PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA-ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE [consol with 9829]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PROCTER & GAMBLE CTA CASE Nos. 9768 & 9829 INTERNATIONAL Members: OPERATIONS SA- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, MANAHAN, and ROH~ REYES-FAJARDO, fl. Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _,_- - - - - DECISION REYES-FAJARDO, J.: The consolidated Petitions for Review respectively filed on February 14, 2018 and April30, 2018, by petitioner Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ against respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, seek the refund of the total amount of Fifty-One Million Seven Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Two Pesos and Twenty Centavos (P51,742,702.20), representing its alleged e)(cess and unutilized input VAT on the purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales for the period covering July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, detailed as follows:I Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated February 19, 2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. IV, p. 2171; Statement of the Case, Amended Pre-Trial Order d ated June 7, 2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, p. 4324. (Sf

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of39 CTACaseNo. Period Covered Amount of Claim 9768 July 1, 2015 to September 1"37,374,865.93 30, 2015 (1st quarter of 9829 fiscal year (FY) 2016) 1"14,367,836.27 October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (2nd 1"51,742,702.20 quarter of FY 2016) Total FACTS Petitioner is the Philippine Regional Operating Headquarters (ROHQ) of a multinational company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Switzerland. Petitioner is licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to transact business in the Philippines under SEC Registration No. FS201104304 dated March 24, 2011, with registered office address at 11th Floor, Net Park, 5th Avenue, Crescent Park West, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig 1634.2 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, as a VAT taxpayer, with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 406-931-778-00000. On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue vested under the appropriate laws with the authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of said office, including inter alia, the duty to act upon and approve claims for refund pursuant to the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and other tax laws, rules, and regulations. Respondent holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City.3 On September 18, 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR-Large Taxpayers Services Regular Audit Division (BIR-LTRAD), an administrative claim for refund of and/ or the issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) of its unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales of service during the 1st quarter of FY 2016 covering the period 2 Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. IV, p. 2108. 3 Par. 2, Stipulation of Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, p. 2108. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page3 o�39 from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, in the total amount of P37,374,865.93.4 On December 5, 2017, petitioner also filed with the BIR-LTRAD an administrative claim for the refund and/or issuance of tax credit certificate for its unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales of service during the 2nd quarter of FY 2016 covering the period from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, in the total amount of P14,367,836.27.s Respondent has neither approved nor denied its administrative claim for refund for the period covering July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015. On April 2, 2018, petitioner received respondent's letter dated March 5, 2018, 6 denying its administrative claim for refund or issuance of TCC for the period covering October 1, 2015 to December 31,2015. CTA Case No. 9768: On February 14, 2018, alleging inaction, petitioner filed a Petition for Review? which was raffled to the Court's Second Division. On April26, 2018, respondent filed an Answer.s On June 1, 2018, respondent filed her Pre-Trial Brief;9 while on June 4, 2018, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Briepo and its Omnibus Motion (I. Motion to Consolidate Cases; and II. Motion To Defer Pre-Trial Conference).n 4 Exhibits "P-9" and "P-9.1", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4237 to 4246. s Exhibits "P-9.3" and "P-9.4", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4248 to 4255. 6 Exhibit "P-12", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4301 to 4303. 7 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 10 to 21. s Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 103 to 109. ' Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 145 to 147. 1o Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 149 to 159. 11 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 161 to 165. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page4 o�39 CTA Case No. 9829: On April 30, 2018, petitioner filed a Petition for Review,12 which was raffled to the Court's Third Division. On June 4, 2018, petitioner filed a Motion to Consolidate,13 CTA Case No. 9829 with CTA Case No. 9768. In the Resolution dated August 22, 2018, the Court's Third Division granted petitioner's Motion to Consolidate, and the present cases were consolidated, subject to the conformity of the Court's Second Division.14 On August 24, 2018, respondent filed her Answer.15 On August 30, 2018, respondent submitted the BIR Records of this case.16 Consolidated CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829: In the Resolution dated September 4, 2018,17 the Court stated that the Court's Second Division has no objection to the Resolution of the Court's Third Division consolidating CTA Case No. 9829 with CTA Case No. 9768, the case bearing the lower number. In view of the reorganization of the three (3) Divisions of the Court, pursuant to CTA Administrative Circular No. 02-2018 dated September 18, 2018, the consolidated cases were transferred to the First Division of this Court.18 12 Docket (CIA Case No. 9829), pp. 10 to 21. 13 Docket (CTA Case No. 9829), pp. 99 to 103. 14 Docket (CfA Case No. 9768) - Vol. I, p. 183; Docket (CfA Case No. 9829), p. 127. 15 Docket (CfA Case No. 9829), pp. 128 to 135. 16 Compliance dated August 29,2018, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 185 to 186. 17 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 190 to 191. 18 Order dated September 24,2018, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, p. 205. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue PageS o�39 On September 21, 2018, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Briej,t9 while on November 8, 2018, respondent filed her Consolidated Pre-Trial Briepo On November 15, 2018, the Pre-Trial Conference was held.2t On December 5, 2018, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues,22 which the Court approved in the Resolution dated December 20, 2018.23 On February 19, 2019, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order.24 During trial, petitioner presented Mr. Carlos Ben C. Ignacio,25 petitioner's Comptroller and Compliance Manager; and Mr. Jay A. Ballesteros,26 the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA).27 The Report of the ICPA was submitted on March 22,2019.28 On May 16,2019, petitioner filed its Formal Offer ofEvidence,29 to which respondent filed her Comment (on Petitioner's Motion to Amend Pre-Trial Order) on May 22, 2019.30 19 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 193 to 204. 20 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) Docket- Vol. III, pp. 2038 to 2041. 21 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated October 12, 2018, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) Docket - Vol. III, pp. 2038 to 2042; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, November 15,2018, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2088 to 2097. 22 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2103 to 2117. 23 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, p. 2119. 24 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2171 to 2197. 25 Exhibit "P-31", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. I, pp. 210 to 242; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 19,2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2198 to 2202. 26 Exhibit "P-23", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2238 to 2272; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, April 2, 2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, pp. 2273 to 2277. 27 Oath of Commission dated February 21, 2019; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 21, 2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. IV, pp. 2204 to 2206, and 2208 to 2209, respectively. 2B Exhibit "P-22". 29 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2301 to 2341. 30 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4314 to 4317. Cf/

