REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

SECOND DIVISION

GE CONSUMER FINANCE, INC., CTA Case No . 9144

Petitioner,

Members:
-versus-
CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson
CASANOVA, and
MANAHAN,JJ.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:

REVENUE, OCT 2 2017
Respondent. 5
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D E
- - - - - - - - -- - - - -
cIs I 0 N
7 -----
I 1 Y' I> :
X
C·/fl .

MANAHAN,J.:

This involves a Petition for Review involving a claim for

refu n d of alleged ly erroneously paid capital gains tax (CGT) in
th e amount of Php54,243,781.00 on transfer of shares of stock
pursuant to the Republic of the Philippines- United States of
America (RP-US) Tax Treaty.

FACTS

Petitioner GE Consumer Finance , Inc. is a company

incorp orated 1 under the laws of the State of Delaware, United
States of America (USA) with registered office address at 1209
Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, New Castle
County, USA. 2 Petitioner is not registered as a corporation or
partnership with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) of the Philippines as shown by the Certificate of Non-
Registration of Company3 dated March 25, 2013. ~

1 Docket, CTA Case No. 9144, Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-1", "P-1-A", "P-2", "P-3", "P-4", pp. 615-

624 .
2 Docket, Vol. 1, Petition for Review (PFR), p. 9.

3 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-5", p. 532.

DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 2 of 14

Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of

Internal Revenue (CIR) with principal office at the 5th Floor,
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) National Office Building,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Respondent is vested with
authority to administer and enforce all laws pertaining to
internal revenue taxes and has jurisdiction to decide on refunds
and disputed tax assessments. 4

Petitioner is the owner of 10 1, 995 shares of common stock

and the beneficial owner of five (5) shares of common stock of
GEC RF Global Services Philippines, Inc. (GECRF PH) held in
the names of its nominee directors, for a total of 102,000 shares
in GECRF PH.s For the year 2013, petitioner was reflected as
said owner of the above shares in GECRF PH's General
Information Sheet6 (GIS) filed with the SEC on May 30, 2013.

On August 12, 2013, a Deed of AssignmenF was executed

where petitioner transferred its ownership of the 102,000
GECRF PH shares to GE Capital Retail Finance Corporation (GE
Capital). On August 14, 2013, petitioner filed its Application for
Registration (BIR Form No. 1904) applying for registration as a
one-time taxpayer with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 439-
940-725-000.8

On September 4, 2013, believing that the gain from the

transfer of the shares is exempt from capital gains tax (CGT)
pursuant to Article 14 in relation to Article 1 of the Reservation
Clause of the RP-US Tax Treaty, petitioner filed an application
for tax treaty relief9 on the capital gains from the transfer of
shares.

On September 10, 2013, petitioner paid the CGT

amounting to Php54,243, 781.00 10 in order to obtain the
certificate authorizing registration (CAR) and tax clearance
certificate (TCC). ~

4 Docket, Vol. 1, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), p. 369.

s Docket, Vol. 1, PFR, p. 11.
6 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-7", p. 625-633.
7 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-8", pp. 543-547.

s Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-6", p. 533.

9 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-11" and "P-12", pp. 593-596 and 597-598, respectively.
1o Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-13" and "P-14", pp. 599-601 and 602, respectively.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 3 of 14

On September 4, 2015, petitioner filed its administrative

claimll for refund of its erroneously paid CGT in the amount of
Php54,243, 781.00.

On September 10, 2015, petitioner filed the instant

Petition for Review. 12 Within the extended period granted, 13
respondent filed his Answer 14 on October 28, 2015. On
February 17, 2016, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of
Facts and Issuesls (JSFI) which was approved and adopted in
the Pre-Trial Order16 dated March 1, 2016.

The case proceeded to trial with petitioner presenting two

witnesses: (1) Atty. Maria Ysidra May Y. Kintanar-Lopez, 17 and
(2) Mr. Nelson V. Soriano.1s Petitioner then filed its Formal Offer
of Evidence with Motion with Leave of Court to Substitute
Marked Documents, 19 which was resolved through Resolutions
dated September 16, 201620 and November 28, 2016.2 1

Respondent, on the other hand, manifested that he will no

longer present evidence.22

The Court considered the case submitted for decision on

June 27, 2017 23 after receipt of petitioner's Memorandum (of
GE Consumer Finance, Inc.) 24 on June 13, 2017 and Records
Verification25 dated June 15, 2017 that respondent has failed to
file his memorandum. ~

