Cir Vs Sony.pdf

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. SONY PHILIPPINES, INC.

Facts Sony Philippines was ordered examined for “the period 1997 and unverified prior years” as indicated in the Letter of Authority. The audit yielded assessments against Sony Philippines for deficiency VAT and FWT, viz: (1) late remittance of Final Withholding Tax on royalties for the period January to March 1998 and (2) deficiency VAT on reimbursable received by Sony Philippines from its offshore affiliate, Sony International Singapore (SIS).

Facts

Facts

Facts

Issue (1) Is Petitioner liable for deficiency Value Added Tax? (2) Was the investigation of its 1998 Final Withholding Tax return valid?

Held (1) NO. Sony Philippines did in fact incur expenses supported by valid VAT invoices when it paid for certain advertising costs. This is sufficient to accord it the benefit of input VAT credits and where the money came from to satisfy said advertising billings is another matter but does not alter the VAT effect. In the same way, Sony Philippines can not be deemed to have received the reimbursable as a fee for a VAT-taxable activity. The reimbursable was couched as an aid for Sony Philippines by SIS in view of the company’s “dire or adverse economic conditions”. More importantly, the absence of a sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties supports the non-VAT nature of the reimbursement. This was distinguished from the COMASERCO case where even if there was similarly a reimbursement-on-cost arrangement between affiliates, there was in fact an underlying service. Here, the advertising services were rendered in favor of Sony Philippines not SIS.

Held (2) NO. A Letter of Authority should cover a taxable period not exceeding one year and to indicate that it covers ‘unverified prior years’ should be enough to invalidate it. In addition, even if the Final Withholding Tax was covered by Sony Philippines’ fiscal year ending March 1998, the same fell outside of ‘the period 1997’ and was thus not validly covered by the Letter of Authority.