DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., CTA CASE NO. 10212 Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -}{ DECISION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review filed on November 13, 20 19 by petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. 1 ("Petitioner"), against respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR" or "Respondent"), under Section 3(a), Rule 8, 2 in relation to Section 3(a)(1), Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Ta}{ Appeals 4 ("RRCTA"), praying that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to refund petitioner the denied portion of its claim for refund of unutilized input value-added ta}{ ("VAT") attributable to zero-rated sales for the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31,2018 in the aggregate amount ofP325,271,543.33. ~ 1 Dated November 8, 2019, received by the Court on November 13, 2019; Docket- VoL I, pp. 6-35. 2 Section 1 Who May Appeal: Period to File Petition. - (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary ofTrade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by Jaw for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. 3 Section 3. Cases Within the Jurisdiction ofthe Court in Divisions.- The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (I) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 4 A.M. No. 05-1 1-07-CTA.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 2 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PARTIES Petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal address at Cannery Site, Cannery, Polomolok, Sarangani Economic Development Zone, South Cotabato.s Petitioner's primary purpose is "to acquire, own, lease, hold, cultivate, develop, operate and maintain agricultural lands, grazing lands, farms, plantations, orchards and, gardens, cattle and other ranches, and to plant, grow, cultivate and harvest pineapples and other agricultural crops and raise and breed cattle and other kinds of animals therein and thereon; to produce, process, can, manufacture, freeze, preserve, refine, pack, buy and sell and otherwise deal in and with said cattle, other animals, pineapples, other agricultural crops, and other products of the land, including the products and by-products thereof, and for such and be such purposes to acquire, construct, lease, own, maintain and operate cold storage plants, slaughter houses, canneries, mills, factories, railroads, airplanes, ships, lighters, docks, piers, warehouses, storage and shipping facilities, buildings, structures and works of all kinds, wireless plants, instruments and apparatus, and all machinery, equipment and appliances which may be required, needed or used in connection therewith, for making manufacturing, storing, maintaining and transporting its crops, supplies, products and other property, and for other purposes incidental to any of its business; and to acquire, construct, maintain and operate pumping plants, irrigation systems and other works for the development, conservation, storage, transmission and utilization of water, including artesian wells, shafts, tunnels, pipe lines, ditches, flunes, dams, reservoirs and other works, and to do all of the things incidental to or proper in the business of acquiring water for its own use. "6 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") as a VAT-registered taxpayer with Tax Identification Number ("TIN") 000-428-573.7 Its branches throughout the Philippines are likewise cegisteced with the B!R.' ~ 5 Exhibit "P-I", Docket- Vol. I, p. 305; Pars. 3.1 and 4. I, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 8. 6 Exhibit "P-2-a", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 306-307. 7 Exhibit "P-3", Docket- Vol. I, p. 324. 8 Exhibits ''P-3-A" to ''P-3-Z", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 326-351.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 3 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is empowered to perform the duties of his office, including acting upon on protest cases and approval of claims for refund or tax credit as provided by law and implementing regulations. He can be served with notices at BIR National Office Bldg., BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City.9 THE FACTS On June 28, 2019, petitioner filed an Application for Tax Credits 1 Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), 10 with a Sworn Statement executed by Ms. Rhodora U. Cagampan, 11 under Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") of 1997, as amended, for the refund of VAT, in the amount of P1,218,800,809.92 for the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 with the BIR's VAT Credit Audit Division ("VCAD"). On October 16, 2019, petitioner received the VAT Refund Notice12 dated August 29, 2019, and Tax Verification Notice No. TVN2018000083093 13 dated June 28, 2019, issued by respondent, partially granting petitioner's administrative claim in the amount of"P893,529,266.59. Petitioner filed a Petition of Review on November 13, 2019. 14 On January 31, 2020, within the extended time granted by the Court, 15 respondent filed his Answer.16 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on February 27, 2020. 17 However, on February 13, 2020, petitioner filed a Motion to Reset Pre-Trial Conference, 18 which the Court granted. 19 Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on June 23, 2020,20 Respondent's Pre-Trial Briefwas submitted on June 26, ~ 9 Par. 3.2, Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, p. 8. 10 Exhibit "P-68", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 954 to 955. 11 Exhibit "P-70". Docket- Vol. II, p. 970. 12 Exhibits "P-73-A" and "P-73-B", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 974 to 975. ll Exhibit "P-73", Docket- Vol. II, p. 973. 14 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 6 to 36. 15 Respondent's Motion for Extension ofTime to File Answer, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 193 to 196; Order dated December 9, 2019, Docket- Vol. I, p. 198; Respondent's Motion for Additional Time to File Answer, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 199 to 202; Order dated January 8, 2020, Docket- Vol. I, p. 204. "Docket- Vol. I, pp. 206 to 215. 17 Notice ofPre-Trial Conference dated February 27, 2020, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 221 to 222. 18 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 223 to 225. 19 Order dated February 18, 2020, Docket- Vol. I, p. 228. 20 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 235 to 264.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 4 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 2020.21 The Pre-Trial Conference was eventually held on June 29, 2020.22 On July 20, 2020, petitioner filed a Manifestation,23 stating that the parties have disagreed on certain stipulations of issues; thus, they will no longer file a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues. In the Resolution dated July 29, 2020,24 the Court noted the Manifestation. On September 8, 2020, respondent transmitted the BIR Records of this case, consisting of one (1) folder, consecutively numbered as pages 1 to 58.25 The trial ensued, wherein the parties presented their respective documentary and testimonial evidence. Petitioner offered the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Mr. Rhodora U. Cagampan, 26 Tax Manager of Dole Asia Company Ltd.; and (2) Ms. Sonia D. Segovia,27 the Court-commissioned independent certified public accountant ("ICPA").28 The Report of the !CPA was submitted on January 12, 2021, consisting of eight (8) binders.29 Petitioner filed its Formal Offer ofEvidence on February 26, 2020.30 On March 5, 2021, respondent posted a Motion to Admit Attached Comment on Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence. 31 In its Resolution dated March 22, 2021, 32 the Court granted the Motion and admitted the attached Comment/ Opposition (to v Petitioner's Formal Offer ofEvidence) with Manifestation. 33 " Docket- Vol. I, pp. 560 to 563. 22 Order dated, and Minutes of the hearing held on, June 29,2020, Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 564 to 565. 23 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 583 to 584. 