11 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-15" and "P-16", pp. 603-609 and 610, respectively.
12 Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 9-21.
13 Docket, Vol. 1, Order dated October 6, 2015, p. 128.
14 Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 129-132.
15 Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 369-372.
16 Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 374-378.
17 Docket, Vol. 1, Exhibit "P-18", pp. 258-264.
18 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-19", pp. 404-409.
19 Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 508-517.
2o Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 657-658.
21 Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 681-683.
22 Docket, Vol. 2, p. 695.
23 Docket, Vol. 2, p. 721.
24 Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 706-719.
25 Docket, Vol. 2, p. 720.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 4 of 14

ISSUES26

The parties submit the following issues for resolution:

1. Whether the administrative and the judicial claims were

seasonably filed; and

2. Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a tax refund/ credit

certificate amounting to Php54,243, 781.00 representing
erroneously paid CGT on the gain arising from the transfer
of the company shares to(sic) GEC RF Global Services
Philippines, Inc.

Petitioner's Arguments27

Petitioner argues that the gain from the transfer of the

shares of stock in GECRF PH to GE Capital is exempt from CGT
pursuant to Article 14 in relation to Article 1 of the Reservation
Clause of the RP-US Treaty.

Petitioner states that it is registered with the BIR as a one-

time taxpayer; that G ECRF PH's assets do not consist
principally of real property interest located in the Philippines;
that it paid CGT on the transfer of shares amounting to
Php54,243,781.00; and that such payment of CGT was
erroneous which should be refunded under the principle of
solutio indebiti.

Petitioner also states that the administrative and judicial

claims for tax refund were filed within the two-year prescriptive
period.

Respondent's Counter-Arguments28

Respondent argues that petitioner's claim for refund/tax

credit is subject to administrative investigation; that petitioner
failed to demonstrate that the tax subject of the instant case
was erroneously or illegally collected; that petitioner failed to
prove compliance with the rules regarding refund under Section
204 and 229 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended (NIRC); that the burden of proof rests upon the~

26 Docket, Vol. 1, JSFI, p. 370.

27 Docket, Vol. 1, PFR, pp. 13-19; docket, Vol. 2, Memorandum (ofGE Consumer Finance,
Inc.), pp. 709-718.
28 Docket, Vol. 1, Answer, pp. 130-131.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 5 of 14

taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence its

entitlement to a claim for refund/tax credit; and, that a tax
refund is in the nature of a tax exemption which must be
construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer.

RULING OF THE COURT

The petition has merit.

The claim for refund was

timely filed.

The relevant prov1s1ons of the 1997 National Internal

Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC) reads:

Sec. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to

Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. - The
Commissioner may-

XXX XXX XXX

(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally

received or penalties imposed without authority, refund
the value of internal revenue stamps when they are
returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his
discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have
been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon
proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or
penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in
writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or
refund within two (2) years after payment of the tax or
penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed showing
an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for
credit or refund.

XXX XXX XXX

Sec. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or illegally

Collected. -No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in
any court for the recovery of any national internal
revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed
to have been collected without authority, or of any sum
alleged to have been excessively or in any manner
wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has
been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or
proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax,
penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress.~
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 6 of 14

In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be

filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of
payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any
supervening cause that may arise after payment:
Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even
without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax,
where on the face of the return upon which payment was
made, such payment appears clearly to have been
erroneously paid. (Underscoring ours)

The above provisions require the filing of an administrative

claim for refund before the filing of a judicial claim. Notably,
both the administrative and judicial claims for refund should be
filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period indicated
therein, and that the claimant is allowed to file the latter even
without waiting for the resolution of the former in order to
prevent the forfeiture of its claim through prescription.29

The Court finds that petitioner timely filed its

administrative and judicial claims for refund of its erroneously
paid CGT on the gain arising from the transfer of shares not
traded in the stock exchange.

Petitioner paid the CGT of Php54,243,781.00 on

September 10, 2013. 30 Counting two years therefrom, petitioner
had until September 10, 2015 within which to file its
administrative and judicial claims. Based on the evidence,
petitioner filed its administrative and judicial claims on
September 4, 201531 and September 10, 2015,32 respectively.
Clearly, both claims were timely filed.

Petitioner is entitled to
its claim for refund of
erroneously paid CGT
pursuant to the RP-US
Tax Treaty.

The Court finds that petitioner complied with the

requisites to prove its entitlement to the refund claimed.~

29 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182582,

April 17, 2017.

