In a tax dispute between Manila Bankers’ Life Insurance Corporation (MBLIC) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), the Supreme Court clarified the deductibility of premium taxes and Documentary Stamp Taxes (DSTs) in computing the Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT). The Court ruled that while DSTs are not deductible as “cost of services,” premium taxes also do not qualify as deductible costs for MCIT purposes, reversing the Court of Tax Appeals’ (CTA) decision on the latter. This decision impacts how insurance companies calculate their MCIT, affecting their tax liabilities and financial planning.

Insuring Clarity: Can Insurance Taxes Reduce Corporate Income Tax?

The case began with deficiency tax assessments issued against MBLIC for the year 2001, specifically concerning MCIT and DST. The CIR argued that MBLIC had improperly deducted premium taxes and DSTs from its gross receipts when computing its MCIT, leading to an alleged understatement of its tax liability. MBLIC contested the assessment, arguing that these taxes should be considered part of its “cost of services,” which are deductible from gross receipts under Section 27(E)(4) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).

The core of the dispute centered on the interpretation of “gross income” for MCIT purposes, which is defined as “gross receipts less sales returns, allowances, discounts, and cost of services.” The NIRC defines “cost of services” as “all direct costs and expenses necessarily incurred to provide the services required by the customers and clients.” The question was whether premium taxes and DSTs fell within this definition. The CIR relied on Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-2003 (RMC 4-2003), which provides a list of items that constitute “cost of services” for insurance companies, excluding premium taxes and DSTs.

MBLIC argued that RMC 4-2003 could not be applied retroactively to the 2001 tax year, as it was issued in 2002 and its application would be prejudicial to the company. The Supreme Court agreed with MBLIC on this point, stating that “statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively only, unless the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication.” Thus, the deductibility of premium taxes and DSTs had to be assessed based on Section 27(E)(4) of the NIRC itself.

However, despite ruling against the retroactive application of RMC 4-2003, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the CIR on the non-deductibility of premium taxes. The Court reasoned that while the enumeration of deductible costs in Section 27(E)(4) is not exhaustive, the claimed deduction must be a direct cost or expense. “A cost or expense is deemed ‘direct’ when it is readily attributable to the production of the goods or for the rendition of the service.” The Court found that premium taxes, although payable by MBLIC, are not direct costs because they are incurred after the sale of the insurance service has already transpired.

Section 123 of the NIRC serves as basis for the imposition of premium taxes. Pertinently, the provision reads: “SEC. 123. Tax on Life Insurance Premiums. – There shall be collected from every person, company or corporation (except purely cooperative companies or associations) doing life insurance business of any sort in the Philippines a tax of five percent (5%) of the total premium collected, whether such premiums are paid in money, notes, credits or any substitute for money; x x x[.]”

The Court contrasted premium taxes with the “raw materials, labor, and manufacturing cost” that constitute deductible “cost of sales” in the sale of goods. Allowing premium taxes to be deducted would blur the distinction between “gross income” for MCIT purposes and “gross income” for basic corporate tax purposes. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the CTA’s ruling on this issue.

Regarding DSTs, the Court affirmed the CTA’s decision that these are not deductible as “cost of services.” Section 173 of the NIRC states that DST is incurred “by the person making, signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring” the document subject to the tax. Since insurance contracts are mutual, either the insurer or the insured may shoulder the DST. The CTA noted that MBLIC charged DSTs to its clients as part of their premiums, meaning it was not MBLIC that “necessarily incurred” the expense. Like premium taxes, DSTs are incurred after the service has been rendered, further disqualifying them as direct costs.

As can be gleaned, DST is incurred “by the person making, signing, issuing, accepting, or transferring” the document subject to the tax. And since a contract of insurance is mutual in character, either the insurer or the insured may shoulder the cost of the DST.

Another issue in the case was MBLIC’s liability for DST on increases in the assured amount of its insurance policies, even when no new policy was issued. MBLIC argued that it could not be liable for additional DST unless a new policy was issued. The Court disagreed, citing Section 198 of the NIRC, which states that DST applies to the “renewal or continuance of any agreement… by altering or otherwise.” The Court held that increases in the assured amount constituted an alteration of the policy, triggering DST liability.

The Supreme Court referred to its ruling in CIR v. Lincoln Philippine Life Insurance Company, Inc., which involved a life insurance policy with an “automatic increase clause.” The Court in Lincoln held that the increase in the amount insured was subject to DST, even though it took effect automatically without the need for a new contract. The Court warned against circumventing tax laws to evade the payment of just taxes.

Here, although the automatic increase in the amount of life insurance coverage was to take effect later on, the date of its effectivity, as well as the amount of the increase, was already definite at the time of the issuance of the policy. Thus, the amount insured by the policy at the time of its issuance necessarily included the additional sum covered by the automatic increase clause because it was already determinable at the time the transaction was entered into and formed part of the policy.

MBLIC also raised the defense of prescription, arguing that the CIR could not assess deficiency DST for the entire fiscal year of 2001 because more than three years had passed since the filing of monthly DST returns for the January-June 2001 period. The Court acknowledged that prescription could be raised at any time but found that MBLIC had failed to establish that the prescriptive period had expired. MBLIC did not prove that the deficiency DSTs assessed pertained to the January-June 2001 timeframe or when the corresponding DST became due.

Finally, the Court upheld the CTA’s decision to delete the compromise penalties imposed by the CIR, as a compromise requires mutual agreement, which was absent in this case due to MBLIC’s protest of the assessment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether premium taxes and Documentary Stamp Taxes (DSTs) could be deducted as “cost of services” when computing the Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT) for an insurance company. The Court had to determine if these taxes directly related to providing insurance services.
What is the Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT)?	The MCIT is a tax imposed on corporations, calculated as 2% of their gross income, which serves as an alternative to the regular corporate income tax, especially when the corporation is not profitable. It ensures that corporations pay a minimum amount of tax regardless of their net income.
Are premium taxes deductible as “cost of services” for MCIT purposes?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that premium taxes are not deductible as “cost of services” because they are incurred after the insurance service has been sold, meaning they are not direct costs. This reversed the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision on this matter.
Are Documentary Stamp Taxes (DSTs) deductible as “cost of services” for MCIT purposes?	No, the Court affirmed that DSTs are not deductible because they are typically charged to the insurance clients and are also incurred after the service has been rendered. This means they do not qualify as direct costs necessary to provide the insurance service.
Can the tax authority retroactively apply new regulations?	Generally, no. The Court held that tax regulations cannot be applied retroactively if they would prejudice taxpayers, unless there is an explicit legislative intent for retroactive application or the taxpayer acted in bad faith.
Is DST due on increases in the assured amount of an insurance policy?	Yes, the Court ruled that DST is due on increases in the assured amount, even if no new policy is issued, because such increases constitute an alteration or renewal of the existing agreement. This aligns with the principle that alterations affecting policy values trigger DST liability.
When can a taxpayer raise the defense of prescription?	The defense of prescription, which argues that the tax authority’s claim is time-barred, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, the taxpayer must sufficiently establish that the prescriptive period has indeed expired.
Can compromise penalties be imposed without an agreement?	No, compromise penalties cannot be unilaterally imposed. A compromise requires a mutual agreement between the taxpayer and the tax authority, which is absent if the taxpayer protests the assessment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the deductibility of premium taxes and DSTs for MCIT purposes, setting a precedent for insurance companies in the Philippines. This ruling highlights the importance of accurately calculating tax liabilities and understanding the nuances of tax regulations.

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: MANILA BANKERS’ LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. Nos. 199732-33, February 27, 2019