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 of39 In the Resolution dated August 15, 2019,31 the Court admitted petitioner's offered exhibits, except for the following: 1. Exhibits "P-4," "P-6.5," "P-6.7," "P-6.8," "P-6.10," "P-6.22," "P-6.23," "P-7.22," "P-7.23," "P-21.9," and "P-21.12," for failure to present their originals for comparison; and 2. Exhibits "P-6.42," "P-20-26," "P-20-27," "P-20-47," "P-20-65," "P-20-84," "P-20-93," "P-20-96," "P-20-113," "P-20-117," "P- 20-118," "P-20-127," "P-20-138," "P-20-141," "P-20-144," "P- 20-154," "P-20-158," "P-20-159," "P-20-160," "P-20-182," "P- 20-183," "P-20-184," "P-20-186," "P-20-190," "P-20-191," "P- 20-192," "P-20-203," "P-20-204," "P-20-271," and "P-22-272," for failure of document formally offered and identified to correspond with the document marked. On June 7, 2019, the Court issued an Amended Pre-Trial Order.32 On September 11, 2019, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion [(i) Motion for Reconsideration Re: Resolution dated August 15, 2019; (ii) Motion for Leave of Court to Recall Witness).33 Respondent failed to file his comment thereto.34 In the Resolution dated January 23, 2020,35 the Court granted the Motion for Leave of Court to Recall Witness. Thus, the Court- commissioned ICPA, Mr. Jay A. Ballesteros, was recalled, and testified again.36 In the Resolution dated November 24, 2020,37 the Court partially granted petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Resolution dated August 15, 2019, and admitted Exhibits "P-6.22," "P-6.23," "P- 7.22," "P-7.23," "P-20-26," "P-20-27," "P-20-47," "P-20-65," "P-20-84," "P-20-93," "P-20-96," "P-20-113," "P-20-117," "P-20-118," "P-20-127," 31 Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4358 to 4365. 32 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4324 to 4351. 33 Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4381 to 4391. 34 Records Verification dated November 5, 2019 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4395. 35 Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4381 to 4391. 36 Exhibit "P-32", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4409 to 4416; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, March 10, 2020, Docket (CIA Case No. 9768) - Vol. VII, pp. 4418 to 4421; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 22, 2020, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4430 to 4434. 37 Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4437 to 4442. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 7 of39 "P-20-138," "P-20-141," "P-20-144," "P-20-154," "P-20-158," "P-20- 159," "P-20-160," "P-20-182," "P-20-183," "P-20-184," "P-20-186," "P- 20-190," "P-20-191," "P-20-192," "P-20-203," "P-20-204," "P-20-271," "P-22-272," "P-21.9," and "P-21.12;" but still denied the following: 1. Exhibits "P-4," "P-6.5," "P-6.7," "P-6.8," "P-6.10," and "P- 6.22," for failure to present their originals for comparison; and 2. Exhibits "P-6.42", for failure of document formally offered and identified to correspond with the document marked. Petitioner then rested its case. Respondent presented Revenue Officers, Ms. Carolyn Mendoza,3s as her witness in CTA Case No. 9768; and Ms. Olivia Sison,39 as her witness in CTA Case No. 9829. On February 11, 2021, respondent filed her Formal Offer of Evidence, 40 to which petitioner filed its Comment (Re: Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence) on March 2, 2021.41 In the Resolution dated June 15, 2021,42 the Court admitted respondent's offered exhibits. On July 23, 2021, respondent filed her Memorandum,43 while on July 30, 2021, petitioner filed its Memorandum.44 The present consolidated cases were submitted for decision on October 27, 202}.45 38 Exhibit "R-9", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. III, pp. 2057 to 2062; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, August 27, 2019, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4368 to 4370. 39 Exhibit "R-9", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. III, pp. 2047 to 2052; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 2, 2021, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. VII, pp. 4443 to 4447. 40 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4450 to 4456. 41 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4458 to 4463. 42 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4469 to 4470. 43 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4471 to 4484. 44 Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, pp. 4487 to 4525. 45 Resolution dated October 27,2021, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VII, p. 4528. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 8 o�39 ISSUE As stipulated by the parties, the sole issue to be resolved in this case, is as follows: WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNT OF P51,742,702.20 REPRESENTING ITS EXCESS AND UNUTILIZED INPUT VAT FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND QUARTERS OF FY 2016, COVERING THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31 2015, ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS ZERO- RATED SALES OF SERVICES TO NONRESIDENT ENTITIES CONDUCTING BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES." 46 ARGUMENTS Petitioner argues that it complied with all the requisites for the grant of input VAT refund under Section 112 of the NIRC, as amended. In particular, petitioner alleges that: 1) It is a VAT- registered entity; 2) Its sales of services to its customers outside the Philippines are zero-rated sales; 3) It paid or incurred input VAT which are properly substantiated in accordance with the law and regulations; 4) The input VAT that it paid or incurred are attributable to zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales; 5) The input VAT have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding periods; and 6) Its claim for refund was filed within the mandatory period provided under the law. Respondent contends that petitioner was not able to prove its entitlement to the refund sought. Respondent counters that: one, petitioner failed to show proof of remittances of foreign currency from export sales of service; and second, petitioner failed to submit sufficient proof that its client-affiliates are not doing business in the Philippines. 46 Stipulation of Issue, JSFI, Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. IV, p. 2109. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 9 o�39 THE RULING OF THE COURT The Petitions for Review are denied. As will be discussed below, petitioner failed to prove before this Court that it is entitled to the claim for refund under substantive law, as enunciated in Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (PTGI).47 In PTGI, the Supreme Court explained that in an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer must prove that it is not only entitled to the claim for tax refund under substantive law but also that the taxpayer satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim, thus: At this stage, a review of the nature of a judicial claim before the CTA is in order. In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR,48 it was ruled- ... First, a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is by no means an original action but rather an appeal by way of petition for review of a previous, unsuccessful administrative claim. Therefore, as in every appeal or petition for review, a petitioner has to convince the appellate court that the quasi-judicial agency a quo did not have any reason to deny its claim. In this case, it was necessary for petitioner to show the CTA not only that it was entitled under substantive law to the grant of its claims but also that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for refund or tax credit. Second, cases filed in the CTA are litigated de novo. Thus, a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. Since it is crucial for a petitioner in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, part of the evidence to be submitted to the CTA must 47 G.R. No. 207112, December 8, 2015. 48 G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 10 of39 necessarily include whatever is required for the successful prosecution of an administrative claim. A distinction must, thus, be made between administrative cases appealed due to inaction and those dismissed at the administrative level due to the failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents. If an administrative claim was dismissed by the CIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice/request, then the judicial claim before the CTA would be dismissible, not for lack of jurisdiction, but of the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the claim at the administrative level. When a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince the CTA that the CIR had no reason to deny its claim. It, thus, becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show the CTA that not only is he entitled under substantive law to his claim for refund or tax credit, but also that he satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirement for an administrative claim. It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit a document requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA.49 The refund claimant must establish that the BIR has no reason to deny its administrative claim for refund and must specifically show the Court that: first, all documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim were satisfied at the BIR level, and second, the taxpayer's entitlement to the claim for refund or issuance of TCC under substantive law. In the present case, the BIR's denial of petitioner's claim for the 1st quarter of FY 2016 was issued beyond the 120-day period prescribed by law. Thus, the corresponding judicial claim was filed by petitioner due to the alleged inaction of respondent. Consequently, the Court may give credence to all evidence presented by petitioner, as the case is being essentially decided in the first instance. " Boldfacing supplied. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 11 of39 As to petitioner's judicial claim for the 2nd quarter, petitioner has the duty to show and convince this Court that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, and it has satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim. Requisites for the grant of the refund or issuance of TCC under the law. Section 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9337,so provides 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)(l), (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 or 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(B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. (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 50 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. ~

CIA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 12 of39 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. Based on the foregoing provisions, jurisprudence has laid down requisites which must be complied with by the taxpayer-applicant to obtain a refund/ TCC of input VAT, 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 (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made;51 2. 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 one hundred twenty (120) days, the judicial claim has been filed with this Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision or after the expiration of the said 120-day period;52 With reference to the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. The taxpayer is a VAT-registered person;S3 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. The taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;54 51 Intel TechnolOgJJ Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; and AT&T Communicah'ons Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010. 52 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. 53 Intel TechnolOgJJ Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal 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. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 13 of39 5. For zero-rated sales under Sections 106(A)(2)(1) and (2); 106(B); and 108(B)(l) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations;ss As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. The input taxes are not transitional input taxes;56 7. The input taxes are due or paid;57 8. The input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters;ss and 9. 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 attributed to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume.59 Thus, petitioner must show compliance with each of the foregoing requisites. First and second requisites: Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims were timely filed. The first requisite pertains to the filing of a claim for tax refund or tax credit of input VAT before the BIR, within two (2) years from the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. The present claim covers the 1�1 quarter Guly 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015) and 2nd quarter (October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015) of FY ending June 30, 2016. Counting 2 years from the respective close of the said quarters, the last days for the filing of the administrative claim therefor, is shown below: 54 I d. 55 I d. 56 I d. 57 I d. 58 I d. 59 I d. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 14 o�39 CTA FY Close of the Last Day to File Date of Filing Case ending Taxable Administrative of the No. June 30, Quarter Claim Administrative 9768 2016 September 30, Claim 2015 September 30, 9829 Ist 2017 September 18, December 31, 201760 Quarter 2015 December 31, 2nd 2017 December 5, 201761 Quarter Therefore, petitioner's administrative claims for refund or issuance of TCC for the 1st and 2nd quarters of FY 2016 were timely made within the two-year prescriptive period. The second requisite necessitates that the judicial claim must be filed within 30 days from receipt of respondent's decision or after the expiration of the 120-day period under Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,62 the Supreme Court explained that the 30-day period provided by law where a taxpayer may resort to a judicial claim before the CTA should be reckoned after the receipt of respondent's decision or ruling or after the expiration of the 120-day period, whichever is sooner. It is clear that any judicial claim filed in a period less than or beyond the said 120+30-day period is outside the jurisdiction of the CTA. Respondent then had 120 days from September 18, 2017 and December 5, 2017, respectively, to act on said claims. For the 1st quarter claim, the 120 days ended on January 16, 2018; while for the 2nd quarter claim, the 120 days ended on April 4, 2018. With regard to the 151 quarter claim, respondent's denial is beyond the 120-day period because it was only in February 2018 that respondent issued a letter denying said claim.63 Consequently, the 60 Exhibits "P-9" and "P-9.1", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4237 to 4246. 61 Exhibits "P-9.3" and "P-9.4", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4248 to 4255. 62 G.R. No. 182737, March 2, 2016. 63 Exhibit "R-3" [included in Exhibit "R-4" (Binder 1)], p. 69, BIR Records (CTA Case No. 9768). ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 15 o�39 30-day period to file an appeal before the CTA should be reckoned from the expiration of the 120-day period on January 16, 2018. Counting 30 days from January 16, 2018, petitioner had until February 15, 2018, within which to file a judicial claim for refund. The Petition for Review was thus timely filed on February 14, 2018.64 Anent the 2nd quarter claim, on April 2, 2018, petitioner received respondent's denial letter dated March 5, 2018.65 Counting 30 days from April 2, 2018, petitioner had until May 2, 2018, within which to file a judicial claim for refund. The Petition for Review was thus timely filed on April30, 2018.66 The Court finds that petitioner complied with the first and second requisites. Third requisite: Petitioner is a VAT-registered taxpayer. Petitioner complied with the third requisite, as it is registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer on April 6, 2011, with Tax Identification Number 406-931-778-000.67 Fourth and fifth requisites: Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that it was engaged in zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales during the subject periods of claim. The fourth and fifth requisites respectively require that the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, and for zero-rated sales under Sections 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b), and 108(8)(1) and (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 9337, 64 Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, pp. 10 to 21. " Exhibit "P-12", Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4301 to 4303. 66 Docket (CTA Case No. 9829), pp. 10 to 21. " Exhibit "P-2", Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2383 to 2384. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 16 of39 the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations. In its Quarterly VAT Returns for the 1st and 2nd quarters of FY 2016, petitioner declared an aggregate amount of 1'1,624,797,370.20 sales/receipts which included zero-rated sales/receipts of Pl,514,744,292.29, broken down as follows: Vatable sales/ receipts 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter Total Zero-rated sales/receipts (FY 2016) (FY 2016) Total sales/ receipts (Exhibit "P-8.4") I' 110,053,077.91 I' 57,703,396.74 (Exhibit "P-8.8") 1,514,744,292.29 I' 52,349,681.17 872,089,433.90 642,654,858.39 I' 1,624,797,370.20 I' 929,792,830.64 I' 695,004,539.56 Petitioner alleges that its sales of services to persons engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines, the consideration for which were paid in acceptable foreign currencies and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP are subject to VAT at zero percent (0%}, under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states: "SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties. - (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%) 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 BSP; (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 17 of39 foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP;68 Based on the foregoing provision, the following elements must be present for a sale or supply of services to be subject to the VAT rate of zero percent (0%): 1. The recipient of the services is a foreign corporation, and the said corporation is doing business outside the Philippines, or is a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services were performed;69 2. The services fall under any of the categories under Section 108(B)(2),70 3. The payment for such services should be in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules;71 and 4. The services must be performed in the Philippines72 by a VAT- registered person. First element- Proof that petitioner's client-affiliates are non-resident foreign corporations For petitioner to establish that the recipient of its services is a non-resident foreign corporation (NRFC) doing business outside of the Philippines, there must be proof of two components: (1) the client-affiliate was established under the laws of a country not the Philippines; and (2) it is not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. The first component, that the client-affiliate is not a domestic corporation, may be proven by SEC Certification of Non-Registration of Corporation, which shows that the client is an NRFC. The second component, that the client-affiliate is not engaged in trade or business 68 Boldfacing supplied. 69 Sitel Philippines Corporation (Fonnerly Clientlogic Phils. Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 201326, February 8, 2017; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bunneister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007; Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 190102, July 11,2012. 70 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc. No. 153205, Januan; 22, 2007; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc. (Philippine Branch), G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005. 71 /d. 72 /d. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 18 of39 in the Philippines, may be evidenced by the client-affiliate's certificate of incorporation in another country, which confirms that the client-affiliate was established under the laws of a foreign country. These requirements of proof of both components are especially required from ROHQs like petitioner, as was sufficiently explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte Ltd.,n to wit: To the Court's mind, the SEC Certifications of Non- Registration show that these affiliates [clients] are foreign corporations. On the other hand, the articles of association/ certificates of incorporation stating that these affiliates [clients] are registered to operate in their respective home countries, outside the Philippines are prima facie evidence that their clients are not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. Proof of the abovementioned second component sets this case apart from Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Site/ Philippines Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In these cases, the claimants similarly presented SEC Certifications and client service agreements. However, the Court consistently ruled that documents of this nature only establish the first component (i.e., that the affiliate is foreign). The absence of any other competent evidence (e.g., articles of association/ certificates of incorporation) proving the second component (i.e., that the affiliate is not doing business here in the Philippines) shall be fatal to a claim for credit or refund of excess input VAT attributable to zero- rated sales. With regard to the first element of proving that its client- affiliates are NRFC doing business outside the Philippines, petitioner presented the following documents: 1. Certification of Non-Registration of Corporation/ Partnership from the Philippines' Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);74 73 G.R. No. 234445, July 15, 2020. 74 Exhibits "P-5" to "P-5.48", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 3253 to 3320. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 19 o�39 2. Company Registration Documents of petitioner's foreign client-affiliates;75 3. Sworn Statements executed by petitioner's foreign client-affiliates' authorized representatives;76 4. Exhibit 21 of The Procter and Gamble Company and Subsidiaries Report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;77 and 5. Services Agreements?B A scrutiny of the documents submitted shows that petitioner failed to establish that its clients for the subject periods of claim, as enumerated below, are NRFC doing business outside the Philippines, for the following reasons: a. Petitioner's client with SEC Certification of Non- Registration of Company, but the supporting proof of foreign incorporation/registration was denied admission by the Court for failure of the document formally offered and identified to correspond with the document marked: NAME OF COMPANY SEC CERTIFICATION OF DENIED EVIDENCE OF GILLETTE PAKISfAN LIMITED NON-REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN COMPANY (Exhibit No.) INCORPORATION/REGISTR ATION (Exhibit No.) "P-5.44" "P-6.42" b. The name of petitioner's client indicated in the SEC Certification of Non-Registration of Company is different from that shown in the Certificate of Incorporation: NAME OF COMPANY PER SEC Exhibit NAME OF COMPANY PER Exhibit CERTIFICATION OF NON-REGISTRATION "P-5.33" CERTIFICATE OF "P-6.33" INCORPORATION OF COMPANY PROCTER & GAMBLE ISRAEL P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD M.D.O.LTD 75 Exhibits "P-6" to "P-6.4", "P-6.9", "P-6.11" to "P-6.43". Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) - Vol. VI, pp. 3321 to 4014. 76 Exhibits "P-7' to "P-7.43", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. VI, pp. 4015 to 4180. 77 Exhibit "P-10", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768) -Vol. VI, pp. 4256 to 4264. 78 Exhibits "P-4.1" to "P-4.45", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2402 to 3252. \