30 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-14", DBP-BIR Tax Payment Deposit Slip, p. 602
3 1 Docket. Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-15", "P-15-A", "P-16", and "P-16-A", pp. 603-609, and 610.
32 Docket, Vol. 1, PFR, p. 9.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 7 of 14

Section 28(B)(S)(c) of the NIRC, in relation to Sections

32(A)(3) and 32(B)(5) of the same Code, provides that non-
resident foreign corporations are subject to CGT on their net
capital gains realized during the taxable year from the sale or
other disposition of shares of stock in a domestic corporation
made outside the stock exchange and any gain derived from
such dealings in property shall form part of gross income except
that income exempt under any treaty obligation binding on the
Government of the Philippines shall be excluded from gross
income and exempt from tax. The provisions read as follows:

Sec. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign

Corporations. -

XXX XXX XXX

(B) Tax on Nonresident Foreign Corporation.-

XXX XXX XXX

(c) Capital Gains from Sale of Shares of Stock not

Traded in the Stock Exchange.-A final tax at the rates
prescribed below is hereby imposed upon the net capital
gains realized during the taxable year from the sale,
barter, exchange or other disposition of shares of stock
in a domestic corporation, except shares sold, or
disposed of through the stock exchange:

Not over PlOO,OOO........................ ........ ... 5°/o

On any amount in excess of PlOO,OOO...... 10%

*** *** ***

Sec. 32. Gross Income.-

(A) General Definition. - Except when otherwise

provided in this Title, gross income means all income
derived from whatever source, including (but not limited
to) the following items:

XXX XXX XXX

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;

XXX XXX XXX

(B) Exclusions from Gross Income. - The following

items shall not be included in gross income and shall be
exempt from taxation under this Title:~

XXX XXX XXX

DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 8 of 14

(5) Income Exempt under Treaty.- Income of

any kind, to the extent required by any treaty
obligation binding upon the Government of the
Philippines.

Petitioner presented the following documents to show that

it is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the USA: Certificate of Incorporation of Retailer Financial
Services, Inc., 33 including the various Certificates of
Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation, 34 to show the
renaming of the corporation to GE Consumer Finance, Inc.; and
the Certificate of Tax Residence3s issued by the USA
Department of Treasury- Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner
also presented the Certification of Non-Registration of
Company36 issued by the Philippine Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to show that it is not registered either as a
corporation or as a partnership in the Philippines.

Petitioner owned 102,000 shares of GECRF PH,37 which is

a domestic corporation.3 8 On August 12, 2013, said shares were
transferred to GE Capital Retail Finance Corporation through a
Deed of Assignment of Shares39 and not through the stock
exchange.

As to the requirement for application for tax treaty relief,

petitioner complied with the following as shown by its Letter-
Application for Tax Treaty Relief on Capital Gains, 40 and
Application for Relief From Double Taxation on Capital Gains
(BIR Form No. 0901-C), 41 both stamped received by the BIRon
September 4, 2013. While the BIR confirmatory ruling
requested by petitioner is yet to be issued, it has been ruled that
non-compliance with the prior application rule as required by
Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 1-200042 should not
operate to automatically divest entitlement to the tax treaty
relief as it would constitute a violation of the duty required by~

33 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-1", pp. 615-618.

34 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibits "P-1-A", "P-2". And "P-3", pp. 619-621.
35 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-4", pp. 623-624.
36 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-5", p. 532.
37 Docket, Exhibit "P-7", GECRF PH's General Information Sheet (GIS), pp. 625-633.

38 Docket, Exhibit "P-9" GECRF PH's Audited Financial Statements for the year 2012, pp.
548-590; specifically Note 1 at 561.
39 Docket, Exhibit "P-8", pp. 543-547.
40 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-11 ", pp. 593-596.
4 1 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-12", pp. 597-598.
42 Procedures for Processing Tax Treaty Relief Application, January 4, 2000; prescribes

the procedures for processing tax treaty relief applications, specifically requiring that any
availment of tax treaty relief must be preceded by an application for such tax treaty relief
at least 15 days before the transaction.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 9 of 14

good faith in complying with a tax treaty and would impair the
value of the tax treaty. Thus, in Deutsche Bank AG Manila
Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Supreme Court
held:

"A state that has contracted valid international

obligations is bound to make in its legislations those
modifications that may be necessary to ensure the
fulfillment of the obligations undertaken." Thus, laws and
issuances must ensure that reliefs granted under tax
treaties are accorded to the parties entitled thereto. The
BIR must not impose additional requirements that would
negate the availment of the reliefs provided for under
international agreements. More so, when the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any pre-
requisite for the availment of the benefits under said
agreement.

