NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC., (now, Mastercard Transactions Services (Philippines) Inc) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION NEW YORK BAY CTA Case No. 9669 PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson FABON -VICTORINO, and MANAHAN I )). COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Re~~~~~-~~~�- ~~~ - ~ - - ~~ ~~~ - - ---- -x --- DECISION Fabon- Victorino, J.: In this Petition for Review1 filed on August 25, 2017, petitioner New York Bay Philippines, Inc. prays for the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of P46,835,732.67, representing its alleged excess and unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) on its purchases of goods and services attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four (4) quarters of calendar year (CY) 2015 . THE PARTIES Petitioner is a domestic corporation with principal place of business at Unit 2102, 21st Floor Antel Global Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Avenue, Pasig City.2 / 1 Docket, pp. 10-21. 2 Paragrap h 3, Stipu lation of Fact s, Joi nt Stipu lation of Fact s and Issues (JSFI), docket, p. 253.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 Petitioner is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 43 as a VAT taxpayer with Taxpayer Identification No. (TIN) 000-217-994- 000.3 Respondent, on the other hand, is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) with the power to decide, approve and grant claims for refund or tax credit of erroneously paid or overpaid taxes, as provided by law.4 THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS Based on its Amended Article of Incorporation, petitioner was organized with the following primary purpose: "To acquire by purchase, exchange, assignment, gift or otherwise, and to hold, own and use for investment or otherwise, and to sell, assign, transfer, exchange, lease, let, develop, mortgage, pledge, traffic, deal in and with and otherwise operate, enjoy and dispose of any and all properties and assets of every kind and description and wherever situated, as and to the extent permitted by law, including but not limited to, real estate, whether improved or unimproved, and any interest or right therein, as well as building, tenements, warehouses, factories, edifices and structures and other improvements, and bonds, debentures, promissory notes, shares of capital stock, or other securities or obligations, created, negotiated or issued by any corporation, association, or other entity, foreign or domestic, and while the owner, holder or possessor thereof, to exercise all the right, powers and privileges of ownership or any interest therein, including the right to receive, collect and dispose of, any and all rentals, dividends, interests and income derived therefrom, and the right to vote on any proprietary or other interest, on any shares of the capital stock, and upon any bonds, debentures or other securities, having voting power, so owned or held provided that the Corporation shall not engage in mining, and provided further that it shall not engage in the business of an open-end investment company as defined in the Investment Company Act (Republic Act No. 2629), without first complying with the .I 3 Par. 5, Stipulated Facts, JSFI, docket, p. 253. 4 Par. 2, ibid., p. 252.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 applicable provisions of the said Act, without necessarily engaging in stock brokerage or dealership in securities. During the 4 quarters of CY 2015, petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to non-resident foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines, the consideration for which were paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. On April 24, 2015, July 24, 2015, October 23, 2015 and January 22, 2016, petitioner filed with the BIR its original Quarterly VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550-Q) for the 1st, 2nd, 3'd and 4th quarters of CY 2015, respectively, through the BIR's Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS). 5 On February 2, 2015, November 23, 2015 and March 23, 2016, petitioner respectively filed through the BIR eFPS its Amended Quarterly VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550-Q) for the 1st, 3'd and 4th quarters of CY 2015. 6 Per its final/amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the 15\ 2nd, 3'd and 4th quarters of CY 2015, petitioner's gross receipts amounted to P631,162,185.35, which consists of zero-rated sales and local sales subject to 12% VAT. Likewise, it reported an output tax liability of P10,650.21 and accumulated input VAT credits on its domestic purchases of goods and services amounting to P47,188,611.72, for the 4 quarters of CY 2015. Allegedly, petitioner applied a portion of its input tax credits as payment for its output tax of P10,650.21 and deducted therefrom the amount of P342,228.84 representing input tax on purchases of capital goods exceeding P1 million deferred for the succeeding period. Hence, it had excess and unutilized input VAT in the amount of P46,835,732.67 attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, which was not applied against any output tax during the succeeding taxable periods. 5 Exhibits "P-3", "P-5", "P-6" and "P-8". ~ 6 Exhibits "P-4", "P-7" and "P-9".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 On March 29, 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR an administrative claim for refund, with attached Application for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), requesting for the refund of or issuance of TCC of its alleged excess and unutilized input VAT for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 in the amount of P46,835,732.67. 