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 20 o�39 c. Petitioner's client with SEC Certification of Non- Registration of Company, but without supporting proof of foreign incorporation/registration: SEC CERTIFICATION OF PROOF OF FOREIGN NON-REGISTRATION OF INCORPORATION/ REGISTRATION (Exhibit No.) COMPANY (Exhibit No.) NAME OF COMPANY "P-5.13" (NONE) 1. PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW "P-5.5" (NONE) ZEALAND LIMITED "P-5.37" (NONE) 2. PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT "P-5.38" (NONE) 3. PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION 4. PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT SUPPLIES LTD Thus, only the following clients of petitioner are considered as NRFCs doing business outside the Philippines, under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: 1. NAME OF COMPANY SEC CERTIFICATION PROOF OF FOREIGN OF NON- INCORPORATION/ 2. COSMETICSUPPLIERSPTY LTD. REGISTRATION (Exhibit No.) 3. REGISTRATION OF 4. DETERGENT PRODUCTSSARL COMPANY (Exhibit "R-8-C", binder 4, pp. 1888 to 5. GILLETTE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED 6. GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED No.) 190579 7. INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES "P-5.41" "P-6.14" 8. MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY-DAMMAM "P-6.28" 9. MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY "P-5.17" "P-6.29'' 10. P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS "P-5.34" "P-6.39" 11. P&G INNOVATION GODO KAISHA "P-5.35" "P-6.34" 12. P&GKK "P-5.11" "P-6.35" P&G MAX FACTOR GODO KAISHA "P-5.14" "P-6.38" 13. PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. "P-5.15" "P-6.4" 14. PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD. "P-5.2" "P-6.25" 15. PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH "P-5.40" "P-6.11" 16. PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE "P-5.30" PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE "P-5.8" "R-8-C', binder 4, pp. 1925 to 17. LIMITED "P-5.3" 18. PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED 1928110 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE "P-5.16'' "P-6.13" LIMITED "P-5.26" "P-6.21" "P-5.29" "P-6.24" "P-5.23" "P-6.19" "P-5.6" "P-6.9'' "P-5.7" "R-S.c", binder 4, pp. 1934 to 1941 81 79 BIR Records (CTA Case No. 9829). 80 BIR Records (CTA Case No. 9829). 81 BIR Records (CTA Case No. 9829). ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 21 o�39 19. P&G INDOCHINA "P-5.28" "P-6.23" 20. PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS "P-5.45" "P-6.43" S.A. DUBAI BRANCH "P-5.32" "'P-6.27" 21. PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONALOPERATIONS SA "P-5.36" "P-6.2" SINGAPORE BRANCH "P-5.31" "P-6.26" 22. PROCTER & GAMBLEJAPAN K.K. "P-5.10" "P-6.12" 23. P&G KOREA S&D, CO. "P-5.19" "P-6.16" 24. PROCTER & GAMBLE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD "P-5.39" "P-6.3" 25. PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) LIMITED "P-5.12" "P-6.40" "P-5.47" "P-6.41" 26. PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA "P-5.18" "P-6.15" PROPRIETARY LIMITED "P-5.43" "P-6.6" 27. PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC "P-5.48" "P-6.30" "P-5.20" "P-6.17" 28. PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED "P-5.21" "P-6.32" 29. PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED "P-5.27" "P-6.22" "P-5.9" "P-6.14" 30. PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMPANY "P-5.46" "P-6.31" LIMITED "P-5.24" "P-20" "P-5.1" "P-6.1" 31. PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTRES LIMITED "P-5.25" "P-6.36" "P-5.42" "P-6.37" 32. PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD "P-5" 33. PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI "P-5.4" "P-6" "R-8-C'', Binder 4, pp-. 1929 to ANONIM SIRKETI 34. PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM LTD 1933112 35. PROCTER & GAMBLE LEVANT SAL. 36. PROCTER & GAMBLE MIDDLE EAST FZE 37. PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA PROPRIETARY LIMITED 38. P&G SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) LTD 39. PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 40. P.T. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 41. THEPROCTER&GAMBLECOMPANY 42. WELLA INDIA HAIRCOSMETICS PRIVATE LIMITED Second element- Proof that the services fall within the scope of services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods. Petitioner satisfied the second element as it entered into Services Agreements with its clients for financial and solutions services to the latter.83 Particularly, petitioner rendered accounting and payroll services to its clients as evidenced by the invoices/ debit notes, credit notes and VAT ORs it issued to clients.84 Clearly, these services fall " BIR Records (CTA Case No. 9829). 83 Exhibits "P-4.1" to "P-4.45", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2402 to 3252. 84 Exhibit "R-4", Binder 1, pp. 6 to 451 and Exhibit "R-8", Binder 1, pp. 214 to 600, BIR Records. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 22 of39 within the scope of "services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods" contemplated by Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Third element- Proof that acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds were duly accounted for in accordance with BSP Rules and Regulations. Relative to the third element, and in relation to the fifth requisite for the granting of the input VAT refund, petitioner presented the Certifications of inward remittances from Citibank, N.A. ss purportedly showing the remittances of its non-resident foreign clients. The certifications of inward remittances attest to the fact of payment "in acceptable foreign currency .. .and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP".B6 In any event, the foreign currency remittances referred to under Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, must not only be duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP, but must also comply with the pertinent invoicing requirements, containing all the required information under Section 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit- SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT- registered Persons. - (A) Invoicing Requirements. - A VAT-registered person shall ISSUe: (1) A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and (2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. 85 Exhibits "P-3" and "P-3.1", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2385 to 2401. 86 Intel Technologtj Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732, April 27,2007. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 23 of39 (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: (a) The amount of the tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; (b) If the sale is exempt from value-added tax, the term 'VAT- exempt sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (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; (d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break- down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale. (3) The date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; and (4) In the case of sales in the amount of One thousand pesos (P1,000) or more where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT- registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser, customer or client. These provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, are further implemented by Section 4.113-1(A) and (B) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-05, as amended, to wit: SEC. 4.113-1. Invoicing Requirements. - ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 24 of39 (A) A VAT-registered person shall issue: - (1) A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and (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 or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT; Provided, That: (a) The amount of tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; (b) If the sale is exempt from VAT, the term 'VAT-exempt sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (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; (d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break- down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the VAT on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt. The seller has the ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 25 of39 option to issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale. (3) In the case of sales in the amount of one thousand pesos ('1'1,000.00) or more where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT- registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and TIN of the purchaser, customer or client, shall be indicated in addition to the information required in (1) and (2) of this Section. In addition to the above requirements, the sales invoices ("Sis") and official receipts ("ORs") must be duly registered with the BIR as prescribed under Section 237 in relation to Section 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: SEC. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty- five pesos (P25.00) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: ... SEC. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Bureau of Internal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices before a printer can print the same. No authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall be granted unless the receipts or invoices to be printed are serially numbered and shall show, among other things, the name, business style, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and business address of the person or entity to use the same, and such other information that may be required by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner. Since petitioner's reported sales are in the nature of sales of services under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, petitioner is required to issue SIR-registered VAT ORs for the foreign currency proceeds of each sales transaction and the information contained therein must be in compliance with the applicable provisions previously cited, such as the word "zero-rated" and the taxpayer's TIN-VAT number. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 26 o�39 In the present case, aside from the Certifications of inward remittances from Citibank, N.A., petitioner also submitted its Schedules of Zero-Rated Sales, 87 Summary Lists of Sales, 88 Comparison of Zero-Rated Official Receipts Against Certificates of Inward Remittance89 and the corresponding VAT 0Rs9o to support its reported zero-rated sales/receipts for the 1st quarter of FY 2016 in the amount of P872,089,433.90 and 2nd quarter of FY 2016 in the amount of P642,654,858.39 totaling Pl,514,744,292.29. Upon verification, the Court finds that the sales/receipts in the amount of Pl8,996,007.51 (US$428,867.31) for the 1st quarter and P9,430,516.82 (USD205,503.49) for the 2nd quarter of FY 2016, totaling P28,426,524.33 (US$634,370.80), pertain to services rendered by petitioner to its client-affiliates which do not qualify as non-resident corporations doing business outside the Philippines, as discussed earlier, hence must be disallowed:91 Customer Name OR No. Date of OR Sales/Receipts in US$ SalesfReceipts in PHP 1H Quarter- FY 2016 3190 July 16, 2015 461.14 3210 Aug. 13, 2015 3%.57 20,540.76 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 3248 Sept. 16, 2015 451.28 18,510.33 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 1,308.99 20,587.60 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 3178 July 15, 2015 19,236.76 59,638.69 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD Total 3230 Sept. 14,2015 856,871.27 PROCTER &GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND 2,950.09 LIMITED 3250 Sept. 17,2015 137,527.64 PROCTER &GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND 22,186.85 LIMITED July 22, 2015 994,398.91 PROCTER &GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND Sept. 15, 2015 489,184.95 21,646,454.94 LIMITED Total 3252 Sept. 17,2015 489,184.95 21,646,454.94 (2,682,432.%) PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT (61,213.12) (3,460,142.67) PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT Total (77,256.94) PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION (6,142,575.63) PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION (138,470.06) PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION Total 2,438,090.60 PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT SUPPLIES 54,656.58 PROCTER &GAMBLE EGYPT SUPPLIES Total 54,656.58 2,438,090.60 428,867.31 Total- lst Quarter- FY 2016 18,996,007.51 2nd Quarter- FY 2016 3304 Oct. 28,2015 12,535.63 560,177.35 12,535.63 560,177.35 GILLETTE PAKISTAN LIMITED 3292 Oct. 19,2015 11,%7.23 GILLETIE PAKISTAN LIMITED Total 3319 Nov. 16,2015 255.62 21,683.35 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 463.59 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 87 Exhibit "P-14". ss Exhibit "P-15". " Exhibit "P-17". 9o Exhibit "P-16". 91 Exhibit "P-22", Annex 1. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 27 o�39 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD 3347 Dec. 14, 2015 312.60 14,655.41 P&G ISRAEL M.D.O. LTD Total 1,031.81 48,305.99 3279 Oct. 16,2015 8,019.03 375,42275 PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND 3315 Nov. 16,2015 LIMITED 3353 Dec. 15, 2015 8,350.52 390,576.24 PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED 3342 Dec. 1, 2015 4,877.83 228,684.01 PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED 3305 Oct. 28,2015 21,247.38 994,683.00 PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Total 3336 Nov. 20,2015 112,615.66 5,218,355.22 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT 112,615.66 5,218,355.22 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT Total 2,169,986.87 48,598.40 2,169,986.87 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION 48,598.40 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT DISTRIBUTION Total 9,474.61 439,008.39 9,474.61 439,008.39 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT SUPPLIES 205,503.49 9,430,516.82 634,370.80 28,426,524.33 PROCTER & GAMBLE EGYPT SUPPLIES Total Total- 2nd Quarter- FY 2016 Grand Total-1st and 2nd Quarters- FY 2016 Thus, only the sales/receipts in the amounts of P853,093,426.40 (equivalent to US$19,081,893.03) for the 1st quarter and P633,224,341.59 (equivalent to US$13,533,679.52) for the 2nd quarter of FY 2016, totaling P1,486,317,767.99 (US$32,615,572.55), pertain to services rendered to the following client-affiliates of petitioner, which as determined earlier, qualify as non-resident foreign entities doing business outside the Philippines and that such sales/receipts are properly supported by 0Rs92 compliant with above-stated invoicing requirements under the law and regulations, detailed as follows:93 Customer Name OR No. Date of OR Sales/Receipts in SalesjReceipts in PHP US$ 111. Quarter- FY 2016 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. 3182 July 15, 2015 24,816.02 1,105,390.65 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. 3233 Sept. 14, 2015 3,491.25 163,944.75 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. Total 28,307.27 DETERGENT PRODUCTS SARL 3185 July 16, 2015 15,031.47 1,269,335.40 DETERGENT PRODUCTS SARL 3241 Sept. 16, 2015 13,396.35 669,553.23 DETERGENT PRODUCTS SARL (13,954.81) 611,147.35 DETERGENT PRODUCTS SARL Total Aug. 10,2015 14,473.01 GILLETTE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PVT LTD (630,298.55) GILLETTE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PVT LTD 3171 July 7, 2015 987.73 650,402.03 GILLETTE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS PVT LTD Total 3213 Aug. 14,2015 4,743.11 44,036.27 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED 5,730.84 211,274.44 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED 3172 July 7, 2015 84,407.59 255,310.71 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED 3214 Aug. 14, 2015 178,887.26 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED Total 3249 Sept. 16, 2015 24,127.97 3,763,155.99 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A 287,422.82 7,968,251.92 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A 3225 Sept. 1, 2015 22,805.70 1,113,314.22 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A Total 12,844,722.13 3225 Sept. 1, 2015 22,805.70 1,015,844.10 1,015,844.10 " Exhibit "P-16". 93 Exhibit "P-22", Annex 1.