Likewise, it must be stressed that there is nothing

in RMO No. 1-2000 which would indicate a deprivation of
entitlement to a tax treaty relief for failure to comply with
the 15-day period. We recognize the clear intention of the
BIR in implementing RMO No. 1-2000, but the CTA's
outright denial of a tax treaty relief for failure to strictly
comply with the prescribed period is not in harmony with
the objectives of the contracting state to ensure that the
benefits granted under tax treaties are enjoyed by duly
entitled persons or corporations.

Bearing in mind the rationale of tax treaties, the

period of application for the availment of tax treaty relief
as required by RMO No. 1-2000 should not operate to
divest entitlement to the relief as it would constitute a
violation of the duty required by good faith in complying
with a tax treaty. The denial of the availment of tax relief
for the failure of a taxpayer to apply within the prescribed
period under the administrative issuance would impair
the value of the tax treaty. At most, the application for a
tax treaty relief from the BIR should merely operate to
confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to the relief.
(Underscoring ours)

Pending the issuance of the confirmatory ruling on its

entitlement to tax treaty relief, petitioner paid CGT on the share
for share transfer of its shares of stock in GECRF PH on
September 10, 2013 in the amount of Php54,243,781.00, as
evidenced by its Capital Gains tax Return (BIR Form No. 1707) 4 3~

43 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-13", pp. 599-601.

DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 10 of 14

and DBP-BIR Tax Payment Deposit Slip. 44 The fact of payment

is further bolstered by the Certification dated January 19, 20 16
issued by the BIR Revenue Accounting Division (RAD) showing
the collection of Php54,243,781.00.45

As discussed in the previous section, the application for

refund before the BIR and the judicial claim before the CTA were
both timely filed. Further, the application for refund was
supported by petitioner's duly accomplished Application for Tax
Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), and other documents, as
required by RMO No. 01-2000. 46

Considering petitioner's compliance with the requirements

for a claim for refund, the issue remains whether the said
amount paid as CGT should be refunded due to petitioner's
exemption from payment thereof pursuant to the RP-US Tax
Treaty.

As stated in the quoted NIRC provisions above, generally,

any gain realized by petitioner from the sale of shares in GECRF
PH should be subject to CGT. However, considering that the
Philippines has a tax treaty with the USA, said income from the
sale of shares may be exempt from CGT if the conditions set
forth under the RP-US Tax Treaty are met. The relevant
provisions of the RP-US Tax Treaty are:

ARTICLE 14

Capital Gains

(1) Gains from the alienation of tangible personal

(movable) property forming part of the business property
of a permanent establishment which a resident of a
Contracting State has in the other Contracting State or
of tangible personal (movable) property pertaining to a
flXed base available to a resident of a Contracting State
in the other Contracting State for the purpose of
performing independent personal services, including
such gains from the alienation of such a permanent
establishment (alone or together with the whole
enterprise) or of such a fixed base, may be taxed in the
other State. However, gains derived by a resident of a
Contracting State from the alienation of ships, aircraft or ~

44 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-14", p. 602.

45 BIR Records, p. 93.
46 Docket, Vol. 2, Exhibit "P-15" Letter request for refund of erroneously paid capital

gains tax, pp. 603-609, at 608.

DECISION
CTA Case No. 9I44
Page II of I4

containers operated by such resident in international

traffic shall be taxable only in that State, and gains
described in Article 13 (Royalties) shall be taxable only in
accordance with the provisions of Article 13.

(2) Gains from the alienation of any property other than

those mentioned in paragraph (1) or in Article 7 (Income
from Real Property) shall be taxable only in the
Contracting State of which the alienation is a resident.

The Reservation Clause of the treaty states in part:

ARTICLE 1

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14 of the

Convention relating to capital gains, both the Philippines
and the United States may tax gains from the disposition
of an interest in a corporation if its assets consist
principally of a real property interest located in that
country. Likewise, both countries may tax gain from the
disposition of an interest in a partnership, trust or estate
to the extent the gain is attributable to a real property
interest in one of the countries. The term "real property
interest" is to have the meaning it has under the law of
the country in which the underlying real property is
located.

Thus, under the RP-US Tax Treaty, capital gains from the
sale of shares of stock shall be taxable in the state where the
alienator is a resident. However, the Reservation Clause
provides that such sale may be taxed by both the Philippines
and the USA if the interest being disposed is in a corporation
whose assets consist principally of a real property interest
located in that country. On the reverse side, under the RP-US
Tax Treaty, the subject capital gains may be exempt from
Philippine tax if the interest being disposed is in a corporation
whose assets do not consist principally of real property interest
located in the Philippines.

In the instant case, it was proven that petitioner GE

Consumer Finance, Inc. is a non-resident foreign corporation,
and the shares transferred are of G ECRF PH which is a
domestic corporation.

