CORAL BAY NICKEL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

.' ~\ ~\ ) I REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CTIY ENBANC CORAL BAY NICKEL CTA -EB CASE NO. 403 CORPORATION, (CTA CASE NO. 7022) Petitioner, Present : - versus - ACOSTA, PJ. CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CASANOVA, and REVENUE, PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, JJ Respondent. Promulgated: MAY292009~ x x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) ; ; ; ; .: :!'": DECISION CASANOVA, J: This is an appeal, by way of a Petition for Review, 1 filed by the petitioner~ Coral Bay Nickel, Corporation (CORAL BAY) from the Decision2 (Decision) of the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division {CTA Second Division) promulgated on March 10, 2008 in CTA Case No. 7022 entitled, "Coral Bay Nickel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue '; denying petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate of its excess input VAT for the period May 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 in the amount of FIFTY MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHTY SIX AND 75/100 PESOS (P50,124,086.75), and from the Resolution 3 (Assailed Resolution) dated July 2, 2008 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.-6i:Z- 1 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 5-25. 2 CTA Second Division Rollo, pp. 492-508. 3 CTA Second Division Rollo, pp. 548-549.

.,......._,\ i CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION The facts of the case, as culled from the records4, are as follows: "Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of Philippine laws, with principal office located at Barangay Rio Tuba, Bataraza, Palawan. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue CBIR') as a Value-Added Tax CVAT') entity with TIN 005-961-540 and Certificate of Registration No. OCN 2002-035-0000296 issued on July 2, 2002 by the BIR. Petitioner is likewise registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority CPEZA') as an Ecozone Export Enterprise, at the Rio Tuba Export Processing Zone, with PEZA Certificate of Registration No. 02-072 (Exhibit 'C), engaged in the manufacture of nickel/cobalt mixed sulfide. Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue CCIR') vested with authority to exercise the functions of said office, including, among others, the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, with office address at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes. For the 3'd and 4th quarters of calendar year CCY') 2002, petitioner filed with the BIR its original VAT returns declaring unutilized input taxes from domestic purchases of capital goods, other than capital goods, and services, in the aggregate amount of P50,325,934.19, detailed as follows: Original VAT Returns 2002 Date Fil ed with the BIR Input VAT Exhibit 3'd Quarter 4 th Quarter October 25, 2002 P40,097,336 .82 ']' Total January 22, 2003 10,228,597.37 'P' P50,325,934 . 19 On August 5, 2003, petitioner amended its VAT returns, declaring unutilized input taxes from domestic purchases of capital goods, other than capital goods, and services for the 3'd and 4th quarters of 2002, in the reduced agg regate amount of P50,124,086.75, detailed as follows: Amended VAT Returns 2002 Date Fil ed with the BIR Input VAT Exhi bit 3'd Quarter -4th Quarter August 5, 2003 P39,978,763 .87 'K' Total August 5, 2003 10,145 ,322.88 'R' P50, 1 24,086 . 75~ 4 March 10, 2009 Decision, pp. 2-6. Supra, note 2.

CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION On June 14, 2004, petitioner filed with respondent's Revenue District Officer, Revenue Region No. 6, Revenue District No. 036 an administrative claim for refund of VAT input taxes on its domestic purchases of capital goods, other than capital goods and services, for the period May 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. For failure of the respondent to act on petitioner's claim for refund, on July 8, 2004, petitioner elevated its case to this Court by way of a Petition for Review. In his Answer, respondent, by way of special and affirmative defenses, alleged that taxes are presumed to have been collected in accordance with law, hence petitioner must prove that taxes sought to be refunded were erroneously or illegally collected; petitioner must show that it complied with Section 51(c) and (d) of the Tax Code, as amended, that (1) the claim is filed with the CIR within the two-year period from date of payment, (2) the return of the recipient must show that the income payment received was declared as part of gross income, and (3) the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; petitioner must show that it has complied with the provisions of Sections 204 (c) and 229 of the Tax Code; and claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimants. Petitioner presented Jocelyn Santos, its General Accountant, and Leonardo Cuaresma, the Court-commissioned independent CPA, as witnesses, and documentary evidence, marked as Exhibits ~ ' to 'KK; inclusive of their submarkings, which were all admitted by the Court in a Resolution dated July 20, 2006, after petitioner filed a 'Motion for Reconsideration' of the Resolution dated April 25, 2006. In a 'Motion for Presentation and Admission of Additional Evidence', which was granted by the Court, petitioner presented Ivan Hilario as additional witness, and additional documentary evidence, marked as Exhibits 'LL ' to 'WW; inclusive of their submarkings, which were admitted by the Court, except for Exhibits 'LL -2-c; 'LL -2-E; 'LL -3-D' to 'LL -3-F; 'LL-6-D; 'LL -8-B; 'LL -9- E; 'LL -10-H ' to 'LL -10-J; 'LL -16-c ; 'LL -16-E; 'LL -17-C; 'LL -19-C; 'LL-20- c; 'LL -20-o; 'LL -20-1; 'LL -20-J; and 'LL -23-G; which were denied admission for petitioner's failure to present the originals thereof. Upon manifestation of counsel for respondent that he will not present any evidence, both parties were ordered to file their simultaneous memoranda, within thirty days .from notice. Both parties having filed their respective memorandum, the case - was deemed _submitted for decision.~ 63 2

