to require ETPI to present
evidence in order to substantiate its claim for input VAT
 Considering that ETPI reported in its annual return its zero-rated sales, together
with its taxable and exempt sales, the CTA ruled that ETPI should have
presented the necessary papers to validate all the entries in its return. Only its
zero-rated sales, however, were accompanied by supporting documents. With
respect to its taxable and exempt sales, ETPI failed to substantiate these with
the appropriate documentary evidence
CTA affirmed