24 Docket~ Vol. II, p. 592. 25 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 6 I0 to 612. "Exhibit "P-75", Docket~ Vol. I, pp. 270 to 559; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 14, 2020, Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 626 to 627. 27 Exhibit "P-470", Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 655 to 702; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February I, 202 I, Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 703 to 704. 28 Oath a/Commission dated October 14, 2020, Docket- Vol. II, p. 628; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 14, 2020, Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 626 to 627. "Exhibit "P�77-A". 30 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 723 to 754. 31 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 979 to 983. 32 Docket~ Vol. II, p. 991. 33 Docket~ Vol. II, pp. 985 to 988.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 5 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Resolution dated July 12, 2021, 34 the Court admitted petitioner's offered exhibits, except for the following: 1. A3E-"xZ,h""i,Pb"-it1Ps3-1"-B1P"-"1', """'PP"--P15-142-""A't"o"Pto"-2P-"-AP65"-1'"1,"-P"C-P3"-"'6'8"""PP,--1"32P-"A-'6"9"t"Po,-1""P3P--- 71" to "P-73", and "P-74", for failure to submit the duly marked exhibits with the indication that the same are accordingly the original computer print- out, certified true copies or faithful reproduction of the originals; and 2. Exhibit "P-88-ae", "P-1 05-abl", "P-1 05-aew", "P- 432443284---iadgw""',"""' PP"--4P444-212-5-wp1eo-"a",k' """P'P--4"4P442-13--a1aa5gg-ba"","''"P"P"-P4-4-434232-a4-ec-bmq"""', "P- 'a"nPd- "P-442-aml", as the foregoing documents could not be found in the USB containing the softcopies of the exhibits identified in the ICPA Report. Consequently, on August 3, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration to the Resolution dated July 12, 2021, 35 praying that this Court admit the denied exhibits. Respondent filed his Manifestation on November 24, 2021.36 In the Resolution dated February 14, 2022,37 the Court granted petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and admitted Exhibits "P-1", "P-2" ' "P-2-A" ' "P-3" ' "P-3-A" to "P-3- Z", "P-11", "P-11-A" to "P-11-C", "P-12", "P-13-A", "P-13-B", "P- 54" to "P-65" '""PP--16085"-'a"ePw-6",9""'P"-P2-4781-"atwo"",P"-7P3-2" '5"1P-a-7k4"", ' ""PP--38185-a-ae"",' "P-105-abl", "4P4-23-3ig4"-,b""P' -"4P4-23-3p4e-"d,""'P"-P4-4424-1a-awgo"," '"P"P-4-44421-a-caqg"b,"a' n"Pd-"4P4-24-4e2m-a"m' "lP"-. In the meantime, respondent, for his part, offered the testimony of Revenue Officer ("RO") Daniel Carlo C. Perez;; 14 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 993 to 996. 35 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 998 to lOOt. 36 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 1032 to 1034. 37 Docket- Vol. II. pp. 1046 to 1048. 38 Exhibit "R-6", Docket- Vol. II, pp. 618 to 622-a; Order dated November 10, 2021, Docket- Vol. II. p. 1031..

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence was filed on December 1, 2021.39 Petitioner filed its Comment/ Opposition (To the Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence). 40 In the Resolution dated February 14, 2022,41 the Court admitted all respondent's offered exhibits. On March 8, 2022, respondent filed his Memorandum, 42 while petitioner filed its Memorandum on March 9, 2022. 43 The present case was submitted for decision on March 14, 2022. 44 However, on March 28, 2022, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Re-Open the Case. 45 Respondent failed to file his comment/ opposition thereon.46 In the Resolution dated June 16, 2022,47 the Court denied petitioner's Urgent Motion to Re-Open the Case for lack of merit and submitted the present case for decision anew. Hence, this Decision. THE ISSUE Petitioner raised the following issue for the resolution of the Court: WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE DENIED PORTION OF CLAIM FOR REFUND ON THE EXCESS AND UNUTILIZED INPUT VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2017 TO MARCH 31,2018 AMOUNTING TO 1'325,271,543.33. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS Petitioner argues that it is a VAT-registered taxpayer whose sales are entitled to VAT zero-rating. 48 Petitioner cites 39 Docket- Vol. II, pp. I036 to I040. 40 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 1042 to 1043. "Docket- Vol. II, pp. 1046 to 1048. 42 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 1049 to 1057. 43 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 1059 to 1099. 44 Resolution dated March 14,2022, Docket- Vol. II, p. I 101. 45 Docket- Vol. II, pp. I 102 to I 104. 46 Records Verification dated June 7, 2022 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket- Vol. II, p. I 126. 47 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 1127 to I 130. 48 Petition for Review, p. 6.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 7 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 106(A)(2)(a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as the legal basis for its zero-rating.49 Petitioner further avers that it had unutilized and unapplied input tax credits from April 1, 20 17 to March 31, 2018 directly attributable to its zero-rated sales in the aggregate amount of Pl,218,800,809.92. 50 Petitioner also claims that it timely filed its administrative claim for refund within the two- year prescriptive period,51 and that it timely filed its Petition for Review with the Court.52 Petitioner then argues that it should have been refunded the denied portion ofP325,271,543.33 covering the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.53 It states that respondent erred in imputing output VAT from its zero-rated sales to Board of Investments ("BOI"), Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority ("SBMA"), and Clark Development Corporation ("CDC") enterprisess4 as they are allegedly properly classified as zero- rated sales under Revenue Regulations ("RR") No. 16-2005, as amended. Petitioner likewise impugns respondent's allocation of additional input VAT amounting to 1"51,333.07 to alleged unremitted export sales.ss Petitioner further assails respondent's findings that it overclaimed input VAT amounting to 1"2,404,031.31, contending that petitioner only claimed input taxes properly substantiated with official receipts and invoices. 56 Petitioner assails respondent's findings that it claimed input VAT amounting to P22, 146,144.05 that is out of period and argues that these were incurred from April 1, 20 17 to March 31, 2018.57 Petitioner assails the disallowance ofP754, 178.95 of its input VAT for allegedly being purchases from non-VAT registered suppliers based on the verification of the Integrated Tax System ("ITS"), contending that these are supported by invoices and official receipts from VAT-registered suppliers.sa 49 /d., p. 8. 50 !d., p. 8. 51 !d., p. 9. 52 /d., p. 12. 53 !d., p. 13. "!d., p. 15. 55 /d., p. 22. 56 /d., p. 25. 57 /d., pp. 25-26. 58 /d., p. 26.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 8 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Further, petitioner claims that, contrary to respondent's findings, t-686,204.43 of its input VAT were from petitioner's suppliers who were properly issued with Authority to Print,59 t-949,485.63 of its input VAT were evidenced by invoices and official receipts that are readable,60 t-52,409.19 of its input VAT were not claimed twice,61 t-402,274.97 of its input VAT were evidenced by official receipts and invoices in which the Authority to Print is indicated,62 t-56,544.48 of its input VAT and t-40,077.44 of its final withholding VAT were substantiated,63 t-61,520.00 of its input VAT were separately billed in the Bureau of Customs ("BOC") Statement of Settlement of Duties and Taxes ("SSDT"),64 t-15,186,044.55 of its input VAT were collaborated [sic] with other supporting documents despite the fact that the invoices contained alterations, 65 t-1,382,553.27 of its input VAT were not overclaimed but "pertain to the difference between the petitioner's actual amount of input VAT allocable to exempt sales per VAT returns versus VCAD's computed allocation of input VAT on exempt sales"66 , and P2,933,642 of its input VAT on importation were properly supported with sales invoice, import entry, and other documents showing actual payment of VAT.67 Petitioner further argues that the imposition of the compromise penalty amounting to P12,500.00 is improper considering that the same is without its conformity.58 However, petitioner agrees with the finding of respondent that input tax in the amount of P1,075,123.00 pertains to the bond already refunded by the BOC69 and that its deferred input v VAT amounting to P5, 144,460.88 should be disallowed. 