7 On August 25, 2017, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, which was initially raffled to the Court's Second Division. In his Answer,8 respondent argued that in claims for refund, the taxpayer has the burden of proof and must adduce the required documents under the law, rules and regulations. Specifically, petitioner must prove that its sale of services qualified as VAT zero-rated pursuant to Section 108(B)(2) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. It must comply with the parameters laid down under Section 110{B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as well as the substantiation requirements under Section 113 of the same Code and Section 4.108-5(a) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005. It must also establish compliance with the substantiation of input tax credits under Section 4.110-8-5(a) of RR No. 16-05, as amended, and those under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 53-98. After the Pre-Trial Conference on November 23, 2017,9 the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues 10 on January 12, 2018, on the basis of which a Pre-Trial Order was issued on January 19, 2018. 11 During the trial, petitioner presented Ma. Victoria Cruz and Madonna Mia S. Dayego as its witnesses. Witness Ma. Victoria Cruz testified 12 that she started working for petitioner on June 11, 2001 and currently its Senior Accounting Manager. 7 Exhibits "P-18" and "P-20". 8 Docket, pp. 62 to 66. 9 Docket, pp. 67 to 68. 10 Docket, pp. 252 to 260. 11 Docket, pp. 263 to 269. / 12 Exhibit "P-25" and "P-25-a"; Sworn Statement of Ms. Ma. Victoria Cruz dated V November 10, 2017.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 Petitioner's case is for refund or issuance of TCC in the amount of P46,835,732.67, representing its excess and unutilized input VAT on its purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales for the 4 quarters of CY 2015. Petitioner is a domestic corporation authorized to engage in the following business activities, to wit: [t]o acquire by purchase, exchange, assignment, gift or otherwise, and to hold, own and use for investment or otherwise, and to sell, assign, transfer, exchange, lease, let, develop, mortgage, pledge, traffic, deal in and with and otherwise operate, enjoy and dispose of any and all properties and assets of every kind and description and wherever situated, as and to the extent permitted by law. It is also engaged in financial holding activities, particularly the business of a remittance service provider. As a remittance service provider, petitioner utilizes and offers, alternative delivery channels, including door-to- door, deposit to commercial bank account, pick-up from pawnshops and commercial and rural banks, credit cash cards and bills payment, as services to its non-resident clients. For CY 2015, petitioner rendered services to two (2) non- resident clients, namely: i) Trans-Fast Remittance, LLC., a limited company created under the laws of Delaware, United States of America (U.S.A.) and conducting business in the U.S.A. 13; and ii) Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC, a company existing under the laws of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and conducting business therein. 14 Both companies are doing business outside the Philippines and were not engaged in any business activity in the Philippines15 at the time petitioner rendered services to them. The witness further declared that per petitioner's Quarterly VAT Returns for the 15\ 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2015, its gross receipts amounted to P631,162,185.35, consisting of local sales subject to 12% VAT and zero-rated sales amounting to P631,073,433.56. On the other hand, petitioner's output tax on its VATable sales for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 amounted to P10,650.21 16 � 13 Exhibit "P-21". / 14 Exhibit "P-22". 15 Exhibits "P-23" and "P-24". 16 Exhibits "P-3" to "P-9".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 Further, based on its Quarterly VAT Returns for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, petitioner accumulated input VAT credits on its domestic purchases of goods and services in the total amount of P47,188,611. 72. Petitioner applied a portion of its input tax credits as payment for its output tax of P10,650.21 and deducted therefrom the amount of P342,228.84 representing input tax on purchases of capital goods exceeding P1million deferred to the succeeding period. Hence, petitioner had excess and unutilized input VAT in the amount of P46,835,732.67/7 which remained unutilized since it was not applied against any output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters and was not carried forward to the succeeding taxable periods. 18 On March 29, 2017, petitioner filed with BIR RDO No. 43 an administrative claim for refund/issuance of TCC for its excess and unutilized input VAT for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 in the total amount of P46,835J32.6719, with a Sworn Certification that it has submitted complete documents to substantiate its claim for refund. 20 This notwithstanding, the BIR failed to act on the said claim for refund. Hence, petitioner filed the instant case with the Court on August 25, 2017. The Court-commissioned ICPA, Madonna Mia S. Dayego, testified 21 that she audited and evaluated petitioner's documents and record in support of its claim for tax refund/issuance of TCC for its excess and unutilized input VAT on purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales for the 4 quarters of CY ended December 31, 2015. Per her examination and verification of petitioner's pertinent documents, the result of which was stated in her ICPA Report dated February 28, 2018, 22 petitioner is entitled to its claim for refund/issuance of TCC in the reduced amount of P46,371,661.68, corresponding to the excess and unutilized input VAT on purchase of goods and services. The amount of P464,070.99 was disallowed due to petitioner's non-compliance 17 Exhibit "P-9". 18 Exhibits "P-10" to "P-17". 19 Exhibits "P-18" and "P-20". 20 Exhibit"P-19". 21 Exhibits "P-28" and "P-28-a"; Sworn Statement of Ms. Madonna Mia S. Dayego dated / March 14, 2018. If/ 22 Exhibits "P-26" and "P-26-a".