CIA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 28 o�39 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM 3199 july 23, 2015 126,354.88 5,630,315.35 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM 3254 Sept. 21, 2015 8,673.85 408,558.24 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM Total MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY 3200 july 23, 2015 135,028.73 6,038,873.59 MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY 3255 Sept. 21, 2015 102,701.40 4,575,386.08 MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY Total P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 3224 Sept. 1, 2015 8,327.86 383,953.44 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 3224 Sept. 1, 2015 111,029.26 4,959,339.52 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS Total P&G INNOVATION GOOO KAISHA 3181 july 15, 2015 20,290.93 903,827.62 P&G INNOVATION GOOO KAISHA 3237 Sept. 15, 2015 P&G INNOVATION GODO KAISHA Total 20,290.93 903,827.62 P&G PRESTIGE GOOO KAISHA 3177 july 15, 2015 4,871.98 217,014.71 P&G PRESTIGE GOOO KAISHA 3235 Sept. 15, 2015 5,298.86 242,201.33 P&G PRESTIGE GODO KAISHA Total 459,216.04 P&GK.K. 3179 july 15, 2015 10,170.84 10,722,908.69 P&GK.K. 3236 Sept. 15, 2015 240,729.30 2,597,734.33 P&G K.K. Total 56,5%.31 13,320,643.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 3176 july 15, 2015 297,325.61 5,183,680.18 3229 Sept. 14,2015 116,373.62 1,375,762.89 PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 6,559,443.07 PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. Total 3184 july 16, 2015 30,111.37 1,056,333.19 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD 3240 Sept. 16, 2015 146,484.99 2,172,260.56 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD 3,228,593. 75 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD Total 3187 july 16, 2015 23,714.68 1,080,706.46 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3220 Aug. 19, 2015 47,605.50 330,840.81 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3245 Sept. 16, 2015 71,320.18 1,411,547.27 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 24,261.86 584,495,768.82 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3194 july 20, 2015 7,227.53 3,504,926.83 Total 3209 Aug. 13, 2015 31,489.39 26,857,627.39 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE 3247 Sept. 16, 2015 13,121,930.01 614,858,323.04 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE 77,599.08 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE 3170 july 7, 2015 567,446.36 451,633.40 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE Total 3212 Aug. 14, 2015 13,766,975.45 14,926.38 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 3262 Sept. 29, 2015 234,308.39 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 10,139.17 700,868.17 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 31% july 22, 2015 330.47 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE 3238 Sept. 16, 2015 10,916,660.22 LIMITED Total 5,136.04 23,660,686.97 PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED 3169 july 7, 2015 15,605.68 1,438,172.% PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED 244,860.69 36,015,520.15 PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED Total 3211 Aug. 14, 2015 531,182.42 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED 30,376.03 3,672,460.14 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED 3261 Sept. 29, 2015 806,419.14 654,835.23 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE 3167 july 6, 2015 82,446.73 4,327,295.37 LIMITED Total 3206 Aug. 12, 2015 14,249.76 3,484,135.33 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3258 Sept. 24, 2015 96,6%.49 7,468,023.76 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 78,149.16 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3189 july 16, 2015 167,657.13 782,213.66 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3221 Aug. 19, 2015 16,842.34 11,734,372.75 Total 262,648.63 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 3180 july 15, 2015 12,039,789.26 SINGAPORE BRANCH 269,569.61 13,336,279.93 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 299,399.48 SINGAPORE BRANCH 3,972,888.01 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 87,085.71 29,348,957.20 SINGAPORE BRANCH Total 656,054.80 PROCTER & GAMBLE JAPAN K.K. 4,007,112.25 89,959.67 68,537.48 1,517.42 4,075,649. 73 91,477.09 10,796,240.53 242,375.60