70 59 !d., p. 26. 60 !d., p. 26. 61 !d., p. 26. 62 !d., p. 27. 63 !d., p. 27. "!d., p. 27. 65 !d., pp. 27-28. 60 !d., p. 28. 67 !d., p. 29. 68 !d., pp. 28-29. 69 !d., p. 27. 70 !d., p. 28.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 9 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS Respondent argues that petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for claiming a refund or tax credit. 71 According to respondent, petitioner's input VAT on Big Ticket purchases in the amount ofP973,750 was disallowed for failure to attach supporting documents, such as a debit note or sales invoice, for being supported by altered invoices, and for being out-of-period.72 Respondent also posits that petitioner's input tax on importations in the amount of P2,933,642 was likewise disallowed for failure to present the corresponding invoices and/or out-of-period SSDT.73 Respondent states that petitioner has additional over- claimed input VAT in the amount of P1,382,553.27 pertaining to the discrepancy on input tax claimed based on Net Available Input Tax per VAT returns of fiscal year ("FY") 2018 as against the Application for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914).74 According to respondent, petitioner's zero-rated sales were not properly substantiated, resulting in an allocated and disallowed input tax amount of P18,409,246.48.75 Finally, respondent states that refund claims are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of the nature of exemption from taxation and, as such, they are looked upon with disfavor.76 THE COURT'S RULING The Petition for Review is partly meritorious. The Court has iurisdiction over the instant Petition. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, We shall determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case. 71 Answer, p. 2. 72 !d., p. 4 73 !d.� p. 4. 74 !d., p. 6. 75 !d.� p. 6. 76 /d.� p. 8.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 10 of67 x------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act ("RA") No. 9282, 77 amending RA No. 1125,78 provides that: Section 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.] The above provision is implemented by Section 3(a)(1), Rule 4 of the RRCTA,79 to wit: Section 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. -The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue [Emphasis and underscoring supplied.] The records show that on October 16, 2019, petitioner received the VAT Refund NoticeBO dated August 29, 2019, and Tax Verification Notice No. TVN201800008309381 dated June 28, 2019, issued by respondent, partially granting petitioner's administrative claim in the amount of P893,529,266.59. Under Section 3(a), Rule 882 of the RRCTA, petitioner had 77 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court ofTax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court ofTax Appeals, and for Other Purposes, 30 March 2004. 78 An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, June 16, 1954. 79 A.M. No. 05-ll-07�CTA, November 22, 2005. 80 Annex "A", Petition for Review. 81 Annex "B". Petition for Review. 82 Section 3. Who May Appeal; Period to File Petition. -(a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 11 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x thirty (30) days from receipt of the partial denial on October 16, 2019, or until November 15, 2019, to file a Petition for Review before the CTA. Petitioner timely filed its Petition of Review on November 13, 2019.83 Having settled that the Petition was timely filed, We likewise rule that the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to take cognizance of this Petition under Section 3(a)(1), Rule 484 of the RRCTA. We now proceed to the merits of the case. Section 112(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides: SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. - (A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales.- Any VAT- registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108 (8)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales. Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(8) (6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. \. �� / Trial~~ Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by Jaw for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. 83 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 6 to 36. 84 Section 3. Cases Within the Jurisdiction ofthe Court in Divisions. The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: ( 1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 12 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x (B) ... (C) Period within which Refund of Input Taxes shall be Made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund for creditable input taxes within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof: Provided, That should the Commissioner find that the grant of refund is not proper, the Commissioner must state in writing the legal and factual basis for the denial. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim, appeal the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals: Provided, however, That failure on the part of any official, agent, or employee of the BIR to act on the application within the ninety (90)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code. Based on the foregoing and as culled from jurisprudence, particularly Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toledo Power Co.,85 the requisites for claiming unutilized or excess input VAT under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, are as follows: As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims: 1. The claim is filed with the BIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made;86 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 [90] days, the judicial claim shall be filed with this Court within 30 days from receipt of the decision or after the expiration of the said [90]- day period;B7 Concerning the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. The taxpayer is a VAT-registered person;BB 85 G.R. Nos. 195175 & 199645, 10 August 2015, 766 SCRA 20-33. 86 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 155732, April27, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 182364,3 August 2010. 87 Steag State Power, Inc:. (Formerly State /'ower Development C01poration) vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 205282, January 14, 2019; Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 168950, January 14, 2015. 88 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc., supra.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 13 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. The taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;B9 5. For zero-rated sales under Sections 106 (A) (2) (1) and (2); 106 (B); and 108 (B) (1) and (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ("BSP") rules and regulations;9� As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. The input taxes are not transitional;91 7. The input taxes are due or paid;92 8. The input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume;93 and 9. The input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters.94 We discuss each requisite in seriatim. First and second requisites: Petitioner's administrative and fudicial claims for refund were timely filed. The first requisite pertains to filing the claim for a tax credit or refund 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. 89 !d. 90 !d. 91 !d. '12 !d. 93 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc., supra. 