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 to the VAT invoicing requirements and lack of supporting documents. After its Formal Offer of Evidence, 23 petitioner rested per Resolution 24 dated September 5, 2018. For his part, respondent presented his lone witness, Revenue Officer II Susan G. Abesamis, who testified 25 that she has been employed with the BIR since 1990 and is currently assigned at RDO 43, Pasig City. Petitioner's application for VAT refund 26 was assigned to her for evaluation and audit investigation through Letter of Authority (LOA) No. LOA-043-2017-00000002 dated April 24, 2017Y Upon receipt of the LOA, she checked the requirements attached to the application for VAT refund and noticed that certain documentary requirements were lacking. Thus, she notified petitioner's representative with instruction to submit the lacking documents. However, petitioner's representative failed to comply, hence, she gave petitioner another extension to comply, but still failed. This prompted her to prepare a Memorandum of Report28 stating that petitioner failed to comply with mandatory requirements for claims for VAT Credit/Refund under Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014, as clarified by RR No. 1-2017. After Formal Offer of Evidence, 29 respondent rested as shown in the Resolution dated January 17, 2019. 30 On September 24, 2018, the instant case was transferred to the Court's First Division. 31 23 Docket, pp. 336 to 368. 24 Docket, pp. 470 and 472. 25 Exhibits "R-4" and "R-4-a". 26 Exhibit "R-1". 27 Exhibit "R-2" 28 Exhibit "R-3". 29 Docket, pp. 475 to 477. 30 Docket, pp. 489 to 490. / 31 Docket, p. 478.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 On March 25, 2019, petitioner filed its Memorandum. 32 Respondent did not despite directive.33 Accordingly, the instant case was deemed submitted for decision on April 10, 2019. 34 THE ISSUE The main issue35 submitted by the parties for the Court's resolution is as follows: WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO ITS CLAIM FOR REFUND OF OR ISSUANCE OF TCC IN THE AMOUNT OF PHP46,835,732.67, REPRESENTING ITS EXCESS AND UTILIZED INPUT VAT FOR THE FOUR QUARTERS OF CY 2015 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner posits that its claim for refund or issuance of TCC for its excess and unutilized input VAT on purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 is in accordance with Section 108 (B), paragraph 2, in relation to Sections llO{B) and 112(A)(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Its sales of services to Trans- Fast Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC qualify as zero-rated sales of services under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Further, its excess and unutilized input VAT for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 amounting to P46,835,732.67 are duly supported by VAT invoices and official receipts (ORs). The subject excess and unutilized input VAT are attributable to its zero-rated sales and were not applied against any output VAT liability during the succeeding taxable quarters. Both its administrative and judicial claims for refund/issuance of TCC were filed within the reglementary periods mandated under Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Respondent's arguments: 32 Docket, pp. 497 to 530. 33 Per Records Verification Report of the Judicial Records Division dated April 2, 2019. v' 34 Docket, p. 535. 35 Stipulation on Issues, JSFI, Docket, p. 254.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 Respondent counters that petitioner must prove that its sales of services qualify as VAT zero-rated pursuant to Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and that it complied with the parameters set forth in Section 110 (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as well as the requirements provided in Sec. 4108-5(a) of RR No. 16-2005, RMO No. 53- 98, Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 4.110-8-5(a) of RR No. 16-05, as amended. THE COURT'S RULING Paragraphs (A) and (C) of Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, pertinently provide as follows: SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. - (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. - Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero- rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(l) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(6)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non- zero-rated sales. XXX XXX XXX /

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals." Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9337, 36 laid down certain requisites for purposes of claiming refund/TCC of alleged excess and unutilized input VAT on its purchases of goods and services attributable to its zero-rated sales. The said requisites are classified into the following categories, to wit: As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims: 1. the claim is filed with the BIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made; 37 2. that in case of full or partial denial of the refund claim, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the said claim within a period of 120 days, the judicial claim has been filed with this Court, within 30 days from receipt 36 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237 AND 288 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 37 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. / 166732, April 27, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal V Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 of the decision or after the expiration of the said 120-day period;38 With reference to the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. the taxpayer is a VAT-registered person; 39 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 40 5. for zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b), and 108(8)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations; 41 As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. the input taxes are not transitional input taxes�I 42 7. the input taxes are due or paid; 43 8. the input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the 38 Steag State Power, Inc. (Formerly State Power Development Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205282, January 14, 2019; Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015. 39 Supra, Note 37. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. / II"' 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume; 44 and 9. the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters.45 Petitioner is a VAT- registered taxpayer. Evidence show that petitioner is a VAT-registered taxpayer with Certificate of Registration No. 3RC0000807275 dated January 1, 199746 and Tax Identification No. (TIN) 000- 217-994-000. Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims were seasonably filed. Pursuant to Section 112(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, petitioner had two (2) years to file a claim for tax refund/credit of its unutilized and excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made. Shown below are the dates of the last day of the two- year period for petitioner to file its administrative claim for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2015: Period Close of taxable End of the 2-year period Date of filing of (CY 2015) quarter to file administrative claim administrative claim 1st Quarter March 31, 2015 March 31, 2017 March 29, 201747 2"d Quarter June 30 2015 June 30, 2017 3'd Quarter September 30 2015 September 30, 2017 December 31, 2015 December 31, 2017 4'" Quarter Evidently, petitioner's administrative claim for refund was timely filed on March 29, 2017. 44 Supra, Note 37. w/ 45 Ibid. 46 Exhibit "P-2". 47 Exhibits "P-18" and "P-20".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 As to the timeliness of petitioner's judicial appeal, Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that the CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application for refund/tax credit, within which to grant or deny the claim. In case of full or partial denial by the CIR, the taxpayer's recourse is to file an appeal before the Court in Division within 30 days from receipt of the decision of the CIR. However, if after the 120-day period the CIR fails to act on the application for refund/TCC, the taxpayer may seek judicial intervention on the CIR's inaction within 30 days. As shown in the following table, petitioner likewise seasonably filed its judicial claim for refund/TCC on August 25, 2017: Period Date of filing of End of 120-day End of 30-day Date of filing of (CY 2015} administrative period for BIR period to file Petition for 1st Quarter Commissioner to judicial claim Review 2"d Quarter claim 3'd Quarter act on the August 26, 2017 August 25, 2017 4th Quarter March 29, 2017 administrative claim July 27, 2017 Per the above table, respondent had 120 days from March 29, 2017 or until July 27, 2017, within which to act on the petitioner's claim. There being no action taken by respondent, petitioner had 30 days or until August 26, 2017, within which to appeal such inaction to the Court. Petitioner is engaged in zero-rated sales of services to non-resident foreign entities during the 4 quarters of CY 2015, albeit only in the amount of P130,660,046.47 Petitioner states that for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, it rendered services to nonresident foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines, namely, Trans-Fast / Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC. ThV

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 services rendered were paid in acceptable foreign currencies and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP pursuant to Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. The text of the provision reads: SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties. - XXX XXX XXX (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. -The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0�/o) rate: (1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (SSP); (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a non-resident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); Significantly, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., 48 the Supreme Court held that in order for services performed in the Philippines to enjoy VAT zero-rating, the following requisites under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, must be met, viz.: ,/ 48 G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 1. The services must be other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods; 2. Payment for such services must be in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations; and 3. The recipient of such services is doing business outside the Philippines. As to the first requisite, it was established that petitioner entered into Service Agreement49 with Trans-Fast Remittance LLC whereby the latter appointed petitioner as its correspondent for the payment of remittances in connection with its Business (transmission of money on behalf of third parties in the United States and abroad) in favor of beneficiaries in the "Location". As stated in the Agreement, Trans-Fast Remittance LLC shall collect funds from remitters in the United States of America and/or the countries where it conducts Business and shall execute Transactions (payment of remittances in connection with the Business) for the transmission of such funds to beneficiaries in the "Location" through petitioner's facilities. 50 Evidently, insofar as Trans-Fast Remittance LLC is concerned, petitioner was able to comply with the first requisite, as the services rendered by petitioner to the latter were not in the same category as "processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods" and that the term "Location" was referred to in the Agreement as the "Philippines", indicating that services were performed or rendered in the Philippines. Petitioner however failed to establish compliance with the first requisite insofar as Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC is concerned, in the absence of proof that the services it rendered in its favor were not in the same category as "processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods" and that they were performed in the Philippines. ,/ 49 Exhibit P-31-1. 50 Section 1 of the Agreement, Exhibit "P-31-1 (6/26)".