' .. CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO . 7022) DECISION After tria l on the merits, the CTA Second Division promulgated a Decision5, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE, and, accordingly, DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. " Not satisfied with the above decision, CORAL BAY filed a "Motion for Reconsideration'16 on April 2, 2008. On May 22, 2008, respondent-erR filed her "Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration"7� Petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Respondent's Opposition"8 on June 10, 2008. On June 24, 2008, petitioner filed its "Reply to Opposition',g. On July 2, 2008, the CTA Second Division promulgated the Assailed Resolutiorr0, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." On July 22, 2008, CORAL BAY filed a "Motion for Extension of Time (to file Petition for Review)"11 with the CTA En Bane. In a Resolution 12 dated July 23, 2008, the CTA En Bane granted the said motion thereby giving CORAL BAY a final and non -extendible period of fifteen (15) days from July 23, 2008, e- or until August 7, 2008, within which to file a Petition for Review. On August 5 Supra, note 2. 6 CTA Second Division, pp . 509-514. 7 CTA Second Division, pp. 526-530. 8 CTA Second Division, pp. 531. 9 CTA Second Division, pp. 534-544. 10 Supra, note 3. 11 CTA En Bane Rollo, p. 1-2. 12-CTA En Bane Roll o, p. 4.

CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION 7, 2008, CORAL BAY filed the instant Petition for Review13 with the CTA En Bane, praying that the Assailed Decision dated March 10, 2008 and the Assailed Resolution dated July 2, 2008 be reversed and set aside, and judgment be rendered declaring petitioner to be entitled to refund/tax credit in the amount of Fifty Million One Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Eighty Six and 75/100 (P50,124,086 .75) representing excess VAT input taxes paid by the petitioner on its domestic purchases of taxable goods and services and on importation and local purchases of capital goods from May 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 and ordering respondent to grant petitioner the refund/tax credit thereof. In support of the instant Petition for review, CORAL BAY submits the following assignments of errors of fact and law14: I. THE COURT IN DIVISION COMMffiED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED, CONTRARY TO A CLEAR PROVISION OF THE TAX CODE AND IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, THAT PEZA-REGISTERED TAXPAYERS, LIKE PETITIONER, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REFUND OF EXCESS VAT INPUT TAXES BASED ON REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT; II. THE COURT IN DIVISION COMMffiED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN MAKING A FINDING OF FACT ON THE BASIS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCE INSTEAD OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED; III. THE COURT IN DIVISION COMMffiED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT APPLIED THE RULE AGAINST PEZA- REGISTERED ENTITIES TO PURCHASES OF PETITIONER WHICH WERE INCURRED PRIOR TO ITS PEZA REGISTRATION; an~ 13 Supra, note 1. 14 Ibid, pp. 10-11. ,.., 4