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 29 o�39 PROCTER & GAMBLE JAPAN K.K. 3264 Sept. 29, 2015 44,937.58 2,078,651.48 PROCTER & GAMBLE JAPAN K.K. Total 287,313.18 12,874,892.01 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. 3195 July 20, 2015 125,500.50 5,590.=.72 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. 3232 Sept. 14, 2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. Total 14,745.63 688.5%.03 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. 3193 july 20, 2015 140,246.13 6,278,818.75 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. 3215 Aug. 18, 2015 1.741,384.87 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. 3231 Sept. 14, 2015 39,094.09 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. Total 1,891.54 85_435.41 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SON BHD 3197 July 22, 2015 4,565.90 208,298.37 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SON BHD 3251 Sept. 17, 2015 45,551.53 2,035,118.65 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SON BHD Total 38,575.80 1,718,298.45 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) LTD. 3191 july 20, 2015 11,168.81 511.746.05 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (fHAILAND) LTD. 3= Aug. 20, 2015 49.744.61 2,230,044.50 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (fHAILAND) LTD. 3242 Sept. 16, 2015 92.959.88 4,140,751.89 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) 1,051.38 47,487.80 LTD. Total 3202 July 23, 2015 29,227.38 1,334,198.21 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA 3257 Sept. 21, 2015 123,238.64 5,522,437.90 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTUR!NG SA PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA Total 3226 Sept. 1, 2015 63,158.61 2,813,301.12 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC 3226 Sept. 1, 2015 2,026.88 95,447.44 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC Total 3198 july 22, 2015 65,185.49 2,908,748.56 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED 3259 Sept. 28, 2015 1.107.00 49,466.98 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED Total 3223 Aug. 20, 2015 1,107.00 49,466.98 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMFANY LIMITED 27,282.88 1,215,272.83 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMPANY 3216 Aug. 18, 2015 4,608.66 LIMITED Total 3246 Sept. 16, 2015 31,891.54 216,569.55 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD july 7, 2015 51,529.06 1,431,842.38 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD 51,529.06 2,295,608.94 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD 3192 july 20, 2015 2,295,608.94 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD Total 3243 Sept. 16, 2015 704,374.26 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. 195,736.10 31,814,555.56 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. 3186 july 16,2015 (7,629.44) 8,929,566.62 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. Total 3256 Sept. 21, 2015 892,480.92 (339,841.42) PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. 40,404,280.76 PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARISANAYI A.S. 3188 July 16, 2015 44,497.60 1,982,075.73 PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. 9,482.59 Total 3188 july 16,2015 440,195.30 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD 53,980.19 2,422,271.03 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD 3263 Sept. 29, 2015 59,706.39 2,659,527.39 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD 35.019.02 1,607,544.41 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD Total 3183 july 16,2015 94,725.41 4,267,071.80 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL 3208 Aug. 13, 2015 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL 3239 Sept. 16,2015 61,673.00 2,748,333.83 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL Total 3201 july 23, 2015 9,236.38 432,043.25 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD 3244 Sept. 16, 2015 70,909.38 3.180,377.08 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD Total 3203 july 24, 2015 114.39 5,095.32 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) 3253 Sept. 21, 2015 1,543.27 69,705.06 LTD 5,127.74 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) 112.40 79,928.12 LTD 1,770.06 95,835.19 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING 2,151.50 56,712.59 (PTY) LTD Total 1,243.14 152,547.78 3,394.64 2,117,269.49 47,532.70 333.405.43 7,251.01 2,450,674.92 54,783.71

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page30 o�39 Pf PR=rER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 3204 july 24,2015 144,870.18 6,453,m 4.70 PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 144,870.18 6,453,014. 70 Total 3205 july 24, 2015 PT. PR=rER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 3217 Aug. 18, 2015 55,676.70 2,480,031.18 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 525.77 23,747.52 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA Total 3175 july 15,2015 THE PR=rER & GAMBLE COMPANY 3234 Sept.15, 2m5 56,202.47 2,503,778.70 THE PR=rER & GAMBLE COMPANY 4,709.35 209,770.60 THE PR=rER & GAMBLE COMPANY Aug. 19,2015 762.37 34,779.65 (382.39) (17,271.45) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Total 3168 july 7, 2015 227,278.80 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD 5,089.33 363,884.68 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD 3207 Aug.13,2m5 8,161.93 805,231.89 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD 18,077.46 178,022.81 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD Total 3260 Sept. 29, 2015 3,883.32 Total-1st Quarter FY 2016 30,122.71 1,347,139.38 19,081,893.03 853,093,426.40 2mt Quarter- FY 2016 3293 Oct. 19, 2m5 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. 3322 Nov. 16,2015 14,815.72 693,619.85 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PrY. LTD. 3361 Dec. 15, 2015 10,632.50 497,310.57 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. 241,921.24 COSMETIC SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD. Total 3283 Oct.16,2m5 5,160.18 1,432,851.66 DETERGENTPRODUCTSSARL 3325 Nov. 17,2015 30,608.40 354,861.42 DETERGENTPRODUCTSSARL 3363 Dec. 16, 2015 644,306.36 DETERGENTPRODUCTSSARL 7,579.84 438,463.67 DETERGENT PRODUCTS SARL Total 3309 Oct. 29,2015 13,775.27 1,437,631.45 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED 3345 Dec. 2, 2015 4,536,091.87 GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED 9,352.43 890,757.20 GILLE1TE INDIA LIMITED Total 3265 Oct. 1, 201S 30,707.54 5,426,849.07 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A 3310 Nov. 2, 2015 96,890.92 356,924.73 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A 19,044.39 205,820.23 INDUSTRIES MAROCAINES MODERNES S.A Total 3297 Oct. 22, 20I5 115,935.31 562,744.96 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM 3333 Nov. 20,2015 977,994.06 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM 7,823.79 1,771,511.04 MODERN INDUSTRIES COMPANY- DAMMAM Total 3300 Oct. 26,2m5 4,396.32 2,749,505.10 MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY 3334 Nov. 20, 2015 12,220.11 455,198.28 MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY 20,889.95 825,164.26 MODERN PRODUCTS COMPANY Total 3268 Oct. 15,2015 37,874.91 1,280,362.54 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 3268 Oct. 15,2015 58,764.86 347,866.45 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 3341 Nov. 26,2015 9,723.04 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 3374 Dec.18,2m5 17,642.01 3m,107.58 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS 27,365.05 192,097.05 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCO SAS Total 3276 Oct. 15,2015 7,507.63 841,071.08 P&G INNOVATION GODO KAISHA 3321 Nov. 16,2015 930,939.61 P&G INNOVATION GODO KAISHA 3360 Dec.15, 2m5 6,437.68 P&G INNOVATION GOOO KAISHA 4,097.43 43,521.52 P&G INNOVATION GODO KAISHA Total 3269 Oct.15,2m5 18,042.74 28,817.63 P&G PRESTIGE GODO KAISHA 3314 Nov. 16,2015 19,884.87 1,003,278.76 P&G PRESTIGE GOOO KA!SHA 8,810,175.09 P&G PRESTIGE GODO KAISHA Total 3318 Nov. 16,2015 930.49 1,153,395.70 P&G K.K. 3356 Dec. 15, 2015 614.68 9,963,570.79 P&GK.K. 3273 Oct. 15,2015 21,430.04 363,162.77 P&GK.K. 188,185.34 245,584.15 P&G K.K. Total 3351 Dec. 15, 2015 24,659.60 4,741,595.03 P&G MAX FACTOR GOOO KAISHA 212,844.94 5,350,341.95 P&G MAX FACTOR GODO KAISHA Total 7,764.42 1,512,707.45 5,238.31 1,512,707.45 101,280.47 114,283.20 32,266.05 32,266.05

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 31 o�39 PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 3277 Oct. 16,2015 45,845.40 2,146,320.23 PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 3349 Dec. 15, 2015 18,994.66 890,513.83 Nov. 25,2015 (16,154.40) PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. 3282 48,685.66 (665,975.03) PROCTER & GAMBLE AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. Total 3324 Oct. 16, 2015 14,747.48 2,370,859.03 3354 Nov. 17,2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD Dec. 15, 2015 5,123.30 690,425.09 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD 3286 420.85 239,630.50 3327 Oct. 16,2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD 3379 Nov. 17,2015 20,291.63 19,730.42 PROCTER & GAMBLE (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD Total Dec. 23, 2015 2,465,185.86 949,786.01 3291 3,726,058.32 115,411,323.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3335 Oct. 19,2015 3,421,486.75 174,277,751.16 3365 Nov. 20,2015 9,612,730.93 160,407,255.06 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH Dec. 16, 2015 450,096,329.24 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3308 2,870.06 PROCTER & GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 3344 Oct. 29,2015 6,508.18 134,366.10 Total Dec. 2, 2015 304,405.06 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE 3278 365.06 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE 3331 Oct. 16,2015 9,743.30 17,114.86 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE Nov. 20,2015 280,202.60 455,886.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE GULF FZE Total 3307 24,804.68 13,118,099.26 3378 Oct. 29,2015 305,007.28 1,157,457.13 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Dec. 23, 2015 14,275,556.39 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 3302 44,426.17 PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE 3380 Oct. 26,2015 9,892.64 2,079,876.87 LIMITED Total 3380 Dec. 23, 2015 462,705.33 PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED Dec. 23, 2015 54,318.81 3337 66,442.50 2,542,582.20 PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED 3366 Nov. 20,2015 36,198.47 3,110,603.93 PROCTER & GAMBLE HONG KONG LIMITED Total Dec. 16,2015 102,640.97 1,693,933.80 3266 4,804,537.73 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED 3288 Oct. 1, 2015 90,047.43 3329 Oct. 16,2015 63,888.75 4,073,561.25 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LIMITED 3358 Nov. 17,2015 2,989,601.60 PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE Dec. 15, 2015 153,936.18 LIMITED Total 3275 7,063,162.85 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3320 Oct. 15,2015 594.17 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3359 Nov. 16, 2015 27,790.93 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED Dec. 15, 2015 149.73 PROCTER & GAMBLE INDOCHINA COMPANY LIMITED 3274 7,019.69 Total 3328 Oct. 15,2015 743.90 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS S.A. 3357 Nov. 17,2015 34,810.62 DUBAI BRANCH Dec. 15, 2015 111,246.66 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS S.A. 3272 5,130,651.32 DUBAI BRANCH 3355 Oct. 15,2015 75,439.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS Dec. 15, 2015 3,772,041.03 S.A. DUBAI BRANCH Total Nov. 17,2015 439,913.00 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 20,575,912.06 SINGAPORE BRANCH 60,207.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 2,822,645.11 SINGAPORE BRANCH 686,805.70 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 32,301,249.52 SINGAPORE BRANCH 140,525.35 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 69,910.42 6,578,902.16 SINGAPORE BRANCH 22,169.54 3,269,898.03 PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA 232,605.31 1,039,359.59 SINGAPORE BRANCH Total 45,750.79 10,888,159.78 PROCTER & GAMBLE jAPAN K.K. 45,173.42 2,141,890.91 30,563.22 2,112,882.13 PROCTER & GAMBLE jAPAN K.K. 121,487.43 1,432,874.82 PROCTER & GAMBLE )APAN K.K. 7,804.09 5,687,647.86 PROCTER & GAMBLE JAPAN K.K. Total 1,941.32 (872.36) 365,360.03 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. 91,013.60 (40,802.62) PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA S&D, CO. Total PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC.

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page32 o�39 PROCTER & GAMBLE KOREA, INC. Total 3270 Oct. 15,2015 8,873.05 415,571.01 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3323 Nov. 17,2015 27,040.44 1,265,938.20 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3352 Dec. 15, 2015 7,337.78 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 6,882.54 343,207.67 PROCTER & GAMBLE MALAYSIA SDN BHD Total 3285 Oct. 16,2015 41,260.76 322,669.48 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) LTD. 3316 Nov. 16,2015 98,604.74 1,931,815.35 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) LTD. 3370 Dec. 17,2015 4,282.13 4,616,326.78 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) LTD. 200,286.72 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) 3295 Oct. 20,2015 2,910.83 136,466.48 LTD. Total 3377 Dec. 22,2015 105,797.70 4,953,079.98 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA 3377 Dec. 22, 2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA 4,857.28 227,400.75 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA 3271 Oct. 15,2015 14,729.79 689,600.17 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING SA Total 3271 Oct. 15,2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC 3339 Nov. 23, 2015 19,587.07 917,000.92 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC 3368 Dec. 17, 2015 4,230.45 194,824.16 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC 3303 Oct. 27,2015 2,778.19 129,943.41 PROCTER & GAMBLE MAROC Total 3303 Oct. 27,2015 1,886.25 88,431.79 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED 3369 Dec. 17,2015 8,894.89 413,199.36 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED 116,901.94 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED 3284 Oct. 16,2015 5,220,527.53 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED 3289 Oct. 16, 2015 7,775.54 Total 124,677.48 364,023.41 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED 3287 Oct. 16,2015 5,584,550.94 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN LIMITED Total 3364 Dec. 16, 2015 22,746.31 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMPANY LIMITED Nov. 9, 2015 22,746.31 1,064,902.28 PROCTER & GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMPANY 1,064,902.28 LIMITED Total 3317 Nov. 16,2015 3,148.37 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD 3371 Dec. 17,2015 3,148.37 228,594.79 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD Oct. 30,2015 228,594.79 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD 691,182.78 PROCTER & GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTERS LTD Total 3290 Oct. 16,2015 141,099.50 31,871,628.02 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. 3340 Nov. 24,2015 (3,874.65) 6,615,072.67 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. 3346 Dec. 14,2015 828,407.63 (181,227.79) PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. 17,889.21 38,305,472.90 PROCTER & GAMBLE TRADING (THAILAND) LTD. Total 3301 Oct. 26,2015 PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. 6,532.49 836,726.38 PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. 3381 Dec. 28, 2015 (16,045.62) 306,258.32 PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. (641,123.24) PROCTER & GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYI A.S. 3332 Nov. 20,2015 8,376.08 501,861.46 Total 3362 Dec. 16, 2015 31,984.77 1,497,414.33 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD Oct. 30,2015 57,761.02 2,701,637.98 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD 36,995.79 1,734,448.67 PROCTER & GAMBLE VIETNAM CO. LTD Total 3338 Nov. 20,2015 126,741.58 5,933,500.98 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL 3367 Dec. 16, 2015 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL 6,424.12 324,356.34 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL 3294 Oct. 20,2015 21,100.69 987,658.19 PROCTER AND GAMBLE LEVANT SAL Total 3376 Dec. 22, 2015 27,524.81 1,312,014.53 PROCTER AND GAMBLE MIDDLE EAST FZE 3376 Dec. 22,2015 PROCTER AND GAMBLE MIDDLE EAST FZE Nov. 30,2015 115.70 5,411.60 PROCTER AND GAMBLE MIDDLE EAST FZE Total 78.81 3,694.80 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD (62,045.12) PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD (1,3%.16) (52,938. 72) PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD (1,201.65) 518,392.89 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD 11,083.24 126,700.43 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SA (PTY) LTD Total 645,093.32 2,702.52 32,842.70 13,785.76 99,912.24 701.52 (1,036,994.45) 2,134.11 (904,239.51) (23,044.21) (20,208.58)

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 33 o�39 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) 32% Oct. 22, 2015 7,328.74 343,105.81 LTD 3375 Dec. 22, 2015 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) 3375 Dec. 22, 2015 21,994.46 1,029,696.41 LTD PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING (PTY) 3298 Oct. 22,2015 29,323.20 1,3 72,802.22 LTD 3326 Nov. 17,2015 PROCTER AND GAMBLE SOUTH AFRICAN TRADING 3372 Dec. 17,2015 60,228.18 2,789,3%.65 (PTY) LTD Total 29,324.17 1,371,570.16 PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 3299 Oct. 22,2015 15,940.33 PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 3330 Nov. 17,2015 105,492.68 747,319.74 3373 Dec. 17,2015 4,908,286.55 PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 36,390.31 PT PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS INDONESIA 3267 Oct. 15,2015 1,868.28 1,697,942.14 Total 3313 Nov. 16,2015 3,727.69 87,384.47 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 3348 Dec. 15, 2015 41,986.28 174,762.78 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 3306 Oct. 29,2015 686.61 1,960,089.39 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA 3343 Dec. 2, 2015 653.25 PT. PROCTER & GAMBLE OPERATIONS INDONESIA Total 363.20 32,144.66 1,703.06 30,554.25 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 11,555.46 17,027.67 1,742.24 79,726.58 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 13,297.70 540,985.76 81,489.44 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 13,533,679.52 622,475.20 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Total 32,615,572.55 633,224,341.59 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD 1,486,317,767.99 WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD WELLA INDIA HAIR COSMETICS PVT. LTD Total Total- 2ru1 Quarter FY 2016 Grand Total- 1st & 2nd Quarters FY 2016 A review of the schedule of "Comparison of Zero-Rated Official Receipts against Certificates of Inward Remittance"94 revealed that some of the afore-stated sales/receipts do not tie up with the inward remittances indicated in said schedule, to wit: Customer Name OR No. Date of SalesfReceipt Sales/Receipts Foreign Currency Remittances Differenc OR e in US$ sin US$ in PHP 1-Sep-15 23-jul-15 Reference Date Amount in US$ 23-jul-15 1st Quarter - FY 2016 3225 1-Sep-15 22,805.70 1,015,844.10 3545244220 Aug. 28, 2015 7,042.68 2,330.57 3199 16-jul-15 INDUSTRIES 3200 126,354.88 5,630,315.35 3545244221 Aug. 28, 2015 13,432.45 35,063.48 MAROCAINES 3224 3545204266 july 23, 2015 91,291.40 MODERNES S.A 3187 102,701.40 4,575,386.08 3545204265 july 23, 2015 74,201.76 28,499.64 MODERN INDUSTRIES 20,290.93 903,827.62 3545244217 Aug. 28, 2015 5,418.11 COMPANY- 13,121,930.01 Aug. 28, 2015 12,793.73 DAMMAM july 16, 2015 2,079.09 MODERN PRODUCTS 584,495,768.82 3545244219 13,146,428.57 (24,498.56) COMPANY 3545197228 P&G DISTRIBUTION MOROCCOSAS PROCTER& GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE BRANCH 94 Exhibit"P-17".