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 With respect to the third requisite, the Court consistently held that to be considered as a non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported, at the very least, by both a Certificate of Non-Registration of Corporation/Partnership issued by the SEC and proof of Incorporation/ Association/Business Registration in a foreign country and that there is no other indication that the recipient of the services is doing business in the Philippines. 51 To show compliance with the third requisite, petitioner presented the following documents: (1) the Certificates of Non- Registration of Company issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the effect that the records of the SEC do not show the registration of Trans-Fast Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC as a corporation or as a partnership, 52 and (2) the Authenticated copies of Trans-Fast Remittance LLC's Article of Incorporation, License to Transact the Business and Certificate of Formation (with Certificate of Amendmenti3 and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC's Memorandum of Association and Amended Articles of Association. 54 The cited documents established that Trans-Fast Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC at the time of the subject transactions were not doing business in the Philippines while the latter documents showed that Trans-Fast Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC were doing business outside the Philippines. In fine, the said documents duly established that Trans-Fast Remittance LLC and Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC are non-resident foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines. Relative to the second requisite, petitioner presented the Bank Advices or proof of inward from BDO Corporate Remittance System55 showing the remittances of its foreign clients/affiliates for the subject quarters of CY 2015. These documents attest to the fact of payment "in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP". Evidently, petitioner has complied with the above-stated fourth essential element. I 51 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd., CTA EB Nos. 1244 and 1345 (CTA Case No. 8443), March 30, 2017. 52 Exhibits "P-23" and "P-24". 53 Exhibit "P-21". 54 Exhibit "P-22". 55 Exhibits "P-37-1" to "P-37-25".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 It must also be established that the said foreign currency remittances referred to in Section 108(8)(2) be duly supported by VAT zero-rated official receipts as mandated in Section 113(A)(2), (8)(1), (2)(c) and (3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Section 4.113-1(A)(2), 8(1) and (2)(c) of RR No. 16-05, which states that a VAT taxpayer, like herein petitioner, shall for every sale, barter or exchange of services, issue a VAT official receipt which must contain the information stated in the said provisions. The provision reads: SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-registered Persons.- (A) Invoicing Requirements. - A VAT-registered person shall issue: XXX XXX XXX (2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. (B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: (1) A statement that the seller is a VAT- registered person, followed by his Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN); (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax: Provided, That: XXX XXX XXX (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; ~

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 XXX XXX XXX (3) The date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; and xxxx SEC. 4.113-1. Invoicing Requirements. - (A) A VAT-registered person shall issue: - XXX XXX XXX (2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. Only VAT-registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word 'VAT' in their invoice or official receipts. Said documents shall be considered as a 'VAT Invoice' or VAT official receipt. All purchases covered by invoices/receipts other than VAT Invoice/VAT Official Receipt shall not give rise to any input tax. VAT invoice/official receipt shall be prepared at least in duplicate, the original to be given to the buyer and the duplicate to be retained by the seller as part of his accounting records. (B) Information contained in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: (1) A statement that the seller is a VAT- registered person, followed by his TIN; (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays j or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT; Provided, That: XXX XXX XXX

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; In the instant case, aside from the bank advices, petitioner also presented its Schedule of Zero-rated Sales for CY 201556 and the corresponding VAT zero-rated 0Rs57 supporting its total declared zero-rated sales of P631,073,433.56 for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, detailed as follows: PeriodCCY 20151 Exhibit No. Zero-Rated Sales/Receipts 1stQuarter "P-4" p 221,960,618.05 2nd Quarter "P-5" 142,255 253.84 3rd0uarter "P-7" 164,474,999.06 4th Quarter "P-9" 102,382,562.61 Total p 631,073,433.56 However, upon verification of the submitted documents, only the zero-rated sales of P130,660,046.47, in relation to petitioner's sales to Trans-Fast Remittance LLC, are duly supported by bank advices (or proof) of inward remittances and zero-rated ORs, detailed as follows: Official Receiot Bank Amount Conversion Amount in PHP Advice (c)= Cal* Cbl Date No. Exhibit Exhibit in USD Rate (a} (b) "P-37-2" 1�� Quarter "P-37-3" "P-37-6" 01121/2015 11541 "P-35-27" "P-37-8" P198 209.50 P44.9514 P8 909 794.52 "P-37-10" 229 750.75 44.6878 10 267 055.57 02/03/2015 11542 "P-35-28" 192 574.75 44.6044 "P-37-12" 189 904.75 44.2214 8 589 681.18 03/11/2015 11545 "P-35-31" "P-37-13" 222 146.50 44.4457 8 397 853.91 "P-37-15" 9 873 456.70 04/17/2015 11547 "P-35-33" F1 032 586.25 1'46 037 841.88 "P-37-17" 05/04/2015 11549 "P-35-35" "P-37-20" "P-37-21" Subtotal- 1" Quarter 2"d Quarter 05/28/15 11551 "P-35-37" P197 675.50 P44.4136 P8 779 480.59 224 374.75 44.6106 10 009 492.22 06/25/15 11552 "P-35-38" 235 071.50 44.9831 10 574 244.79 F29 363 217.60 07/28/15 11554 "P-35-40" F657 121.75 Subtotal - 2"� Quarter 3'� Quarter 08/20/2015 11556 "P-35-42" P266 735.75 45.2649 P12 073 767.05 299 419.50 46.1420 13 815 814.57 09/30/2015 11559 "P-35-45" 300 768.75 46.7504 14 061 059.37 10/22/2015 11561 "P-35-46" F866 924.00 F39 950 640.99 Subtotal - :3'" Quarter / 4th Qua!'1;!:;r 56 Exhibit "P-32". 