94 Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc., supra.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 14 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In the present case, petitioner seeks to refund its unutilized input taxes attributable to its VAT zero-rated sales for the four taxable quarters or for the period covering from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. Counting two years from the close of the subject taxable quarters, petitioner had until the following dates to file its administrative claim: Period Covered Close ofthe Last Day to File Taxable Quarter Administrative l"t Quarter June 30, 2017 (April 1 to June Claim 30, 2017) September 30, 2017 June 30, 2019 2nd Quarter (July 1 to December 31, 2017 September 30, 2019 September 30, 2017) March 31, 2018 December 31, 2019 ard Quarter (October 1 to March 31, 2020 December 31, 2017 4th Quarter (January 1 to March 31, 2018) Records reveal that on June 28, 2019, petitioner filed an Application for Tax Credits / Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914)95 with a Sworn Statement executed by Ms. Rhodora U. Cagampan.96 Accordingly, We rule that the administrative claim for refund was seasonably filed. The second requisite is to the effect that the judicial claim for refund must have been filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of respondent's decision or after the expiration of the ninety (90)-day period under the afore-quoted Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Notably, under Section 4.108-5 of RR No. 13-2018,97 all applications filed from January 1, 2018 shall be processed and decided within ninety (90) days from the filing of the VAT 95 Supra at note 10. '~��I 96 Supra at note II. 97 Regulations Implementing the VAT Provisions under the RA No. 10963, Further Amending RR No. 16-2005, as Amended, March 15, 2018.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 15 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x refund application, while those filed before January 1, 2018, shall still be governed by the one hundred twenty (120) days processing period. In this case, from filing petitioner's administrative claim on June 28, 2019, respondent had ninety (90) days, or until September 26, 2019,98 to act on the claim. Records show that on August 29, 2019, or before the lapse of the 90 days, respondent issued the VAT Refund Notice partially denying petitioner's administrative claim. However, petitioner received the VAT Refund Notice dated August 29, 2019 only on October 16, 2019;99 thus, it had 30 days from October 16, 2019 or until November 15, 2019, to file a judicial claim. Petitioner timely filed its judicial claim via the present Petition for Review 1oo on November 13, 2019. Based on the foregoing, petitioner has complied with the first and second requisites. Third requisite: Petitioner is a VAT-registered entity. In determining whether petitioner is VAT-registered, reference may be made to its BIR Certificate of Registration (BIR Form No. 2303). A perusal of petitioner's Certificates of Registration for its Head Office 101 and its branches102 indeed reveals that it is a VAT-registered taxpayer. As this is undisputed, We rule that the third requisite has been complied with. Having settled that petitioner is a VAT-registered taxpayer, and its administrative and judicial claims have been timely filed, We now proceed to determine whether it is entitled to its claim for refund of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. 98 The 90'" day from June 28, 2019 is September 26, 2019; Exhibits "P-73-A" and "P-73-B", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 556 to 557. <}Q Par. 2.3, Petition for Review, Docket --Vol. I, p. 7; Exhibits "P-73-A" and "P-73-B", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 556 to 557. 100 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 6 to 35. 101 Supra at note 7. 102 Supra at note 8.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 16 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Fourth and Rfth requisites: Petitioner had zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 but only in the amount of ?31,384,368,317.33. The fourth and fifth requisites require that the taxpayer be engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. 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, the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. In its Amended Quarterly VAT Returns for the period covering April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, petitioner reported total sales of P36,785,576,550.64, which include vatable sales amounting to P2,660,376,823.43, zero-rated sales amounting to P33,665, 195,868.50, and exempt sales amounting to P460,003,858.71, as shown below: Type lat Quarter 2"d Quarter 3"' Quarter 4"' uarter Total Exhibit "P-450-c" Exhibits "P-29"103 Exhibits "P-35"104 and Exhibit "P-450-k" 2,660,376,823.43 Vatable p 482,892,177.20 p 548,791,926.37 p Sales and "P-450-e" "P-450-g" Zero Rated p 530,575,094.07 p 1,098,117,625.79 Sales Exempt 7,595,583,535.40 8,0 16,662,548.70 9,057,437,267.87 8,995,512,516.53 33,665,195,868.50 Sales Total 99,800,626.19 106,274,290.52 138,792,991.18 115,135,950.82 460,003,858.71 1'8 178 276 338.79 P8 653,511,933.29 PlO 294 347,884.84 P9 659 440,393.72 P36 785 576,550.64 Petitioner alleged that its zero-rated sales were derived from its export sales of goods to Dole Asia Holdings Pte. Ltd. 105 ("DAH") and sales to export-oriented entities registered with the BOI, SBMA, PEZA, and CDC, 106 which were paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations, during the period April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1) and (5) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: 103 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 468 to469. 104 Docket-Vol.l,pp.480to481. 105 Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 12 to 13. 106 Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 20 to 21.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 17 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Customer BOI/SBMA/ Amount CDC Re~~:istered 1'40,744,193.57 Century Pacific Agricultural Ventures, BOI Inc. 2,920,155.24 General Tuna Corporation BOI 115,280.00 General Tuna Corporation BOI 46,134.01 Hi-Las Marketing Corporation BOI Philbest Canning Corporation BOI 2,065,000.00 Amley Food Corporation BOI 17,800.00 Gem Foods International, Inc. SBMA Millbrae Exports, Inc. CDC 1,277,796.65 Millbrae Exports, Inc. CDC 2,095,710.00 (4,040.00)107 Total Zero-rated Sales to Export p 49,278,029.47108 Oriented Entities Non-Resident Dole Asia Holdings ("DAH") Pte. Ltd. Foreign 33,615,800,744.79109 Corporation Total Zero-rated Sales P33,665,078, 744.26 Total Zero-rated Sales per VAT Return P33,665, 195,868.50 Difference (P 117 ,094.24) As can be gleaned from the table above, the total zero-rated sales accounted for is lower than the P33,665, 195,868.50 zero- rated sales declared per amended Quarterly VAT return by P117,094.24. Ms. Sonia D. Segovia, the Court-commissioned !CPA, noted in her report that the difference of Pll7,094.24 between the total zero-rated sales in the Summary List of Sales ("SLS") 110 amounting to P33,665, 195,868.50 and Schedule of Zero-Rated Sales of Goods 111 amounting to P33,665,078,774.26, pertains to Corrugated Sales which was declared in both regular VAT-subject sales and zero-rated sales in the SLS. 11 2 Thus, the zero-rated sales declared per VAT return were overstated. Accordingly, only the total amount of P33,665,078,744.26 will be considered and be subjected to further scrutiny, while the Pll7,094.24 export sales will automatically be disallowed VAT zero-rating absent any document supporting the same. The relevant provision in determining whether petitioner's sales are subject to VAT at zero percent (0%) is Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1) and (5) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as quoted hereunder for easy reference: ~ 107 Exhibit "P-162-a"; Pertains to Sales Returns and Adjustment, hence, deducted. 10M Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 20 to 21. 109 Sub-Annex "C.4'', BIR Records, p. 25. 110 Exhibit "P-45 I�a"to "P�45 I�d". 111 Exhibit "P-446". 112 Page I 2, Exhibit "P�77".