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 34 o�39 PROCTER& 3220 19-Aug-15 77,599.08 3,504,926.83 3545231195 Aug. 19, 2015 70,911.74 6,687.34 GAMBLE EUROPE SA SINGAPORE 3194 20-jul-15 10,139.17 451,633.40 3545201489 july 20, 2015 18,101.48 (7,%2.31) BRANCH 3232 14-Sep-15 14,745.63 688,596.03 3545257244 Sept. 14,2015 49,806.84 (35,061.21) PROCTER& 3226 1-Sep-15 GAMBLE GULF FZE 1,107.00 49,466.98 3545244216 Aug. 28, 2015 769.17 PROCTER& 13,497,673.80 601,315,765.21 3545244372 Sept. 01, 2015 110.70 GAMBLE KOREA 227.13 7,248.74 S&D,CO. 13,490,425.06 PROCTER& GAMBLE MAROC Subtotal-1st Quarter FY 2016 2nd Quarter FY 2016 3265 1-0ct-15 7,823.79 356,924.73 3545274207 Sept. 30, 2015 7,016.41 807.38 3310 2-Nov-15 4,3%.32 205,820.23 3545306202 Oct. 30,2015 INDUSTRIES 3333 20-Nov-15 37,874.91 1,771,511.04 3545324280 Nov. 20,2015 3,931.69 MAROCAINES 3334 20-Nov-15 17,642.01 MODERNESS.A 3268 15-0ct-15 7,507.63 464.63 INDUSTRIES 3341 26-Nov-15 6,437.68 MAROCAINES 3374 18-Dec-15 4,097.43 27,364.42 MODERNES S.A 3344 2-Dec-15 24,804.68 MODERN 3271 15-0ct-15 4,230.45 10,510.49 INDUSTRIES 2,778.19 COMPANY- 1,886.25 825,164.26 3545324197 Nov. 20,2015 12,746.35 DAMMAM 116,901.94 MODERN 4,895.66 PRODUCTS 7,775.54 COMPANY 3,148.37 347,866.45 3545288174 Oct. 14,2015 3,520.65 P&G 31,984.77 DISTRIBUTION 57,761.02 301,1 07.58 3545288178 Oct. 14,2015 3,186.22 800.76 MOROCCOSAS 3545330157 Nov. 25,2015 5,768.91 668.77 P&G 192,097.05 3545352229 Dec. 18, 2015 3,687.69 DISTRIBUTION MOROCCOSAS 409.74 P&G DISTRIBUTION 1,157,457.13 3545335428 Dec 01,2015 44,584.94 MOROCCOSAS (19,780.26) PROCTER& GAMBLE HOME 194,824.16 3545274218 Sept. 30, 2015 2,430.98 423.05 PRODUCTS 3545288176 Oct. 14,2015 1,376.42 PRIVATE LIMITED Nov. 20,2015 2,500.37 277.82 PROCTER& 129,943.41 3545327118 1,697.62 188.63 GAMBLE MAROC 40,982.76 17,535.29 PROCTER& 3339 23-Nov-15 88,431.79 3545351207 Dec. 16, 2015 GAMBLE MAROC 3368 17-Dec-15 5,220,527.53 3545300434 Oct. 27,2015 PROCTER& 3303 27-0ct-15 GAMBLE MAROC 3545300433 Oct. 27,2015 58,383.89 PROCTER& 3369 17-Dec-15 GAMBLE 3289 16-0ct-15 364,023.41 3545351468 Dec. 17, 2015 6,609.21 PAKISTAN 3290 16-0ct-15 (PRIVATE) LIMITED 3340 24-Nov-15 1,166.33 PROCTER& 228,594.79 3545289280 Oct. 16, 2015 2,519.17 GAMBLE PAKISTAN 629.20 I IPRIVATE) LIMITED PROCTER& 1,497,414.33 3545292291 Oct. 19,2015 25,587.82 GAMBLE TAIWAN SALES COMPANY 6,3%.95 LIMITED PROCTER& 2,701,637.98 3545328346 Nov. 24, 2015 46,208.82 GAMBLE TUKETIM MALLARI SANAYl 11,552.20 A.S. PROCTER& GAMBLE TUKETIM

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page35 o�39 MALLARI SANAYI A.S. PROCTER& 3346 14-Dec-15 36,995.79 1,734,448.67 3545348316 Dec. 14, 2015 29,596.63 28�Dec-15 GAMBLE TUKETIM 16-Dec-15 7,399.16 MALLARI SANAYI A.S. PROCTER& 3381 21,100.69 987,658.19 3545335692 Dec. 01, 2015 13,789.28 GAMBLE VIETNAM 7,311.41 CO. LTD PROCTER AND 3362 78.81 3,694.80 3545350420 Dec. 16, 2015 72.90 5.91 GAMBLE LEVANT SAL Subtotal- 2nd Quarter FY 2016 395,226.27 18,309,147.53 343,563.15 51,663.12 Total-1st and 2ru1 Quarters FY 2016 13,892,900.07 619,624,912.74 13,833,988.21 58,911.86 While it was indicated in the schedule that the discrepancies pertain to alleged withholding taxes, billing adjustments and reimbursements, the Court cannot ascertain the veracity thereof without documentary proof. Thus, the above sales/receipts of P601,315,765.21 (US$13,497,673.80) for the 1st quarter of FY 2016, and P18,309,147.53 (US$395,226.27) for the 2nd quarter of FY 2016, in the aggregate sum of P619,624,912.74 (US$13,892,900.07), shall be disallowed for petitioner's failure to prove that the same were paid in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. In fine, for purposes of the fourth and fifth requisites, which must be complied with to successfully obtain a credit or refund of input VAT, petitioner had valid zero-rated sales/receipts for the 1st and 2nd quarters of FY 2016, but only in the amounts of P251,777,661.18 and P614,915,194.04, respectively, totaling P866,692,855.22, computed as follows: Zero-Rated Sales/Receipts per VAT Returns tst Quarter 2nd Quarter Total (FY 2016) (FY 2016) 1'1,514,744,292.29 Less: Disallowances , 872,089,433.90 p 642,654,858.39 , 1) Sales/Receipts to entities which do not , , 28,426,524.33 18,996,007.51 9,430,516.82 qualify as non-resident foreign corporations 619,624,912.74 601,315,765.21 18,309,147.53 doing business outside the Philippines p 648,051,437.07 , 620,311,772.72 , P866,692,855.22 2) Sales/Receipts, the foreign currency P251,777,661.18 27,739,664.35 P614,915,194.04 proceeds thereof were not proven to have been paid and accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations Total Disallowances Valid Zero�Rated Sales/Receipts

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 36 of39 Fourth element- Proof that the services were perfonned in the Philippines is inadequate. However, with regard to the fourth element, petitioner failed to establish that the services it rendered to its client-affiliates abroad were performed in the Philippines. Section 108(B)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that for the supply of service to qualify for a zero percent VAT rate, the same must be performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc.95 laid down the requirements for a supply of service to qualify for VAT zero-rating, as follows: However, the law clearly provides for an exception to the destination principle; that is, for a zero percent VAT rate for services that are performed in the Philippines, 'paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the [BSP].' Thus, for the supply of service to be zero- rated as an exception, the law merely requires that first, the service be performed in the Philippines; second, the service fall under any of the categories in Section 102(b) of the Tax Code; and, third, it be paid in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. The law neither makes a qualification nor adds a condition in determining the tax situs of a zero-rated service. Under this criterion, the place where the service is rendered determines the jurisdiction to impose the VAT. Performed in the Philippines, such service is necessarily subject to its jurisdiction, for the State necessarily has to have a 'substantial connection' to it, in order to enforce a zero rate. The place of payment is immaterial; much less is the place where the output of the service will be further or ultimately used. (Boldfacing supplied)96 Petitioner's Comptroller and Compliance Manager, Mr. Carlos Ben Ignacio, stated in his Sworn Statement that for the subject 95 G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005. % Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc, G.R. No. 152609, June 29, 2005 as cited in Procter & Gamble Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2301, November 24,2021. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page37 of39 periods of claim, petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to entities located and conducting business outside the Philippines, to wit:97 Q17: How did Petitioner incur the input VAT credits subject of its claim for refund for the Period of Claim? A: For the Period of Claim, Petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to entities located and conducting business outside the Philippines. For and in consideration of these services, Petitioner was paid in acceptable foreign currencies and accounted for in accordance with rules and regulations of the BSP. It is indispensable that a claimant of tax refund must prove that the services it rendered to its foreign affiliates must have been performed or rendered in the Philippines and not abroad.98 The issue of whether or not the refund claimant performed the subject services in the Philippines is a question of fact and must be proven by specific evidence.99 As the law does not look with favor on tax exemptions, one who seeks entitlement must justify it with evidence "too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. "100 The Services Agreements101 between petitioner and its client- affiliates do not categorically state that the contracted services shall be performed by the petitioner in the Philippines only. The Services Agreement contain a standard provision which provides that the service provider shall not be construed to provide services to service recipients outside of the service provider's normal place of business on other than on an occasional basis, to wit: 97 Exhibit "P-31", Docket (CIA Case No. 9768)- Vol. I, p. 213. 98 Procter & Gamble Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CIA EB Case No. 2301 (CIA Case Nos. 7581 & 7639), November 24, 2021. 99 Tongonan Holdings and Development Corporation v. Athj. Francisco Escano, G.R. No. 190994 citing Republic of the Philippines v. Angelo B. Malabanan, Pablo B. Malabanan, Greenthumb Realty and Development Corporation and The Registrar of Deeds of Batangas, G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010; Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9154, FebruanJ 14, 2020. 100 Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 122605, April 30, 2001 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., 65 SCRA 142, 153 [1975], citing Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 141 Phil. 621, 633 [1969]. 101 Exhibits "P-4.1" to "P-4.45", Docket (CTA Case No. 9768)- Vol. V, pp. 2402 to 3252. ~

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 38 of39 4.2 Performance of Services 4.2.2 THE SERVICE PROVIDER shall render the Services referred to in Article 4.1 from all or any of its operational locations, provided however that nothing herein shall be construed to require THE SERVICE PROVIDER to establish or maintain an office or other place of business other than its current and future places of business as deemed appropriate by THE SERVICE PROVIDER itself or be construed to require THE SERVICE PROVIDER to provide the services of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, to SERVICE RECIPIENT outside of THE SERVICE PROVIDER's normal place of business on other than on an occasional basisJ02 Article 1370 of the Civil Code provides that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. In contract interpretation, courts must first determine whether a stipulation is ambiguous or susceptible of multiple interpretations. If no ambiguity is found and the terms of the contract clearly reflect the intentions of the contracting parties, the stipulation will be interpreted as it is written.l03 Following the intent of petitioner and its client-affiliates embodied in the Services Agreements, the services may be performed both in the Philippines and abroad. Thus, without convincing proof that the services were actually performed by petitioner in the Philippines only, the services rendered by petitioner to its client- affiliates are not entitled to zero percent (0%) VAT under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In view of petitioner's failure to prove that its alleged VAT zero-rated sales were performed in the Philippines, petitioner failed to show that it is entitled to the claim for refund or tax credit under the substantive law. A claim for unutilized input value-added tax is in the nature of a tax exemption. Thus, strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by the law is required of the taxpayer. Refunds 102 Boldfacing supplied. 103 Cezar Yatco Real Estate Services, Inc., et. al v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 211780, November 21, 2018. rj