57 Exhibits "P-35-26" to "P-35-50".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 I I 11/25/2015 I "P-37-23" 11563 "P-35-48" P330 199.50 46.3609 P15 308 346.00 330199.50 15 308 346.00 Subtotal - 4"' Quarter P2,886,831.50 P130,660,046.47 GRAND TOTAL Therefore, out of the P631,073,433.57 zero-rated sales declared per VAT Returns for the four (4) quarters of CY 2015, only the amount of P130,660,046.47, as presented above, qualifies for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2), in relation to Section 113(A)(2), (B)(1), (2)(c) and (3), both of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. To be clear, the rest of petitioner's declared zero-rated sales pertaining to Trans-Fast International FZ-LLC in the amount of P500,413,387.12, as detailed below, shall be denied VAT zero-rating for petitioner's failure to prove that the services it rendered thereto were not in the same category as "processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods", and that the services rendered were performed in the Philippines. Having found that petitioner had valid VAT zero-rated sales only in the total amount of P130,660,046.47 for the subject period of claim, the Court shall proceed to determine whether petitioner complied with the remaining requisites pertaining to the input VAT being claimed for refund/TCC. The input VAT being claimed does not appear to be transitional input taxes. In its Quarterly VAT Returns for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, petitioner declared a total input VAT of P46,846,382.88 from its current domestic purchases of goods and services, as shown in the table below: Exhibits 1st Quarter 2"d Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter TOTAL Input Tax Due on CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 Capital Goods - exceedina P1M "P-4" "P-5" "P-7" "P-9" 354 948.54 354 948.54 Deferred from p - p - p -p -p 342 228.84 orevious auarter Purchase of Capital - - - 354 948.54 / Goods Exceeding P1M p - p - p - p 354 948.54 p Total - - - 342 228.84 I Less: Deferred for the succeedinq

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 period p -p - p - p 12 719.70 p 12 719.70 Amortized input - tax on capital goods exceeding p 30 977.84 p 130 388.55 , 323 748.71 p 187 555.34 p 672 670.44 I'1M Input Tax Due on 19 523.96 20 893.~2 15 007.68 33 034.23 88 459.69 Current Purchases of Goods other than p 50 501.80 p 151 282.37 p 338 756.39 p 220 589.57 p 761 130.13 Capital Goods Input tax on p 10 468 201.64 p 11 144 642.80 p 11 995 641.40 p p 46 072 533.05 purchase of capital P10,518,703.44 P11,295,925.17 12 464 047.21 P46,846,382.88 goods not exceedino P1M P12,334,397.79 P12,697,356.48 Input tax on domestic purchases of goods other than capital aoods Sub-total In ut Tax Paid on: Input tax on domestic purchases of services Total input tax during the period The above input taxes do not appear to be transitional input taxes, as understood under Section lll(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: SEC. 111. Transitional/Presumptive Input Tax Credits. - (A) Transitional Input Tax Credits. - A person who becomes liable to value-added tax or any person who elects to be a VAT-registered person shall, subject to the filing of an inventory according to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, be allowed input tax on his beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies equivalent to two percent (2%) of the value of such inventory or the actual value-added tax paid on such goods, materials and supplies, whichever is higher, which shall be creditable against the output tax. Transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT-registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the acquisitions of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies. During the period of transition from/

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax credit serves to alleviate the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer. 58 Absent any showing that the claimed input VAT were transitional input VAT, the sixth requisite for the grant of an input VAT refund under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, has been complied with. The input taxes being claimed are due or paid. Out of the reported total input VAT of P46,846,382.88, petitioner's claim for refund of the excess input VAT in the amount of P46,835J32.67, is determined as follows: l't Quarter 2"d Quarter 3rd Quarter 4tn Quarter TOTAL CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 Total input tax p 10 518 703.44 p 11 295 925.17 p 12 334 397.79 durino the neriod - - - p 12 697 356.48 p 46 846 382.88 Less: Outout tax P10,518,703.44 10 650.21 10 650.21 Excess input tax --- p 11,295,925.17 P12,334,397.79 p 12,686,706.27 P46,835,732.67 In support of its input taxes of P46,846,382.88, petitioner submitted various sales invoices59 and 0Rs, 60 which were examined by the ICPA. As reflected in the ICPA Report, 61 the input VAT due or paid in the amount of P464,070.99, as summarized below, shall be disallowed for failure to meet the substantiation requirements under Sections 110(A), 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Sections 4.110-1, 4.110-2, 4.110-8 and 4.113-1 of RR No. 16-2005, as amended: Exhibit Particulars 1st Quarter 2"d Quarter 3"' Quarter 4th Quarter Total CY 2015 p 22 138.55 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 Input taxes due on: - Capital Goods not Exceeding Pl Million "P-45" Supported by original VAT p 3 624.27 p 5 897.14 p 12 617.14 invoices without the TIN of the Petitioner 58 Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 158885 and 170680, April 2, 2009. 59 Exhibits "P-44-1" to "P-44-26"I "P-45-1" to "P-45-3"I "P-47-1" to "P-47-6"I "P-48-1" to "P-48-53" and "P-49-1". 60 Exhibits "P-51-1" to "P-51-230", "P-52-1" to "P-52-11" and "P-53-1" to "P-53-13". j 61 Exhibit "P-26", !CPA Report Binder, Pages 22 to 23 of 28, Table 15.

