The Supreme Court, in a pivotal resolution, granted Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation’s motion for reconsideration, affirming the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision. The ruling allows Pilipinas Shell to claim a refund or tax credit for excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers. This decision clarifies that domestic petroleum manufacturers are entitled to a refund of excise taxes on petroleum products sold to international carriers, aligning with international agreements and promoting the viability of international air travel. This outcome ensures that domestic manufacturers are not unduly burdened, supporting the country’s commitment to international aviation standards and economic growth.
Fueling Flights and Fairness: Who Bears the Excise Tax Burden in International Aviation?
This case revolves around the interpretation of Section 135(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) concerning excise tax exemptions on petroleum products sold to international carriers. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) sought a refund for excise taxes it paid on aviation fuel sold to international airlines, arguing that these sales are exempt from excise tax under the NIRC. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) initially denied the refund, contending that the tax exemption applies only to the international carriers, preventing PSPC from passing on the tax burden, but not entitling them to a refund. The Supreme Court’s initial decision supported the CIR’s view, but PSPC’s motion for reconsideration prompted a reevaluation of the issue, considering international agreements and the broader implications for the domestic oil industry.
The central legal question is whether the excise tax exemption under Section 135(a) of the NIRC applies to the petroleum products themselves, thus entitling the domestic manufacturer to a refund, or solely to the international carriers, prohibiting the shifting of the tax burden. Excise taxes in the Philippines, as defined under Section 129 of the NIRC, are taxes imposed on goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption, or imported items. These taxes fall into two categories: specific tax, based on weight or volume, and ad valorem tax, based on the selling price. Aviation fuel is subject to a specific tax under Section 148(g) of the NIRC, which takes effect “as soon as they are in existence as such.”
Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin clarified the traditional meaning of excise tax, noting its evolution from a tax on privileges to a tax on specific goods or articles. The case of Petron Corporation v. Tiangco elucidates this transformation, stating that excise tax has morphed from the Am Jur definition to its current signification, which is a tax on certain specified goods or articles. This evolution is crucial in understanding the present application of excise tax laws. Previously, excise tax was seen as a tax on the privilege to import, manufacture, and remove certain articles. Currently, it is understood as a direct tax on specified goods, influencing how exemptions are interpreted and applied.
The Supreme Court, in reconsidering its stance, acknowledged the importance of international agreements, particularly the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Aviation. Article 24 of the Convention has been interpreted to prohibit the taxation of aircraft fuel consumed for international transport. The Court recognized that Section 135(a) of the NIRC and earlier amendments to the Tax Code represent the government’s compliance with the Chicago Convention and air transport agreements. It stated that the rationale for exempting fuel from national and local taxes is to recognize the uniqueness of civil aviation and avoid multiple taxation, which could hinder the development of international air transport.
The Court emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda, highlighting the duty to fulfill treaty obligations in good faith, necessitating the harmonization of national legislation with treaty provisions. The court initially interpreted Section 135(a) as prohibiting domestic manufacturers from passing the excise tax on to international carriers. However, it reexamined the effect of denying domestic manufacturers’ claims for refunds on excise taxes already paid, recognizing serious implications for the government’s commitment to the Chicago Convention.
Concerns were raised that denying refunds could lead to “tankering,” where carriers fill their aircraft as much as possible in low-tax jurisdictions to avoid paying taxes, thereby increasing fuel consumption and emissions. The Court noted the potential adverse effects on the Philippines’ economy and tourism industry, as well as the risk of retaliatory action under bilateral agreements. The Court ultimately found merit in PSPC’s motion for reconsideration, holding that PSPC, as the statutory taxpayer directly liable to pay the excise tax, is entitled to a refund or credit for excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers.