CTA Case Nos. 9768 and 9829 Procter & Gamble International Operations SA-ROHQ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page39 o�39 need to be proven and their application raised in the right manner as required by law_I04 Consequently, it becomes unnecessary to determine petitioner's compliance with the remaining requisites for granting a refund for the subject periods. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petitions for Review are DENIED, for insufficiency of evidence. !rvW.w ~ f.~. F~ MARIAN -~y F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (With due nripect, see Dltsenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ?I~.'}:~. -~~---- (With Separate Concurring Opinion) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate 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 consolidated cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice 104 Steag State Pawer, Inc. (Formerly State Pawer Develapment Corporation) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205282, January 14, 2019.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION PROCTER & GAMBLE CTA CASE NOS. 9768 & 9829 INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS Members: SA-ROHQ, DEL ROSARIO , P.J. , Chairperson MANAHAN, and Petitioner, REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated : --------X REVENUE , Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DISSENTING OPINION DEL ROSARIO, P.J.: With due respect, I withhold my assent to the ponencia in denying the Petition for Review for insufficiency of evidence. I submit that petitioner was able to prove that its value-added tax (VAT) zero-rated sales were performed in the Philippines pursuant to Section 108(B)(2) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and that the Court should proceed with the determination whether petitioner complied with the other requisites for a valid refund claim of input tax. The ponencia ruled that the sworn statement of petitioner's witness, Carlos Ben Ignacio, its Comptroller and Compliance Manager, alleging that the services were rendered in the Philippines, is insufficient. It also held that the Service Agreements between petitioner and its clients do not categorically state that the contracted services shall be performed in the Philippines. The unrebutted testimony of petitioner's witness, Carlos Ben Ignacio, statescl)

DISSENTING OPINION CTA CASE NOS. 9768 & 9829 "017: How did Petitioner incur the input VAT credits subject of its claim for refund for the Period of Claim? A: For the Period of Claim, Petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to entities located and conducting business outside the Philippines. For and in consideration of these services, Petitioner was paid in acceptable foreign currencies and accounted for in accordance with rules and regulations of the BSP." (Emphases supplied) In the Amended Decision of the recently decided case of Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Deutsche Knowledge}, 1 penned by the Honorable Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan, the Court En Bane ruled that the unrebutted testimony of the claimant's witness is sufficient to establish that the services were performed in the Philippines, viz.: "As to whether said services were performed in the Philippines, Ms. Concepcion's testimony was likewise unrebutted, to wit: 023: How did Petitioner incur the input VAT credits which are the subject of the present claim for refund? A: Petitioner purchased goods and services in the course of rendering services in the Philippines as a shared services center to clients engaged in business conducted in the Philippines. These clients are all part of the Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft Group (DB Group). This testimony was likewise corroborated by petitioner's purchases of goods and services in the Philippines to be utilized in the Philippines in the course of rendering services to petitioner's clients. Given the foregoing, and considering that respondent has not presented any evidence during trial contrary to or to rebut petitioner's evidence, the Court finds sufficient basis to reconsider the assailed Decision and rule that petitioner has proven that the services rendered by petitioner to its affiliates are services other than processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods; and, that said services are rendered in the Philippines." (Boldfacing supplied) Jurisprudence has it that an unrebutted testimony is enough evidence,2 and sufficient to establish a basis for the court's award. 3 1 CTA EB No. 2249 (CTA Case No. 9154), June 1, 2022. 2 Bienvenido Yap vs. The Solicitor General, G.R. No. L-1602, September 9, 1948. Of) 3 People of the Philippines vs. Elroswe/1 Manzano y Brebonera@ Boy Ulo, G.R. No. 138303, November 26, 2001

DISSENTING OPINION CTA CASE NOS. 9768 & 9829 Page 3 of4 The present case is on all fours with the Deutsche Knowledge case. The unrebutted testimony of petitioner's witness should be sufficient to establish the fact that services were performed in the Philippines pursuant to Section 108{8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Such testimony is corroborated by petitioner's purchases of goods and services in the Philippines to be utilized in the Philippines in the course of rendering services to petitioner's clients that resulted in petitioner incurring input taxes, as found by the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant.4 Moreover, the aforementioned pieces of evidence were not objected to by respondent. Likewise, respondent did not raise as a defense in her AnswerS and Memorandum6 that petitioner did not perform the subject services in the Philippines. In her Separate Concurring Opinion, Justice Manahan states that the Deutsche Knowledge case is not applicable here because of the presence of the Service Agreements which were not categorical in stating that the services may only be performed in the Philippines. The Service Agreements uniformly provide that: "4.2.2 THE SERVICE PROVIDER shall render the Services referred to in Article 4. 1 from all or any of its operational locations, provided however that nothing herein shall be construed to require THE SERVICE PROVIDER to establish or maintain an office or other place of business other than its current and future places of business as deemed appropriate by THE SERVICE PROVIDER itself or be construed to require THE SERVICE PROVIDER to provide services of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, to SERVICE RECIPENT outside of THE SERVICE PROVIDER's normal place of business on other than on an occasional basis. "7 (Boldfacing supplied) A review of the provision shows that petitioner may indeed be asked to perform services outside of its normal place of business on an occasional basis. However, the testimony of petitioner's witness, as above-quoted, shows that for the period of claim under consideration, i.e., 1"1 and 2nd Quarters of Fiscal Year 2016, the services were rendered in the Philippines. Even if the Service Agreements provide 4 Exhibit "P-23", CTA Case No. 9768, Docket, Vol. IV, pp. 2254-2267. 5 CTA Case No. 9768, Docket, Vol. I, pp. 103-109. 6 CTA Case No. 9768, Docket, Vol. VII, pp. 4471-4485. 7 Exhibits "P-4.1" to "P-4.45", CTA Case No. 9768, Vol. V, pp. 2402-3252.C!1

DISSENTING OPINION CTA CASE NOS. 9768 & 9829 Page4 of4 that petitioner may be asked to render services outside the country, nevertheless for the period of claim in these consolidated cases, petitioner was able to prove that the services were rendered in the Philippines and not abroad. Thus, there exists no inconsistency between the Service Agreements and the testimony of petitioner's witness, with the latter categorically stating that for purposes of the refund claim herein, the services were rendered in the Philippines. Considering that petitioner has sufficiently established that the services were performed in the Philippines, the Court should proceed with the determination of petitioner's compliance with the other requisites for a valid refund claim of excess and unutilized input VAT. ALL TOLD, I VOTE for the Court to determine petitioner's compliance with the other requisites for refund for a full disposition of these consolidated cases. Presiding Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY First Division PROCTER & GAMBLE CTA Case Nos. 9768 an d 9 8 29 INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS S A-R O H Q , Members: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO , P.J. , Chairperson. MANAHAN, and -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL OCT 05 2022 /1-,~c- REVENUE, , Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SEPARATE CONCURRING MANAHAN, J. : I agree with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, Justice Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, denying petitioner's Petition for Review for insufficiency of evidence. In the same vein, the undersigned would like to accentuate further why the evidence presented by petitioner to prove that the services rendered to its foreign clients were performed in the Philippines was insufficient. The undersigned agrees that an unrebutted testimony may be used as evidence in proving that services rendered for foreign client was performed in the Philippines, such as the Amended Decision rendered under CTA EB No. 2249. 1 However, unlike in the abovementioned case wherein the testimony of the witness focused on the proof of purchases that gave rise to input value-added ta){ (VAT) credits, the unrebutted testimony made by petitioner's witness in the instant case dwelt on the services allegedly rendered in the Philippines and not on 1 Deutsche Knowledge Services PTE., Ltd. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue dated June 1,2022.~

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION CTA Case Nos. 9768 & 9829 purchases of goods made in the Philippines as the source of petitioner's input value-added tax (VAT) credits, to wit:2 "Q 17: How did Petitioner incur the input VAT credits subject of its claim for refund for the Period of Claim. A: For the Period of Claim, Petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to entities located and conducting business outside the Philippines. For and in consideration of these services, Petitioner was paid in acceptable foreign currencies and accounted for in accordance with rules and regulations of the BSP" (Emphasis supplied) Moreover, as found by this Court, the services to be rendered are not exclusively to be done in the Philippines but may also be performed somewhere else, to wit:3 "4.2 Performance of Services XXX XXX XXX 4.2.2 THE SERVICE PROVIDER shall render the Services referred to in Article 4.1 from all or any of its operational locations, provided however that nothing herein shall be construed to require THE SERVICES PROVIDER to establish or maintain an office or other place of business other than its current and future places of business as deemed appropriate by THE SERVICE PROVIDER itself or be construed to require THE SERVICE PROVIDER to provide the services of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, to SERVICE RECIPIENT outside of THE SERVICE PROVIDER's normal place of business on other than on an occasional basis." (Emphasis supplied) A close reading of the aforequoted section of the Services Agreement reveals that services to the recipients/foreign clients may be rendered outside of petitioner's place of business on an occasional basis. Thus, petitioner must prove that indeed ALL of its services rendered to its foreign client were done in the Philippines. 2 Docket, CTA Case No. 9768, Vol. I, Sworn Statement of Mr. Carlos Ben Ignacio to Questions propounded by Atty. Alexis John S. Ramos, p. 213. 3 Id., Exhibit P-4.1, p. 2405; Exhibit P-4.2, p. 2422, Exhibit P-4.3, p. 2440; Exhibit P-4.4, p. 2460; Exhibit P-4.5, p. 2476 ~

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION CTA Case Nos. 9768 & 9829 Petitioner should be reminded that a claim for refund is akin to a claim against public funds considering that such input taxes form part of the funds for government operations, hence, petitioner is required to prove its entitlement to the return of such funds. It is hornbook doctrine that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and as such they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.4 The burden of proof is upon the person/entity who claims the exemption and he/ she/it must be able to justify the claim by the clearest grant under constitutional or statutory law.s WHEREFORE, falling short of the quantum of evidence required to grant the claim for refund, I CONCUR with the DECISION denying the Petition for Review. ~~r ~~~c~�~~t~-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 4 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 127105, June 25, 1999. 5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation and The Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-66838, December 2, 1991.