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 "P-46" I Not suooorted I 9 482.14 I P 7 907.15 I 219 162.92 I 3 974.47 I 240 526.68 Domestic Purchases of Goods other than Caoital Goods - 121.07 6 847.00 Supported by original VAT 1 054.01 ~ 17645.62 ~269633.30 invoices in the name of the p 105 007.90 p 105 007.90 "P-49" Petitioner not dated or issued 121.07 - - "P-50" within the taxable vear 1 819.35 2 694.72 3 907.50 7 650.12 Not suooorted 1 278.92 32 737.23 81 779.67 ~141 652.63 ~194 437.69 Subtotal ~15046.83 ~ 10 601.87 ~226338.98 P159.298.25 P464.070.99 Inout taxes oaid on Domestic Purchases of Services Supported by original VAT official receipts in the name of the Petitioner not dated or issued within the taxable - - - "P-52" vear Supported by original VAT official receipts without/ p 432.00 p 1 548.12 p 1 762.50 "P-53" invalid TIN of the Petitioner "P-54" Not suooorted 13 432.28 15 924.02 19686.14 Subtotal ~13864.28 ~ 17472.14 ~ 21 448.64 Total P28,911.11 p 28,074.01 P247.787.62 In addition, the input VAT due or paid in the aggregate amount of P71,585.44 shall likewise be disallowed for the grounds stated hereunder: 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Exhibit Suoolier's Name CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 Total lf]put taxes due on: Caoital Goods not Exceeding ~1 Million l. Supported by VAT invoice but without the notation "This invoice shall be valid for five years from the date of the ATP/Permit to use" "P-44-11" Anson @Home Inc. I I I P 1 167.86 I IP 1 167.86 2. Suooorted bv VAT invoice but with unreadable details "P-44-8" Power Mac Center Inc. I I P 1 391.79 I I I 1 391.79 Domestic Purchases of Goods other than Capital Goods l. Supported by VAT invoices but without the notation "This invoice shall be valid for five years from the date of the ATP/Permit to Use" I I 306.21 I 306.21 "P-48-28" I Anson @Home Inc. I 162.86 I I 162.86 "P-48-29" I Anson @Home Inc. 2. Supported by document with notation "NOT VALID AS SOURCE OF INPUT TAX" "P-48-43" Pronto Express Distribution, p 144.00 144.00 Inc. - ~1 391.79 ~1 636.93 ~ 144.00 ~3172.72 Subtotal Inout taxes oaid on Domestic Purchases of Services 1. Suooorted bv VAT ORs but the VAT amounts were not seoarately shown "P-51-2" Airfreiaht 2100 Inc. p 22.20 p 22.20 Constantino Gaudalquiver & "P-51-7" Co CPA's 1 440.00 1 440.00 The Bridge Language "P-51-56" Learning Solutions Inc. 11 688.30 11 688.30 The Bridge Language "P-51-57" Learning Solutions Inc. 202.50 202.50 The Bridge Language "P-51-91" Learnina Solutions Inc. 202.50 202.50 The Bridge Language "P-51-92" Learnina Solutions Inc. 2 632.50 2 632.50 Integrated Safeguard p 421.25 421.25 "P-51-312" Security Aaencv. Inc. 2. Supported by VAT ORs but with unreadable details Ante! Global Corporate "P-51-3" Center 7 396.87 7 396.87 Ante! Global Corporate "P-51-31" Center 7 396.87 7 396.87 3. Supported by VAT ORs but without the notation "This official receipt shall be valid for five years from the date of the ATP/Permit to Use" "P-51-303" I CIS Bayad Center Inc. I I I I 17 247.86 I 17 247.86 "P-51-333" I CIS Bayad Center Inc. I I I I 13 879.29 I I 13 879.29 4. Supported by VAT ORs but not dated Ante! Global Corporate "P-51-63" Center 2 393.67 2 393.67

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume. In the instant case, there exists a zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable sales. Specifically, in the Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2015, petitioner reported total sales in the following amounts: Type of Sale 11t Quarter 2"d Quarter 3n:J Quarter 4th Quarter TOTAL CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 201S VATable "'P-4'' "P-5" "P-7" Zero-Rated "P-9" Total Sales p 221 960 618.05 p 142 255 253.84 p 164 474 999.06 P221,960,618.0S P142,255,253.84 P164,474,999.06 p 88 751.79 p 88 751.79 102 382 562.61 631 073 433.56 P102,471,314.40 P631d�_~,185.35 In other words, on the basis of its Quarterly VAT Returns for the subject periods, petitioner had sales for the said periods in the aggregate amount of P631,162,185.35. However, since its input VAT cannot be directly or entirely attributed to any of the transactions, the Court shall allocate the valid input VAT of P46,310,726.45 proportionately on the basis of the volume of its sales, as shown below: Taxable Sales for the CY 2015 p 88 751.79 Divided by the Reported Total Sales per Quarterly VAT Returns Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT p 631 162 185.35 Valid in(lut VAT a_l_located to sales subject to the 12% VAT p 46 310 726.45 Total Valid Zero-Rated Sales Divided by the Reported Total Sales per Quarterly VAT Return p 6 512.05 Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT Valid Input VAT allocated to valid zero-rated sales p 130 660 046.47 p 631 162,185.35 p 46 310 726.45 p 9,587,015.53 Thus, for purposes of, and with regard to petitioner's compliance with, the eighth requisite, only the amount of P9,587,015.53 represents valid input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales. Petitioner's input taxes were not applied to any output tax liability. j For the 4 quarters of CY 2015, petitioner had output VAT liability in the amount of P10,650.21. 62 Since petitioner's valid 62 Line 19B of Exhibit "P-9".