_j CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION N. THE HONORABLE COURT SHOULD DECLARE REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 74-99, SPECIFICALLY Q-3 and Q-5, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. On August 27, 2008, petitioner, through counsel, filed a "Submission"15 submitting its Secretary's Certificate16. On the same date, the CTA En Bane promulgated a Resolution 17 denying the instant Petition for Review, and accordingly, dismissing the same for being not sufficient in form. Such dismissal was based on petitioner's failure to attach to the Petition for Review the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CTA Second Division in the instant case. On September 8, 2008, petitioner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit the Certified True Copies of the Assailed Decision and Resolution"18. Respondent did not file a Comment on the said motion. On October 2, 2008 the CTA En Bane promulgated a Resolution 19 granting petitioner's motion, and accordingly, admitting the attached certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. Respondent was also ordered to file a Comment on the said Petition for Review. On October 13, 2008, respondent-CIR filed a "Motion for Extension to File Comment"20� In a Resolution21 dated October 14, 2008, the Court En Bane granted the said motion thereby giving the CIR a final and non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from October 17, 2008, or until November 1, 2008, within which to file a Comment on the said Petition for Review ._a- 15 CTA En Bane Rollo, p. 23. 16 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 24-25. 17 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 27-30. 18 CTA Eh Bane Roll o, pp. 32=35 . - 19 CTA En Bane Ro ll o, pp. 59-60. �2 CTA En Bane Roll o, pp. 61 -62. 21 CTA En Bane Rollo, p. 63. 6J 5

CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION On November 3, 2008, CIR filed a "Comment/Opposition To Petitioner's Petition for Review"22 praying that judgment be rendered dismissing the Petition for Review .for laC:k df merit. In a Reso1Lition23 dated November 12, 2008, the Court En Bane gave due course to the instant Petition for Review thus, both parties were ordered to file their respective Memorandum. In compliance with the said Resolution, respondent filed a Memorandum24 on December 12, 2008. On the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum25 on December 17, 2008. The CTA En Bane promulgated a Resolution 26 submitting the case for decision on January 19, 2009. After a careful and thorough evaluation and consideration of the records of the case, the Court En Bane finds no new matters which have not yet been considered and passed upon by the CTA Second Division in its Assailed Amended Decision. As correctly found by the CTA Second Division in the Assailed Amended Decision and We quote, to wit: "The petition is devoid of merit. There is nothing novel in this case as the decisive issue raised herein had already been resolved by the Supreme Court in the negative. In the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toshiba Information Equipment {Phils.J Inc./ (466 SCRA 223-226), the Supreme Court ruled: 'This Court agrees, however, that PEZA-registered enterprises, which would necessarily be located within ECOZONES, are VAT-exempt entities, not because cif ______se_c_ti_o_n__2 4_o_f Rep. Act No. 7916, as amended, which~ 22 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 64-70. 23 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 72-73 . 24 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 74-80. 25 CTA En Bane Rollo, pp. 81-95. 26 CTA En Bane Rollo, p. 98. .. , G

CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION imposes the five percent (5%) preferential tax rate on gross inconie of PEz,A-registered eriterpri$eS, in lieu of all ta'xe~; but, rather, �because of Section � 8 of. the same statute which establishes the fiction that ECOZONES are foreign territory. It is important to note herein that respondent Toshiba is located Within an EGOZONE. An ECOZONE or a Special Economic Zone has been described as - . . . [S]elected areas with highly developed or which have the potential to be developed into agro-industrial, industrial, tourist, recreational, commercia\, banking, investment and financial centers Whose metes and bounds are fixed or delimited by Presidential Proclamations. An ECOZONE may contain any or all of the following: industrial estates (IEs), export processing zones (EPZs), free trade zones and tourist/recreational centers. The national territory of the Philippines outside of the proclaimed borders of the ECOZONE shall be referred to as the Customs Territory. Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 7916, as amended, mandates that the PEZA shall manage and operate the ECOZONES as a separate customs territory; thus, creating the fiction that the ECOZONE is a foreign territory. As a result, sales made by a supplier in the Customs Territory to a purchaser in the ECOZONE shall be treated as an exportation from the Customs Territory. Conversely, sales made by a supplier from the ECOZONE to a purchaser in the Customs Territory shall be considered as an importation into the Customs Territory. Given the preceding discussion, what would be the VAT implication of sales made by a supplier from the Customs Territory to an ECOZONE enterprise? The Philippine VAT system adheres to the Cross Border Doctrine, according to which, no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority. Hence, actual export of goods and services-from the Phi!ippines to a foreign country must be free of VAT~ 7 ,., r ,

CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION while, those de$tined for .use .or consumption within the Philippines shall be Imposed with ten percent (10%) VAT. Applying said doctrine to the sc:fle . of .goods, propertie$, and services to �and from the ECOZONES, the BIR issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 74- 99, on 15 October 1999. Of particular .interest to the present Petition is Section 3 thereof, which reads - SECTION 3. Tax Treatment Of Sales Made By a VAT Registered Supplier from The Customs Territory, To a PEZA Registered Enterprise.- (1) If the Buyer is a PEZA registered enterprise which is subject to the 5% special tax regime, in lieu of all taxes, except real property tax, pursuant to R.A. No. 7916, as amended: (a) Sale of goods (i.e., merchandise). - This shall be treated as indirect export hence, considered subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, pursuant to Sec. 106(A)(2)(a)(5), NIRC and Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 7916, in relation to ART. 77(2) of the Omnibus Investments Code. (b) Sale of service. -This shall be treated subject to zero percent (0%) VAT under the "cross border doctrine" of the VAT System, pursuant to VAT Ruling No. 032-98 dated Nov. 5, 1998. (2) If Buyer is a PEZA registered enterprise which is not embraced by the 5% special tax regime, hence, subject to taxes under the NIRC, e.g., Service Establishments which are subject to taxes under the NIRC rather than the 5% special tax regime: (a) Sale of goods (i.e., merchandise). - This shall be treated as indirect export hence, considered subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, �pursuant to Sec. 106(A)(2)(a)(5), NIRC and Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 7916 in relation to ART. 77(2) of the Omnibus Investments Code. (b) Sale of Service. -This shall be treated subject to zero percent (0%) VAT under the "cross.@- r r,0

--- CfA EB CASE NO. 403 (CfA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION border doctrine" of the VAT System, pursuant to VAT Ruling No. 032-98 dated Nov. 5, 1998. (3) In the. finpl analysis, any Sple of goods; proj:lerty or services made by a VAT registered supplier from the . customs territory to any registered enterprise operating in the ecozone, regardless of the clqss or type of the latter's PEZA reg'istration, is actually qualified ahd thus legally entitled to the zero percent (0%) VAT. Accordingly, all sales of goods or property to such enterprise made by a VAT registered swpplier from the Customs Territory shall be treated subject to 0% VAT, pursuant to Sec. 106(A){2)(a)(5), � NIRC, in relation to ART. 77(2) of the Omnibus Investments Code, while all sales of services to the said enterprises, made by VAT registered suppliers from the Customs Territory, shall be treated effectively subject to the 0% VAT, pursuant to Section 108(B)(3), NIRC, in relation to the provisions of R.A. No. 7916 and the 'Cross Border Doctrine' of the VAT system. This Circular shall serve as a sufficient basis to entitle such supplier of goods, property or services to the benefit of the zero percent (0%) VAT for sales made to the aforementioned ECOZONE enterprises and shall serve as sufficient compliance to the requirement for prior approval of zero-rating imposed by Revenue Regulations No. 7- 95 effective as of the date of the issuance of this Circular. Indubitably, no output VAT may be passed on to an ECOZONE enterprise since it is a VAT-exempt entity. The VAT treatment of sales to it, however, varies depending on whether the supplier from the Customs Territory is VAT- registered or not. xxx xxx.' Pursuant to the above ruling, all sales of goods or property to PEZA-registered enterprises made by VAT registered suppliers - from the-customs territory shall be subjec:t to �o% 'VAT, pursuant to Sec. 106(A}{2)(a)(5)/ of the NIR~ of 1.99~ as amended, in relation to Article 77(2) of the Omnibus Investments Code. While all sales~ b....:'J 9

CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION of services to PEZA-registered enterprises, made by VAT registered suppliers from the customs territory, shall be subject to 0% VAT, pursuant to Section 108(8)(3) of the .NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to the provisions of RA 7916 �and the "Cross Border Doctrine" of the VAT system. In this connection, Section 106(A)(2)(a/{5) of the NIRC, of 199~ as amended, provides: 'SEC. 106. Value-added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. - XXX XXX (2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (a) Export Sales. - The term 'export sales' means: XXX XXX (5) Those considered export sales under Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1997, and other special laws.' Corollary thereto, Article 77 (2) of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987provides: 'ART. 77. Tax Treatment of Merchandise in the Zone.- XXX XXX (2) Merchandise purchased by a registered zone enterprise from the customs territory and subsequently brought into the zone, shall be considered as export sales and the exporter thereof shall be entitled to the benefits allowed by .law for such transaction.' While, Section 108(8)(3) of the NIRC of 199~ as amended, provides: 'SEC 108. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties.~ 640