Justice Bersamin, in his separate opinion, concurred with the result but differed in the interpretation of the excise tax exemption. He argued that the exemption under Section 135(a) is conferred on the petroleum products themselves, given their nature as property subject to tax, with the liability statutorily imposed on the domestic petroleum manufacturer. He reasoned that the excise tax attaches to the goods upon the accrual of the manufacturer’s direct liability. He maintained that the subsequent sale to international carriers confirms the proper tax treatment of the goods as exempt from excise tax. He noted that Article 24(a) of the Chicago Convention clearly confers the tax exemption on the aviation fuel on board international carriers. This ensures that fuel taken on board for consumption by an aircraft from a contracting state is exempt from all customs or other duties.
Bersamin clarified that the option of shifting the tax burden rests on the statutory taxpayer, and that regardless of who bears the tax payment, the proper party to seek a refund of an indirect tax is the statutory taxpayer. He pointed to the Silkair rulings, which firmly hold that the manufacturer-seller is the proper party to claim the refund of excise taxes paid. He also noted that Section 135(a) cannot be construed as granting the excise tax exemption to the international carrier, as the carrier has not been subjected to the excise tax at the outset.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation clarifies the entitlement of domestic petroleum manufacturers to claim refunds for excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers. This decision aligns with international agreements, promotes fairness, and supports the economic viability of the domestic oil industry while upholding the Philippines’ commitments to international aviation standards.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Pilipinas Shell, as a domestic petroleum manufacturer, was entitled to a refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products sold to international carriers. This hinged on the interpretation of Section 135(a) of the NIRC and its alignment with international aviation agreements. |
| Who is directly liable for the excise tax on petroleum products? | The domestic manufacturer or producer of the petroleum products is directly liable for the excise tax. This liability accrues as soon as the products are in existence and intended for domestic sale or consumption. |
| What does Section 135(a) of the NIRC state? | Section 135(a) of the NIRC exempts petroleum products sold to international carriers of Philippine or foreign registry for their use or consumption outside the Philippines from excise tax. These products must be stored in a bonded storage tank and disposed of according to regulations. |
| What is the Chicago Convention on International Aviation? | The Chicago Convention is a 1944 international agreement that establishes the legal framework for international civil aviation. Article 24 of the Convention prohibits the taxation of aircraft fuel consumed for international transport. |
| What is the principle of pacta sunt servanda? | Pacta sunt servanda is a basic international law principle that means agreements must be kept. It underscores the duty of nations to fulfill their treaty obligations in good faith. |
| Why did the Supreme Court initially deny the refund? | The Supreme Court initially denied the refund based on the interpretation that the excise tax exemption under Section 135(a) applied only to the international carriers. This prevented Pilipinas Shell from passing on the tax burden but did not entitle them to a refund. |
| What prompted the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision? | The Supreme Court reconsidered its decision after Pilipinas Shell filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the denial of the refund would adversely impact the domestic oil industry. The court also took into account the Philippines’ obligations under international aviation agreements. |
| What was Justice Bersamin’s separate opinion? | Justice Bersamin agreed with the result but differed in the interpretation, arguing that the excise tax exemption is conferred on the petroleum products themselves. He viewed the excise tax as a tax on property, with liability imposed on the manufacturer. |
| What is the significance of the Silkair rulings in this case? | The Silkair rulings establish that the proper party to claim a refund of excise taxes paid is the manufacturer-seller. This reaffirms that despite shifting the tax burden, the statutory taxpayer (manufacturer) is entitled to claim a refund. |
| What is “tankering” and why is it a concern? | Tankering is the practice of airlines filling their aircraft with as much fuel as possible in low-tax jurisdictions to avoid paying taxes in higher-tax locations. This is a concern because it increases fuel consumption and emissions, counteracting environmental goals. |
In summary, this landmark decision not only clarifies the application of excise tax exemptions for petroleum products sold to international carriers but also reinforces the Philippines’ commitment to fulfilling its international obligations. By allowing domestic manufacturers to claim refunds for excise taxes paid, the Supreme Court has ensured a more equitable and sustainable framework for the aviation industry. This decision supports economic growth while adhering to global standards.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, G.R. No. 188497, February 19, 2014