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 � Antel Global Corporate 849.05 849.05 "P-51-64" Center 249.36 5. Supported by VAT DRs but with notation "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID FOR CLAIMING INPUT TAX" 249.36 249.36 Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 249.36 "P-51-23" Inc. 249.36 249.36 Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 249.36 "P-51-52" Inc. 249.36 249.36 Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 "P-51-86" Inc. 395.62 Pronto Express Distribution, p 249.36 ~8412.72 "P-51-121" Inc. P71585.44 Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 "P-51-156" Inc. Pronto Express Distribution, p 249.36 "P-51-224" Inc. Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 "P-51-255" Inc. Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 "P-51-288" Inc. Pronto Express Distribution, 249.36 "P-51-320" Inc. 6. Suooorted by VAT OR but without the address of oetitioner P-51-186 Integrated Safeguard 395.62 Securitv Aaencv. Inc. ~34 972.54 ~894.34 ~748.08 ~31 797.76 Subtotal P34 972.54 P31 941.76 Total P2 286.13 P2 385.01 Thus, out of the total declared input VAT of P46,846,382.88 for the 4 quarters of CY 2015, only the amount of P46,310,726.45, as computed below, represents petitioner's valid input VAT for the same period, and to be considered for the purpose of petitioner's compliance with the seventh requisite: Reported Current 1st Quarter 2"d Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter TOTAL Input VAT per Returns CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 CY 2015 p 46 846 382.88 Less: Disallowances: p 10 518 703.44 p 11 295 925.17 p 12 334 397.79 p 12 697 356.48 Per !CPA Report 28,911.11 Per Court's 34 972.54 28,074.01 247,787.62 159,298.25 464 070.99 further verification PJ,0,454,819.79 Valid Input VAT due 2 286.13 2 385.01 31 941.76 71 585.44 or paid for CY 2015 P11,265,565.0_3 P12 084 225.16 P12 506 116.47 P46 310 726.45 Since there were both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable sales, the said amount of P46,310,726.45 shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume. To reiterate, the eighth condition requires that the input j taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and

DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 input VAT in the amount of P6,512.05 allocated to sales subject to the 12% VAT was not enough to cover the said output VAT liability, the output VAT still due against petitioner shall be as follows: Output VAT liabilities for the CY 2015 p 10,650.21 Less: Valid Input VAT allocated to Sales subject to the 12% VAT 6,512.05 Output VAT Still Due p 4,138.16 The valid input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales in the amount of P9,587,015.53, as earlier determined, shall then be utilized against the said remaining output VAT liability of petitioner in the amount of P4,138.16. Correspondingly, only the remaining input VAT of P9,582,877.37 represents petitioner's unapplied/excess input VAT attributable to its valid zero-rated sales, as determined below: Valid Input VAT Allocated to Zero-Rated Sales p 9,587,015.53 Less: Output VAT still due 4,138.16 Excess input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales p 9,582,877.37 Needless to state, the said amount of P9,582,877.37 is included in the amount of the subject refund claim, i.e., the amount of P46,835,732.67. Although the subject input VAT were initially carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns, 63 the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in its Amended 4th Quarterly VAT Return of CY 2015. 64 It bears stressing that after deducting the input VAT the amount which is subject of the present claim, petitioner had P0.01 65 amount of tax still payable as of the end of the 4th quarter of CY 2015. Moreover, only the amount of "PO.OO" was reflected as Input Tax Carried Over from Previous Period in the succeeding Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the 1st Quarter of CY 2016. All stated, petitioner has sufficiently established that it is entitled to a refund or issuance of TCC corresponding to its J excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated 63 Exhibits "P-5", "P-7" and "P-911 � 64 Line 23D of Exhibit "P-9". 65 Line 29 of Exhibit "P-9".

..... DECISION CTA Case No. 9669 sales for the 4 quarters of CY 2015 but in the reduced amount of P9,582,877.37. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner New York Bay Philippines, Inc., on August 25, 2017, is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DIRECTED to REFUND or to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner New York Bay Philippines, Inc. the amount of P9,582,877.37, representing its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four (4) quarters of CY 2015. SO ORDERED. ' . FABON-VICTORINO We concur: t('a,/~' J:',4bc.c.,...,,...d.ut---- Presiding Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII 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's Division. Presiding Justice