- \: CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION . XXX XXX (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. -The following ser-Vices performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: XXX XXX (3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the supply of such services to zero percent (0%) rate; xxx xxx.' The Cross Border Doctrine provides that no VAT shall be imposed to form part of the cost of goods destined for consumption outside of the territorial border of the taxing authority (Section 2/ Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 74-99). Since, an ECOZONE is regarded as a foreign territory by RA 7916, the sales of goods and services therefore by VAT registered enterprises to PEZA-registered enterprises are subject to VAT at zero percent rate. Accordingly, no output VAT shall be shifted to or passed on to PEZA-registered enterprises; conversely, no input VAT shall be paid by PEZA-registered enterprises from said purchases. There being no input VAT paid by PEZA-registered enterprises, it necessarily follows that they are not entitled to refund, or issuance of tax credit certificate from their purchases of goods and services. Records show that petitioner is a PEZA registered entity, as evidenced by its PEZA Certificate of Registration No. 02-072 (Exhibit 'C). Applying the foregoing doctrine, petitioner is therefore subject to VAT at zero percent rate. Accordingly, no output VAT shall be shifted to it; hence, petitioner is not entitled to refund or issuance of tax credit certificate from . its domestic purchases of goods and services. It bears stressing that in the aforecited Toshiba case, the Supreme Court, citing Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-03, categorically stated� that 'for invoices/receipts issued upon the effectivity of RMC No. 74-99, the . claims for input VAT by PEZA.e- 64 1.

--... , _J erA EB CASE NO. 403 (erA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION Page 13 oflS registered companies, regardless of the type or class of PEZA- registration; should be denied". Since petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate pertains to input VAT on its domestic pwrchases of goods ahd services for the� period May 1, 2'002 to December 31, 2002. (Exhibits 'W-1' to 'W-241), Which is after the effectivity of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 74-99, petitioner is therefore not entitled to refund, pursuant to the Toshiba case and Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-03. To allow petitioner a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services, when there is no right to demand it against the government, since its purchases are zero-rated, would unduly enrich petitioner at the expense of the government. Under the law, no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. 'Niguno non deue enriquecerse tortizamente condano de otr'(Ong Yong, eta!. vs. DavidS. Tiu, eta!., 375 SCRA 640). Said ruling is equally true in the field of taxation, particularly in cases involving claims for refunds. In instances when petitioner paid input VAT, notwithstanding that under the law it is subject to VAT at zero percent rate, petitioner's recourse is not against the government, but against the seller who shifted to it the output VAT. Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-03 is clearly instructive on this matter: 'In the meantime, the claim for input tax credit by the exporter-buyer should be denied without prejudice to the claimant's right to seek reimbursement of the VAT paid, if any, from its supplier.' Pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-03, petitioner's recourse for those purchases of goods and services where it paid VAT is not a claim for refund against the government, or the issuance of a tax credit certificate; but to seek reimbursement of the input VAT paid from its suppliers of goods and services. For all the foregoing, this Court therefore rules that petitioner, being a -PEZA registered enterprise, is not entitled to refund- or issuance of a tax credit certificate - of its claim for ' unutilized input VAT, in the amount of P50,124,086.75, attributable~

CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) .DECISION to its domestic purchases of goods, other than capital goods, and services for the period May 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002."27 In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusion spelled out in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CTA Second Division. What the instant petition seeks is for the Court En Bane to view and appreciate the arguments/discussions raised by the petitioner in its own perspective of things, Which unfortunately had already been considered and passed upon. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the March . 10, 2008 Decision ahd July 2, 2008 Resolution of the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 7022 entitled, "Coral Bay Nickel Corporation, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue // are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED . �& CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: L~. "'.....,....-\- ERNEsro D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice . Q~;4. c~(J..:;i-~Qk C1 qUANITO C. CASTANEDA/lR.- Associate Justice 27 March 10, 2008 Decision, pp. 8- 16. 64 J

.. ~CA~ Associate Justice CTA EB CASE NO. 403 (CTA CASE NO. 7022) DECISION Page 15-of 15 ... UY E~!:2� Asso~ .�� Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Q~~cQ.~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice 64 4