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 18 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x "SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. - (A) Rate and Base of Tax. - xxx (2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (a) Export Sales. -The term 'export sales' means: (1) The sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported and paid for in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (5) Those considered export sales under Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, and other special laws." Relative thereto, Section 4.106-5 ofRR No. 16-2005, 113 as amended by RR No. 4-2007,1 14 provides: "SEC. 4.106-5. Zero-Rated Sales of Goods or Properties. The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (a) Export Sales. - 'Export Sales' shall mean: (1) The sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported, paid for in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods and services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); 113 Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005, September I, 2005. 114 Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005, February 7, 2007.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 19 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x (5) Transactions considered export sales under Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 and other special laws. �considered export sales under Executive Order No. 226' shall mean the Philippine port F.O.B. value determined from invoices, bills of lading, inward letters of credit, landing certificates, and other commercial documents, of export products exported directly by a registered export producer, or the net selling price of export products sold by a registered export producer to another export producer, or to an export trader that subsequently exports the same; Provided, That sales of export products to another producer or to an export trader shall only be deemed export sales when actually exported by the latter, as evidenced by landing certificates or similar commercial documents; Provided, further, That pursuant to EO 226 and other special laws, even without actual exportation, the following shall be considered constructively exported: (1) sales to bonded manufacturing warehouses of export-oriented manufacturers; (2) sales to export processing zones pursuant to Republic Act (RAJ Nos. 7916. as amended. 7903, 7922 and other similar export processing zones; (3) sale to enterprises duly registered and accredited with the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority pursuant to RA 7227: (4) sales to registered export traders operating bonded trading warehouses supplying raw materials in the manufacture of export products under guidelines to be set by the Board in consultation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC); @ sales to diplomatic missions and other agencies and/or instrumentalities granted tax immunities, of locally manufactured, assembled or repacked products whether paid for in foreign currency or not. For purposes of zero-rating, the export sales of registered export traders shall include commission income. The exportation of goods on consignment shall not be deemed export sales until the export products consigned are in fact sold by the consignee: and Provided, finally, that sales of goods, properties or services made by a VAT-registered supplier to a BOI-registered manufacturer/ producer whose products are 100% exported are considered export sales. A certification to this effect must be issued by the Board of Investment (BOI) which shall be good for one year unless subsequently re-issued by the BOI." [Underscoring supplied} Moreover, petitioner must 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:

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 20 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x "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. (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 breakdown 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 component of the sale.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 21 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x (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 (1"1,000.00) or more where the sale or transfers 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." [Emphasis supplied.] The above provision on invoicing requirement is further implemented by Section 4.113-l(A) and (B) of RR No. 16- 2005,115 as amended, to wit: SEC. 4.113-1. Invoicing Requirements. - (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; 115 Supra at note 113.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 22 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x (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 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 peso (Pl,OOO.OO) 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. [Underscoring supplied] Thus, only the sales of goods or services supported by the Sis and ORs, having the required information, shall qualify for VAT zero-rating.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 23 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Export Sales of goods to DAH Based on the foregoing, for petitioner's export sales of goods to qualify as zero-rated pursuant to Section 106(A)(2)(a)( 1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the following essential elements must be present: 1. The sale was made by a VAT-registered person; 2. There was a sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country; and 3. The sale was paid for in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP. Corollary thereto, We have consistently ruled that any VAT-registered person claiming for VAT zero-rating on its export sale of goods must present to the Court at least three (3) types of documents, as follows: 1. The sales invoice as proof of sale of goods; 2. The export declaration and bill of lading or airway bill as proof of actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country; and 3. The bank credit advice, certificate of bank remittance, or any other document proving payment for the goods in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods and services.116 Consequently, only export sales supported by the above- stated documents shall qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 106(A)(2)(a)( 1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Anent the first element, as discussed earlier, petitioner was able to prove that it is a VAT-registered person. As to the second and third elements, petitioner adduced .J before this Court, in support of its zero-rated sales, its sales invoices, 117 bills of lading and/or airways bills, 118 export, 11" Commissioner ofInternal Revenuer. !'art Barton Development Corp., C.T.A. EB Case No. 1743 (CTA Case No. ~1 8490), January 21, 2019; Oceanago/d (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, CTA EB Case No. 2358 (CTA Case No. 9112) (Resolution). June 21, 2022. 11 7 Exhibits "P-172-a" to "P-431-a". 118 Exhibits "P-442-a" to "P-442-bcc".

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 24 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x declarations, 119 bank statements, 120 and summary of inward remittances121 which the ICPA examined. Petitioner claims that it sold its products to Dole Asia Holdings ("DAH") Pte. Ltd. in the total amount of P33,615,800,744.79 122 under the following Intercompany Sales Agreement: 1. Packaged Foods Intercompany Sales Agreement 123 between DAH Pte. Ltd. and Dole Philippines, Inc.; and 2. Intercompany Sales Agreement 124 between DAH Pte. Ltd. and Dole Philippines, Inc.- Stanfilco Division. However, based on respondent's computation of input VAT allocation to zero-rated sales, 125 the total export sales to DAH amounting to P33,615,800,744.79 was adjusted to P28,806,756,419.64, computed as follows: Export Sales to DAH Amount Less: Adjustments I' 33,615 800,744.79126 VCAD Adiustment I' 1,209 764.41127 4,494,586,935.85128 Unremitted export sales (see Schedule 6 ofVCAD 188 348,718.03129 Working Paper- Export Sales 77,587,326.60130 and Dollar Remittances page 613 (23,814.26 (iiJ, 50.801- TARD Adjustments Direct Export Sales which were invalidated by reasons enumerated in Sub-Annex C. I - DOLEFIL Direct Export Sales which were invalidated by reasons enumerated in Sub-Annex C.2 - Stanfilco Direct Export Sales which were invalidated by reasons enumerated in Sub-Annex C.3 - Dolefil Copperwires and Corrugated Boxes 119 Exhibits "P-441-a" to "P-441-auk". 120 Exhibits "P-438-a'" to "P-438-ad'". 121 Exhibits "P-439-a'" to "P-439-aa"'. 12Z Sub-Annex "C.4", BIR Records, p. 25. 123 Exhibit "P-13'", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 408 to 414. 124 Exhibit "P-13-A'", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 415 to 423. 125 Annex "C" of Exhibit "R-3"', BIR Records, pp. 47 & 56. 120 Sub-Annex "C.4", BIR Records, p. 25. 127 Table V-2. Exhibit "P-77", p. 32. 128 Table V-3, Exhibit "P-77", pp. 32 to 95. 129 Table V-4, Exhibit "P-77'", pp. 95 to 101. 130 Table V-5, Exhibit "P-77", p. 101.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 25 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Insufficient Remittance of Zero- 47 311,580.26131 Rated Sales 4 809 044,325.15 Total Adjustments p 28,806,756,419.64 Adjusted Export Sales to DAH To summarize, respondent disallowed petitioner's export sales to DAH in the total amount of !'4,809,044,325.15 based on the following grounds: No. Disallowances Amount Unremitted export sale (see Schedule 6 ofVCAD 1 Working Paper - Export Sales and Dollar 1,209,764.41 Remittances page 613 (23,814.26(iil50.80) f' 2 Direct Export Sales which were not properly 4,807,834,560.74 substantiated (Sub-Annexes C.1 to C.4) p 4,809,044,325.15 Total disallowances Upon further scrutiny of the pieces of evidence presented, We find that the disallowances made by respondent are partly tenable, as follows: 1. The disallowance of unremitted export sales in the total amount ofP1,209,764.41 is proper. Although petitioner offered SIno. 2910241 32 evidencing the sale of goods to Beijing Weian Trading Co. Ltd., it failed to show proof of actual shipme nt. A perusal of the alleged bill oflading133 and SI no. 291024 indicates that the invoice has incomplete details (such as the date of shipment, vessel name, and voyage number); thus, the Court cannot ascertain if the bill of lading corresponds to the shipment of goods in the said invoice. Since there was no proof of actual shipment, discussing the proof of its inward remittance is futile. Moreover, it can be noted that this was also included in the disallowances under "insufficient remittance to zero-rated sales," amounting to P47,311,580.26.134 Hence, the disallowances due to insufficient remittance to zero-rated sales should be reduced by !'1,209,764.41; and 2. Upon further verification of the documents submitted before the Court, We find that instead of the total export sales amounting to P4,807,834,560.74, only the total amount of !'2,232,314,333.05 should be disallowed for being not adequately substantiated, as itemized below: 131 Table V-6, Exhibit "P-77'', p. 101. rl 132 Exhibit "P-172-a". 133 Exhibit "P-442-a". 134 Table V-6, Exhibit "P-77", p. 101.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 26 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x l. Export sales supported by a blurred bill of Ladina f"BL''J Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit 04/08/2017 Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page I' 15,978.49 04/19/2017 No. "P-442-b" No. 15,978.49 04/22/2017 "P-173-a" !'P-442-c" 15,978.49 11/15/2017 "P-174-a" 90546 "P-442-d" "P-439-a" 2 16 656.16 01/10/2018 "P-174-b" 90795 "P-442-t" 16,656.16 06/21/2017 ''P-177-a" 90796 "P-442-ai" "P-439-b" 1 18 346.64 06/24/2017 "P-186-a" 95002 ''P-442-bc" 16,490.81 06/28/2017 "P-193-a" 96004 "P-442-bd" "P-439-b" 1 16 490.81 12/07/2017 "P-193-b" 92124 "P-442-be" 92144 ''P-442-ew" "P-439-i" 3 287,278.73 12/07/2017 ~~P-193-c" 92261 95400 ''P-442-ex" "P-439-i" 13 294,040.66 12/07/2017 "P-210-g" 12/07/2017 "P-210- 95401 "P-442-ev" "P-439-d" 6 316,838.88 12/07/2017 ''P-442-ez" 907 095.30 12/07/2017 h" 95404 "P-442-fa" "P-439-d" 6 835,177.69 12/07/2017 "P-210-i" 95406 "P-442-fg" 793 412.34 12/07/2017 "P-210-i" 95408 "P-442-fh" "P-439-d" 8 541,840.41 12/07/2017 "P-210-k" 95405 "P-442-fi" 2,039,695.63 12/31/2017 "P-212-a" 95407 "P-442-fi" ''P-439-i" 12 3 003 302.12 06/22/2017 "P-212-b" 95410 ''P-442-lu" 334,486.41 "P-212-c" 95409 ''P-442-aaz" "P-439-i" 12 1,290,685.95 09/06/2017 "P-213-a" 95861 "P-238-o" 92234 "P-442- "P-439-i" 12 263,428.31 12/21/2017 ''P-279-c" ada" "P-439-i" 12 1,843 184.94 01/05/2018 �'P-442-afi" "P-442- ''P-439-i" 12 2,772,806.34 12/21/2017 afm" 01/05/2018 "P-439-i" 12 4,382,300.89 ''P-442-aft" 5,682,620.99 06/20/2017 ''P-442-agf' ''P-439-i" 12 422,043.06 06/30/2017 "P-442- ''P-439-i" 12 akk" 394,107.48 07/04/2017 ''P-439-i" 12 "P-442- 5,044,028.55 07/04/2017 akn" "P-439-i" 10 302,184.53 01/25/2018 "P-442- "P-439-d" 8 02/16/2018 aku" 1,390 048.17 03/15/2018 "P-292-b" 93677 "P-439-f' 11 1,319 581.30 05/27/2017 "P-442-akv" 7 668,876.53 06/07/2017 "P-319-d" 95718 "P-439-i" 6 "P-319- "P-442-aot" 16,178.60 03/22/2018 h" 95938 ''P-442-aro" "P-439-j" 12 18,489.82 "P-320-a" "P-442-asl" 03/23/2018 ''P-323-a" 95715 ''P-442-avr" "P-439-i" 5 4,223,943.33 95939 ''P-442-avs" 03/28/2018 "P-439-i" 12 266,044.77 Subtotal "P-442- "P-332-1" 92117 awr" "P-439-d" 6 443,433.73 p 47,229,731.48 "P-332-o" 92278 "P-442- "P-439-d" 9 awt" "P-332-v" 92406 "P-439-d" 12 "P-442-bbi" "P-332- 92407 "P-439-d" 12 w" 96320 "P-439-k" 3 "P-340-v" 96713 "P-343-k" 97291 "P-439-k" 11 "P-345-g" 91542 "P-367-a" 91848 "P-439-1" 8 "P-367-b" 97527 ''P-439-c" 6 ''P-380-c" '' P-439-c" 13 "P-439-m" 2 ''P-380-e" 97535 "P-439-m" 2 "P-422-a" 86504 ''P-439-aa" 11 2. Export sales supported by a bill of lading with mismatched BL number indicated in the sales invoice I without BL number indicated in the sales invoice Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page No. No. 10/11/2017 0 P-174-c" 94364 ''P-442-e" "P-439-h" 2 I' 16,656.16 10/14/2017 "P-174-d" 94378 "P-442-f' "P-439-h" 2 16,656.16 10/18/2017 0 P-174-e" 94457 "P-442-g" "P-439-h" 10 16 656.16 ~

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 27 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 10/21/2017 "P-174-f' 94480 "P-442-h" "P-439-h" 10 16,656.16 16,656.16 10/25/2017 "P-174-g" 94617 "P-442-i" "P-439-h" 12 16,656.16 10/28/2017 "P-174- 94627 "P-442-j" "P-439-h" 12 h" 16 656.16 16,656.16 11/01/2017 "P-174-i" 94684 ''P-442-k" "P-439-h" 14 16 656.16 16 656.16 11/03/2017 "P-174-i" 94687 "P-442-1" "P-439-h" 14 16,656.16 16,656.16 11/08/2017 "P-176-a" 94870 ''P-442-m" "P-439-h" 9 16,656.16 16,656.16 11/10/2017 "P-176-b" 94887 ''P-442-n" "P-439-h" 9 16,656.16 707,694.93 11/17/2017 "P-176-c" 95017 "P-442-o" ''P-439-i" 3 13,390 060.90 13,238.86 11/22/2017 "P-176-d" 95118 "P-442-p" ''P-439-i" 6 16,164.57 16,018.29 11/24/2017 "P-1 76-e" 95119 "P-442-q" "P-439-i" 6 17993.14 16 018.29 11/29/2017 "P-176-f' 95239 "P-442-r" "P-439-i" 8 16,018.29 16,091.43 12/01/2017 "P-176-g" 95240 ''P-442-s" "P-439-i" 8 683 417.23 762,587.46 11/10/2017 "P-178-a" 94882 "P-442-u" "P-439-h" 9 14,276.71 11/29/2017 "P-181-a" 95235 ''P-442-x" "P-439-i" 8 16 656.16 04)03/2017 "P-183-a" 90491 ''P-442-z" "P-439-a" 1 1,264 115.36 1 892,877.26 04/10/2017 "P-183-b" 90492 ''P-442-aa" ''P-439-a" 1 215,674.79 10_1_04/2017 ''P-183-c" 90501 "P-442-ab" ''P-439-a" 1 2,990 358.74 1,100 169.79 10/04/2017 "P-184-a" 90493 ''P-442-ac" ''P-439-a" 1 1,100,583.38 10/04/2017 "P-184-b" 90499 "P-442-ad" ''P-439-a" 1 258 680.90 2,205 722.18 10/04/2017 ''P-184-c" 90500 ''P-442-ae" ''P-439-a" 1 1,235,035.01 10/04/2017 "P-184-d" 90502 "P-442-af' ''P-439-a" 1 828,208.37 16 490.81 09/04/2017 "P-185-a" 90722 ''P-442-ag" "P-439-b" 2 11 779.15 11,779.15 09)04/2017 "P-185-b" 90723 ''P-442-ah" "P-439-b" 2 11,779.15 01/12/2018 "P-186-b" 96005 "P-442-aj" "P-439-j" 13 11,779.15 01/24/2018 "P-186-c" 96263 "P-442-ak" "P-439-k" 1 14,134.98 14,276.71 05/04/2017 "P-187-c" 91080 ''P-442-an" "P-439-b" 10 16,656.16 14,276.71 05/11/2017 "P-187-f' 91225 "P-442-aq" "P-439-b" 14 16,656.16 05/11/2017 "P-187-g" 91239 ''P-442-ar" "P-439-b" 14 14,276.71 04/30/2017 ''P-188-c" 91049 ''P-442-au" "P-439-b" 9 16,656.16 04/30/2017 "P-188-d" 91050 ''P-442-av" "P-439-b" 9 16 656.16 16,656.16 04/30/2017 ''P-188-e" 91051 ''P-442-aw" "P-439-b" 9 326,516.88 350,334.65 05/05/2017 ~~P-189-a" 91084 ''P-442-av" "P-439-b" 10 1 437,993.86 467,760.45 04/27/2017 "P-190-a" 90934 ''P-442-az" "P-439-b" 7 4,890,009.24 2,512,212.61 05/11/2017 "P-191-a" 91240 "P-442-ba" "P-439-b" 14 529,896.17 05/11/2017 "P-191-b" 91241 "P-442-bb" "P-439-b" 14 07/08/2017 "P-193-d" 92424 "P-442-bf' "P-439-d" 12 07/12/2017 "P-193-e" 92531 "P-442-bg" "P-439-d" 15 07/15/2017 "P-193-f' 92536 "P-442-bh" "P-439-d" 15 07119/2017 "P-193-g" 92696 "P-442-bi" '' P-439-e" 4 08/09/2017 "P-193- 93126 "P-442-bj" "P-439-e" 13 h" 08/12/2017 "P-193-i" 93127 "P-442-bk" ''P-439-e" 13 09/13/2017 "P-193-j" 93806 "P-442-bl" "P-439-g" 3 09/16/2017 "P-193-k" 93826 "P-442-bm" "P-439-g" 3 09/20/2017 "P-193-1" 93947 "P-442-bn" "P-439-g" 4 09/23/2017 "P-193- 93967 "P-442-bo" "P-439-g" 4 m" 09/27/2017 "P-193- 94158 ''P-442-bp" "P-439-g" 8 n" 09}30/2017 ''P-193-o" 94159 "P-442-bq" "P-439-g" 8 10/04/2017 "P-193-p" 94184 �'P-442-br" "P-439-g" 9 10/07/2017 "P-193-q'' 94185 ''P-442-bs" "P-439-g" 9 06/12/2017 "P-195-b" 91975 �'P-442-bu" "P-439-d" 2 07/22/2017 ''P-196-a" 92802 ''P-442-bw" "P-439-e" 6 04/19/2017 "P-214-1" 90834 �'P-442-fv" "P-439-b" 4 04/13/2017 "P-218-b" 90740 "P-442-gi" "P-439-b" 3 01/30/2018 "P-225-f' 96390 "P-442-gs" "P-439-k" 5 02/14/2018 "P-225-k" 96616 "P-442-gx" "P-439-k" 9 12/10/2017 "P-227-a" 95499 "P-442-hg" "P-439-j" 1

