The invoice: How tiny errors sink big VAT claims

In the intricate landscape of Philippine taxation, the Value-Added Tax (VAT) system stands out as one of the most technical and rigorously enforced. For businesses engaged in zero-rated sales, the ability to claim a refund of input VAT is not merely a matter of financial prudence, but it is essential for maintaining competitiveness and healthy cash flow. Yet, as the recent Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) decision in Ibex Global Solutions (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA Case No. 11075) demonstrates, even the smallest lapses in documentation, particularly in the details written on invoices and official receipts, can mean the difference between a successful refund and a costly denial.

The claimant, a business process outsourcing (BPO) company, filed a petition for review before the CTA seeking a refund of input VAT allegedly attributable to its zero-rated sales of services to its foreign affiliate for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2020. The claimant argued that its sales qualified for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, since the services were rendered to a nonresident foreign corporation, paid in acceptable foreign currency, and accounted for in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules. Despite these assertions, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) denied the claim, prompting the company to seek judicial relief.

The CTA’s decision meticulously outlined the legal requisites for a VAT refund claim. These include the timely filing of both administrative and judicial claims, VAT registration, proof that the sales are indeed zero-rated, proper documentation showing that the input VAT was duly paid and attributable to zero-rated sales, and, most importantly, strict compliance with substantiation and invoicing requirements. The Court emphasized that these requirements are not mere technicalities but are essential to the integrity of the VAT system, which relies on a tax credit method and an audit trail to ensure proper tax collection and prevent abuse.

While the claimant was able to establish most of the requisites (i.e., timely filing of the administrative and judicial claim, VAT registration, and the foreign status of the customer), the case ultimately hinged on the invoicing requirements. Section 113 of the NIRC and its implementing regulations require that every VAT official receipt (OR) for the sale of services must indicate, among others, the statement that the seller is VAT-registered with taxpayer identification number (TIN), the total amount paid with VAT indicated, the term “zero-rated sales,” if applicable, the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost, and description of goods or properties or the nature of the services. The Court’s review of the claimant’s supporting ORs revealed a critical deficiency: the ORs did not indicate the nature of the services rendered. Instead, the receipts merely referenced “INWARD,” which pertained to the remittance payment from the foreign client but did not specify the actual services performed.

Although the claimant presented its Amended Articles of Incorporation, BIR Certificate of Registration, and billing statements to demonstrate that it was engaged in the sale of services, the CTA decision made clear that these documents, while relevant for establishing the general business activity and client relationship, are not the primary evidence required for VAT purposes. For substantiating a sale of service in relation to a VAT refund claim, the law and regulations require that the transaction be supported by a VAT OR containing all mandatory information, including the nature of the service rendered. The CTA emphasized that, regardless of the existence of other supporting documents, it is the OR that serves as the principal proof of the sale of service for VAT purposes. In this case, the absence of the nature of the transaction on the ORs proved fatal to the petitioner’s claim, as the CTA held that strict compliance with invoicing requirements is indispensable and cannot be substituted by other forms of documentation.

The CTA underscored that the requirement to state the nature of the transaction is not a mere formality. It serves several vital purposes: allowing the BIR and the courts to verify that the transaction qualifies for zero-rating, providing a clear audit trail linking the payment to the specific service rendered, and preventing taxpayers from claiming input VAT on transactions that do not qualify for zero-rating. Failure to indicate the nature of the service on the OR is fatal to the claim, regardless of the taxpayer’s good faith or the actual occurrence of the transaction.

The CTA’s decision is a masterclass in the doctrine of strictissimi juris, the principle that tax exemptions and refunds must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. The CTA explained that the VAT system is designed to ensure that taxes are collected at every stage of the distribution chain, with the seller’s output tax becoming the buyer’s input tax. This system relies on accurate and complete documentation to function properly. In the case of the claimant, the Court found that while the company had issued VAT zero-rated ORs for its sales to its foreign affiliate, the receipts did not indicate the nature of the services rendered. This omission was fatal. The Court explained that while the accounted zero-rated sales were supported by VAT zero-rated ORs, these were not fully compliant with the prescribed invoicing requirements under the VAT law and regulations, since the ORs lacked the indication of the nature of services rendered by the petitioner. As such, the accounted sales were denied VAT zero-rating.

Tax refund claims, being in the nature of tax exemptions, must be strictly construed against the taxpayer, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove strict compliance with all conditions for the grant of a refund. The instant case is cautionary for all VAT-registered businesses, especially those engaged in zero-rated sales. It highlights the need to review invoices to ensure that all required information, including the nature of the transaction, is clearly indicated on all invoices. It also underscores the importance of training billing and finance teams on the legal requirements and the significance of compliance, conducting regular compliance audits, and maintaining complete and accurate records.

For taxpayers, the case is a reminder that the devil is in the details. Even the most sophisticated tax planning and compliance efforts can be undone by a single missing line on an invoice or official receipt. The case also illustrates the importance of keeping abreast of the latest jurisprudence and regulatory developments, as the requirements for VAT compliance are constantly evolving.

In the world of VAT, there are no shortcuts; only strict adherence to the rules will suffice. As the economy continues to grow and more businesses engage in cross-border transactions, the importance of VAT compliance will only increase. The Ibex case is a timely reminder that the key to successful tax compliance is attention to detail and a commitment to best practices. In the end, the cost of compliance is always less than the cost of non-compliance.

Let’s Talk Tax is a weekly newspaper column of P&A Grant Thornton that aims to keep the public informed of various developments in taxation. This article is not intended to be a substitute for competent professional advice.

Runell Alvyn V. Sarmiento is a manager from the Tax Advisory & Compliance division of P&A Grant Thornton, the Philippine member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd.