Managing Withholding Taxes on Foreign IP Used in Geothermal Power Generation in the Philippines
Introduction
Foreign investors who license specialized geothermal extraction patents to Philippine geothermal power operators often receive payments labeled as “license fees,” “technology fees,” or “technical fees.” In Philippine tax practice, the label is less important than the tax characterization and source of income, because these determine whether the Philippine payor must withhold tax, at what rate, and under what conditions. Misclassification can lead to deficiency final withholding tax (FWT) assessments, including interest and penalties, and may also affect indirect tax positions.
Governing Philippine tax rules for foreign IP payments
1) The “source of income” rule and why it matters for foreign IP
Philippine income taxation uses the source of income as the primary test of taxability for cross-border transactions. Philippine authorities and courts focus on the activity that produces the income, not merely the location of property or the place where payment is made. This “source” test is repeatedly applied in disputes involving foreign entities earning from Philippine-based business activity.
In litigation involving withholding for services and technology-related payments, the CTA emphasized that the source of income is the activity producing the income, and that “royalties” can cover an expanded set of technology and know-how related payments, including technical advice and assistance connected with industrial or commercial undertakings. This approach is discussed in CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR (CTA Case No. 10665, 2026), which also referenced the CTA’s earlier treatment in Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR (CTA En Banc No. 1291, 2016). (CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026; Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, 2016)
2) When patent and technology payments are treated as “royalties” (even if called “technical fees”)
For foreign IP used in geothermal projects, the recurring compliance question is whether the consideration is treated as royalty income (commonly subject to FWT for nonresident foreign corporations) or as another class of income. Under Philippine tax treatment reflected in CTA rulings, technology-related payments may be treated as royalties when they are for the use of, or privilege to use, patents, or for the supply of technical knowledge or information integrated into local operations.
A recent BIR interpretation likewise states that technical fees paid to a non-resident foreign corporation for the supply of technical knowledge or information are treated as Philippine-sourced income and therefore subject to Philippine income tax and withholding, even if services are performed outside the Philippines. (BIR Ruling No. 004-2025, 2025)
3) Withholding tax obligation is generally on the Philippine payor
In practice, the Philippine geothermal company (licensee) is typically the withholding agent. If it fails to withhold, the BIR may assess deficiency withholding taxes against the payor, and disputes often revolve around whether the payments are properly classified as royalties and what rate should apply. An example is the assessment for failure to withhold on “management service fees” treated as royalties in Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR (CTA En Banc No. 1291, 2016). (Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, 2016)
How to compute withholding on foreign patent or technology fees: a compliance-oriented guide
Step 1: Identify the recipient’s tax status and classify the payment
For this article, the working assumption is that the foreign investor is a nonresident foreign corporation (NRFC)receiving payments from a Philippine geothermal operator for the use of geothermal extraction patents and related know-how. Where the payee is an NRFC, Philippine withholding commonly applies on certain Philippine-sourced items as a final tax withheld at source.
Step 2: Confirm whether the income is Philippine-sourced
Even for cross-border arrangements, the BIR and CTA may treat the income as Philippine-sourced when the technology, know-how, or IP is used in the Philippines in connection with the local geothermal undertaking. The reasoning is consistent with the “source of income” test applied in CTA decisions and BIR interpretations. (CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026; BIR Ruling No. 004-2025, 2025)
Step 3: Determine whether a tax treaty applies (and document eligibility)
If the payee is resident in a treaty country, the applicable tax treaty (if any) may reduce the Philippine withholding rate on royalties, subject to conditions in the treaty and the payee’s proof of residency and entitlement. Treaty application is fact-specific and documentation-heavy.
If treaty arguments depend on “most-favored nation” type clauses or cross-treaty comparisons, note that the BIR may deny the benefit if treaty conditions are not shown to be satisfied. This is illustrated by a ruling involving an MFN-based claim that was denied for failure to establish the required similarity in double taxation relief mechanics, resulting in the denial of a lower royalty rate. (BIR Ruling No. ITAD-003-26, 2026)
Step 4: Apply the correct withholding rate and base
For NRFCs, Philippine withholding on royalties and similar payments is generally imposed on the gross amount (not net), unless a treaty provides otherwise and is properly invoked. The tax is typically withheld at the time of payment or crediting, depending on the transaction structure.
Step 5: Align contract drafting with tax characterization
Because the BIR and CTA focus on substance, a contract that splits a “technology package” into labels (license fee vs. technical fee vs. support fee) will not automatically change withholding outcomes. If part of the fee is truly for a distinct service performed entirely offshore and not treated as Philippine-sourced under applicable rules, that portion should be clearly delineated, supported by deliverables, and consistent with actual operations. If not, the BIR may treat the entire stream as royalty-like income tied to Philippine use.
Common scenarios in geothermal IP licensing (and likely withholding consequences)
Scenario A: Pure patent license for use in a Philippine geothermal field
If a foreign owner licenses patented geothermal extraction technology for use in a Philippine geothermal field, the payment is commonly treated as a royalty tied to Philippine use. The Philippine licensee should expect to withhold FWT on gross royalties at the applicable rate (domestic or treaty-reduced, if properly supported).
Scenario B: “Technical fee” for supplying proprietary geothermal know-how (no local presence)
If the payment is for the supply of technical knowledge or information that will be used in Philippine operations, the BIR has taken the position that this is Philippine-sourced and subject to Philippine income tax and withholding, even if services are performed outside the Philippines. (BIR Ruling No. 004-2025, 2025)
Scenario C: Combined royalty + ongoing remote advisory services
Where the agreement includes both (i) patent license and (ii) continuing advisory or assistance for plant optimization, reservoir modeling, drilling strategy, or operational troubleshooting, the payor should anticipate scrutiny as to whether the entire consideration is effectively royalty-like under the expanded approach discussed in CTA decisions. (CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026; Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, 2016)
Summary table: compliance checkpoints for foreign geothermal IP payments
| Checkpoint | What to verify | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Payee status | Is the foreign recipient an NRFC? Treaty resident? | Determines whether FWT applies and possible treaty rate |
| Nature of payment | Patent license, know-how supply, advisory services, or bundled | Drives classification as royalty-like income and withholding base |
| Source of income | Used in Philippine geothermal operations? | Philippine sourcing supports BIR withholding position |
| Treaty substantiation | Proof of entitlement and satisfaction of treaty conditions | Without substantiation, BIR may deny reduced rates |
| Documentation | Invoices, deliverables, proof of IP use, withholding returns | Reduces risk of assessment and supports audit defense |
Audit and dispute considerations
In withholding tax controversies, taxpayers challenging assessments typically carry the burden of proving both the inaccuracy of the assessment and the correct tax due. This general approach appears in tax litigation involving withholding issues. (Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, 2016)
On procedure, recent CTA rulings emphasize that BIR assessments must respect administrative due process, including meaningful consideration of the taxpayer’s explanations and evidence at the appropriate stages; failures in this regard can affect the validity of an assessment (though outcomes depend on the specific issue and how the BIR explained its position). (CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026)
Compliance recommendations for foreign investors and Philippine geothermal payors
1) Map the payment streams to clear deliverables. If royalties and services are both present, define each component, pricing, and documentation to match real performance.
2) Confirm Philippine sourcing early. If the IP and know-how are used in Philippine geothermal extraction or plant operations, anticipate withholding and price the deal accordingly.
3) If claiming treaty relief, prepare the substantiation package. Treaty relief is not automatic; ensure residency and entitlement requirements are met and documented, and be cautious with MFN-based theories unless clearly supportable. (BIR Ruling No. ITAD-003-26, 2026)
4) Align withholding mechanics with contract terms. Address gross-up clauses, timing of withholding (payment vs. crediting), and who bears tax cost.
5) Prepare for classification issues under the “expanded royalties” approach. Payments for technical advice, assistance, or knowledge supply tied to Philippine geothermal operations may be treated as royalty-like and taxable at source. (CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026; BIR Ruling No. 004-2025, 2025)
Conclusion
Managing withholding taxes on foreign IP used in Philippine geothermal power generation begins with accurate classification of the payment (often as royalty-like income), confirmation of Philippine sourcing, and disciplined documentation. Where treaty relief is desired, it must be supported with complete proof and careful treaty reading. For both foreign investors and Philippine geothermal operators, the safest course is to structure the contract and compliance file as if the transaction will be examined for substance rather than labels, consistent with prevailing BIR and CTA approaches. (Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. CIR, 2016; CPW Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 2026)
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
