Scribd
Upload
1K views

CIR vs. Procter in Gamble Digest

This case involves a request from PMC for a refund of taxes paid on dividends distributed to its US parent company, PMC-USA. The court denied the refund, holding that PMC acted as a withholding agent for the Philippines government and was not entitled to claim a reimbursement. As the real party in interest, PMC-USA should have been the claimant. The court also found that PMC failed to meet the conditions under the US tax code to qualify the dividends received by PMC-USA for the preferential 15% tax rate instead of the 35% rate, as it did not provide documentation of tax credits granted by the US.

Uploaded by

Dario G. Torres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

CIR vs. Procter in Gamble Digest

This case involves a request from PMC for a refund of taxes paid on dividends distributed to its US parent company, PMC-USA. The court denied the refund, holding that PMC acted as a withholding agent for the Philippines government and was not entitled to claim a reimbursement. As the real party in interest, PMC-USA should have been the claimant. The court also found that PMC failed to meet the conditions under the US tax code to qualify the dividends received by PMC-USA for the preferential 15% tax rate instead of the 35% rate, as it did not provide documentation of tax credits granted by the US.

Uploaded by

Dario G. Torres
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CIR V.

PROCTER AND GAMBLE 204 SCRA 378


FACTS:
PMC paid a 25-35% tax on its income for a relevant year. Thereafter, deriving at its net
income, it declared dividends for the benefit of PMCUSA. From this declared dividends, it
paid a 25% tax, as per taxation laws. The company did the same for the next few
quarters. Then, contending that it is the withholding agent for the tax paid on the
dividends paid to PMC-USA, it requested for the refund of its alleged overpayments of
taxes. The company was denied the refund and coursing through the CTA, the latter
ruled in its favor.
HELD: The submission of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that PMC-Phil. is but a
withholding agent of the government and therefore cannot claim reimbursement of the
alleged over paid taxes, is completely meritorious.
The real party in interest being the mother corporation in the United States, it follows that
American entity is the real party in interest, and should have been the claimant in this
case.
Closely intertwined with the first assignment of error is the issue of whether or not PMCU.S.A. is a non-resident foreign corporation under Section 24(b)(1) of the Tax Code (the
subsidiary of an American) a domestic corporation domiciled in the United States, is
entitled under the U.S. Tax Code to a United States Foreign Tax Credit
equivalent to at least the 20 percentage paid portion (of the 35% dividend tax) spared or
waived as otherwise considered or deemed paid by the government. The law pertinent to
the issue is Section 902 of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Code, as amended by Public Law 87-834, the law governing tax credits granted
to U.S. corporations on dividends received from foreign corporations, which to the extent
applicable reads:
SEC. 902 -CREDIT FOR CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS IN FOREIGN
CORPORATION.
(a) Treatment of Taxes Paid by Foreign Corporation For purposes of this subject, a domestic corporation which
owns at least 10 percent of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it
receives dividends in any taxable year shall-(1)
to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated
profits [as defined
in subsection (c) (1) (a)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is not a less
developed country corporation,
be deemed to have paid the same proportion of any income, war profits, or excess profits
taxes paid or deemed to
be paid by such foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the
United States on or with
respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends (determined
without regard to Section 78) bears to the amount of such accumulated profits in excess
of such income, war profits, and excess profits taxes (other than those deemed paid);and
(2)to the extent such dividends are paid by such foreign corporation out of accumulated
profits [as defined in subsection (c) (1) (b)] of a year for which such foreign corporation is
a less-developed country corporation, be deemed to have paid the same propor
tion of any income, war profits, or excess profits taxes paid or deemed to be paid by such
foreign corporation to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States on or
with respect to such accumulated profits, which the amount of such dividends bears to
the amount of such accumulated profits.

xxx xxx xxx


(c) Applicable Rules
(1)
Accumulated profits defined -For purpose of this section, the term 'accumulated profits'
means with respect to any foreign corporation. (A) for purposes of subsections (a) (1) and
(b) (1), the amount of its gains, profits, or income computed without reduction by the
amount of the income, war profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with respect to
such profits or income by any foreign country.... ; and
(B) for purposes of subsections (a) (2) and (b) (2), the amount of its gains, profits, or
income in excess of the income, was profits, and excess profits taxes imposed on or with
respect to such profits or income.
The Secretary or his delegate sha
ll have full power to determine from the accumulated profits of what year or years such
dividends were paid, treating dividends paid in the first 20 days of any year as having
been paid from the accumulated profits of the preceding year or years (unless to
his satisfaction shows otherwise), and in other respects treating dividends as having
been paid from the most recently accumulated gains, profits, or earnings.
There is nothing in the aforecited provision that would justify tax return of the disputed
5% to the private respondent. Furthermore, as ably argued by the petitioner, the private
respondent failed to meet certain conditions necessary in order that the dividends
received by the nonresident parent company in the United States may be subject to t
he preferential 15% tax instead of 35%. Among other things, the private respondent
failed: (1) to show the actual amount credited by the U.S. government against the income
tax due from PMC-U.S.A. on the dividends received from private respondent; (2) to
present the income tax return of its mother company for 1975 when the dividends were
received; and (3) to submit any duly authenticated document showing that the U.S.
government credited the 20% tax deemed paid in the Philippines.

You might also like