It is now necessary to determine whether the assets of

GECRF PH consist principally of real property interest in the~
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 12 of 14

Philippines. On this matter, Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 4-

8647 is helpful. The relevant provisions are quoted below:

Section 1. Objective. -Under Philippine tax treaties,

capital gains derived by residents of the other
Contracting States from the disposition of a share or of
an interest in a Philippine corporation are taxable in the
Philippines only if the assets of such corporation consist
principally of real property interest located in the
Philippines. The same rule applies with respect to the
taxation of capital gains realized from the disposition of
an interest in a partnership, trust or estate to the extent
that such gains are attributable to a real property interest
located in the Philippines. These regulations prescribe
the guidelines for determining whether the assets of a
corporation, partnership, trust or estate consist
principally of real property interest.

Section 2. Definitions. - For purposes of these

regulations, the following terms and phrases shall be
understood to mean -

a) "Real property interest"- interests on properties

enumerated in Section 3 which are not, however,
exclusive of others that are similarly situated. As
used in the treaties and these regulations, it
shall be understood to include real properties as
understood under Philippine laws;
b) "Principally", "wholly or principally", "directly
principally" or "attributable"- more than fifty per
cent of the entire assets in terms of value;
c) "Sale" - includes disposition or any other means
by which the ownership of a share or of an
interest in a corporation, partnership, estate or
trust is transferred/ conveyed for valuable
consideration; and
d) "Corporation" - includes partnership, estate or
trust.

XXX XXX XXX

Section 4. Basis.- The value of all the assets of the

subject corporation both real and personal, as appearing
in its financial statement on the date of sale of the share
or interest in such corporation, as verified by the BIR,
shall be used as the basis for determining the
composition of its assets. ~

47Determination of whether the assets of a corporation consist principally of real property

interest under the Philippines tax treaties, April 2, 1986.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 13 of 14

In case the financial statement as of the date of sale

is not available, the most recent financial statement may
be used, after the necessary adjustments are made to
reflect transactions made during the period from the date
of such financial statement to the date of the sale.

Summarizing the provisions thus: ( 1) capital gains derived

by residents of other Contracting States from the disposition of
shares or interests in a Philippine corporation are taxable in the
Philippines only if the assets of the corporation consist
principally of real property interest located in the Philippines; 48
(2) real property interests are interests on properties
enumerated in RR 4-86, including real properties as defined
under Philippine law; 4 9 (3) principally means more than fifty
percent (50°/o) of the entire assets in terms of value;so and, (4)
the value of the assets shall be determined from the financial
statements as of the date of the sale, as verified by the BIR. 5 1

Applying the foregoing to the instant case, petitioner

presented GECRF PH's 2012 Audited Financial Statements,s2
and unaudited Statement of Financial Position and
Comprehensive Income for 2013.53 Examination of the foregoing
documents shows the real property interest for the following
years:

July 31, 2013 December 31, 20 11

Cunaudited) December 31, 2012 (restated)
Property and
equipment - net Php 141,654 Php 157,198,206 Php 6,147,384
Total Assets 865,162 777,766,697 657,675,196
Real Property
Interest Ratio 16.37% 20.21% 00.93%

As computed, the real property interest of GECRF PH does

not exceed 50°/o, thus it cannot be said to have assets consisting
principally of a real property interest in the Philippines.
Therefore, petitioner's capital gains derived from the transfer of
its shares of stock in GECRF PH shall be exempt from CGT in
the Philippines, pursuant to the RP-US Tax Treaty.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby

GRANTED. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is~

48 RR 4-86, Section 1.
49 RR 4-86, Section 2(a).
5o RR 4-86, Section 2(b).
51 RR 4-86, Section 4.
52 Docket, Exhibit "P-9", pp. 548-590.
53 Docket, Exhibit "P-1 0", pp. 591-592.
DECISION
CTA Case No. 9144
Page 14 of 14

ORDERED TO REFUND in favor of petitioner GE Consumer

Finance, Inc. the amount of Php 54,243,781.00, representing
erroneously paid capital gains tax on the transfer by petitioner
of its shares of stock in GEC RF Global Services Philippines,
Inc.

SO ORDERED.

c~· 7. At.,.,..~
CATHERINE T. MANAHAN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

»~'h 0. ~~~~~· $-
JffANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. CAESAR A. CASANOVA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Q=~~~ c ~ CJ:t-'a.-::;:-c 4 ~
JUANITO c. CASTANEDi(JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and

the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

ROSARIO
Presiding Justice