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 28 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 01/30/2018 "P-227-b" 96391 "P-442-hh" "P-439-k" 5 321 149.20 6 965 812.03 02/06/2018 ''P-227-c" 96510 "P-442-hi" "P-439-k" 7 16 656.16 12/06/2017 "P-229-a" 95370 ''P-442-hi" ''P-439-i" 11 16 656.16 16 656.16 12/08/2017 "P-229-b" 95371 ''P-442-hk" "P-439-i" 11 16 656.16 16,656.16 12/13/2017 "P-229-c" 95521 "P-442-hl" "P-439-i" 1 14,276.71 16 656.16 12/15/2017 "P-229-d" 95522 "P-442-hm" "P-439-j" 2 14,276.71 12/20/2017 "P-229-e" 95648 ''P-442-hn" ''P-439-i" 4 14,479.26 12/22/2017 "P-229-f' 95649 "P-442-ho" "P-439-j" 4 14 479.26 14 479.26 12/27/2017 "P-229-g" 95786 ''P-442-hp" "P-439-i" 7 14,479.26 12/29/2017 "P-229- 95787 "P-442-hq" "P-439-j" 7 14,479.26 h" 2,147,831.09 03/02/2018 "P-229-i" 96903 ''P-442-hr" "P-439-1" 2 2 249 158.88 03/14/2018 "P-229-i" 97231 ''P-442-hs" "P-439-1" 7 1,639 144.27 03/16/2018 "P-229-k" 97232 "P-442-ht" "P-439-1" 7 674,059.62 332.24 03/21/2018 "P-229-1" 97444 "P-442-hu" "P-439-1" 11 742 845.60 03/23/2018 "P-229- 97445 "P-442-hv" "P-439-1" 11 16,018.29 m" 16 018.29 01/16/2018 "P-247- 96135 "P-442- "P-439-j" 15 16 018.29 h" bby" 16,018.29 16,018.29 01/17/2018 nP-247 -i" 96139 "P-442-bbz" "P-439-j" 15 16,018.29 16,237.71 01/17/2018 "P-247-i" 96140 "P-442-bca" "P-439-i" 16 16,237.71 05/03/2017 "P-255-g" 91131 ''P-442-vx" "P-439-b" 11 16 237.71 04 /19_1_20 17 "P-265-a" 90959 "P-442-ym" "P-439-b" 7 16 091.43 541 158.32 07/26/2017 ''P-272-a" 92869 "P-442-zm" ''P-439-e" 9 1,138,888.71 04/03)2017 ''P-273-a" 90482 ''P-442-zn" ''P-439-a" I 359.18 04/03/2017 "P-273-b" 90483 ''P-442-zo" ''P-439-a" 1 3,201.40 04/03/2017 0 P-273-c" 90484 "P-442-zp" ''P-439-a" 1 741,128.93 04/03/2017 "P-273-d" 90485 ''P-442-zq" ''P-439-a" 1 744,932.35 04/ 03_120 17 ..P-273-e" 90486 ''P-442-zr" "P-439-a" 1 45 414.26 04/03/2017 "P-273-f' 90487 ''P-442-zs" "P-439-a" 1 238 419.69 1 621,352.83 04/03_1_2017 "P-273-g" 90488 "P-442-zt" "P-439-a" 1 1 635 726.11 6,698,066.62 04/03/2017 "P-273- 90489 ''P-442-zu" "P-439-a" 1 3,592,935.40 h" 655,969.33 04/03/2017 "P-273-i" 90490 ''P-442-zv" ''P-439-a" 1 1,555,325.59 04/10/2017 "P-273-i" 90495 ''P-442-zw" ''P-439-a" 1 11,779.15 04/03/2017 "P-274-a" 90573 "P-442-zy" ''P-439-a" 3 11,779.15 06/10/2017 .. P-277-a" 91956 "P-442- "P-439-d" 1 11,779.15 aaq" 11779.15 04/21/2017 "P-279-a" 90960 ''P-442-aax" "P-439-b" 8 11,779.15 07/14/2017 "P-279- 92661 "P-442-abe" ''P-439-e" 3 h" 04/03)2017 "P-280-a" 90574 ''P-442-abf' ''P-439-a" 3 04/03/2017 "P-280-b" 90575 "P-442- "P-439-a" 3 abg" 04/13}2017 "P-290-a" 90686 "P-442-acd" "P-439-b" 2 04/13/2017 "P-290-b" 90687 ''P-442-ace" "P-439-b" 2 04/13/2017 "P-290-c" 90688 ''P-442-acf' "P-439-b" 2 04/13/2017 "P-290-d" 90689 "P-442-acg" "P-439-b" 2 04/09/2017 "P-291-c" 90662 ''P-442-acp" ''P-439-a" 5 05/16/2017 "P-294-a" 91364 ''P-442-adc" ''P-439-c" 3 07/20/2017 "P-294-b" 92702 "P-442- "P-439-e" 4 add" 04/13/2017 "P-295-a" 90679 "P-442-ade" ''P-439-a" 5 07/22/2017 ''P-296-a" 92707 "P-442- ''P-439-e" 4 adg" 07/26/2017 "P-296-b" 92826 "P-442- ''P-439-e" 8 adh" 07/29/2017 "P-296-c" 92839 "P-442-adi" "P-439-e" 8 08/02/2017 "P-296-d" 92978 "P-442-adi" ''P-439-e" 10 08/05/2017 "P-296-e" 92990 "P-442- ''P-439-e" 10 adk"

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 29 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 06/05/2017 ''P-339-a" 91836 "P-442- ''P-439-c" 13 9,110,464.41 ann" 325,651.63 06/30/2017 ''P-354-a" 92280 "P-442- "P-439-d" 9 aua" 330.75 2,680 250.86 05/17/2017 ''P-360-a" 91426 "P-442- ''P-439-c" 4 14 276.71 auh" 11 897.26 14,276.71 03/03/2018 "P-363-a" 96995 ''P-442-avd" "P-439-1" 3 14,276.71 01/26/2018 "P-367-c" 96267 "P-442-avt" "P-439-k" 1 16,656.16 14,276.71 08/16/2017 ''P-388-a" 93271 "P-442-av1" "P-439-f' 2 16,656.16 14,276.71 08/19/2017 "P-388-b" 93294 "P-442- "P-439-f' 2 14,479.26 14,479.26 aym'' 14,479.26 2 213,807.83 08/23/2017 "P-388-c" 93439 "P-442- "P-439-f' 5 1 573,056.25 1,295,913.12 ayn" 2,518,100.33 45,910.50 08/26/2017 "P-388-d" 93462 "P-442-ayo" "P-439-f' 6 189,043.25 6,286 014.07 08/30/2017 ''P-388-e" 93643 "P-442- "P-439-f' 10 1,496 068.69 5,383 441.32 ayp" 1,234 752.00 1,694,576.78 09/02/2017 "P-388-f' 93655 "P-442-avq" "P-439-f' 10 1,010 417.92 658 376.64 09/06/2017 "P-388-g" 93678 "P-442-ayr" "P-439-f' 11 1 081,227.90 361,247.04 02/28/2018 "P-391-a" 96902 "P-442-ays" "P-439-1" 2 2,453.91 03/07/2018 "P-391-b" 97048 "P-442-ayt" "P-439-1" 4 29,407.07 03/09/2018 ''P-391-c" 97049 "P-442- "P-439-1" 4 78,525.04 ayu" 240,831.36 263,457.25 05/08/2017 ''P-396-a" 82970 "P-442-ayx" "P-439-p" 8 178,588.14 537,765.18 05/09/2017 ''P-396-b" 82968 "P-442-ayy" "P-439-p" 8 226,851.90 04/17/2017 "P-398-a" 82714 "P-442-azd" "P-439-p" 2 11,221.59 21,641.64 05/02/2017 "P-398-b" 82892 "P-442-aze" "P-439-p" 6 351,877.11 12/18/2017 ''P-399-a" 85435 "P-442-azf' ''P-439-x" 4 289,797.60 12/18/2017 "P-399-b" 85436 "P-442-azg" ''P-439-x" 4 31,749.23 05/16/2017 ''P-400-a" 83053 ''P-442-azh" "P-439-q" 2 369,034.44 06/02/2017 "P-400-b" 83252 ''P-442-azi" "P-439-q" 6 06/15/2017 '' P-400-c" 83412 ''P-442-azi" "P-439-r" 3 02/24/2018 "P-400-d" 86154 "P-442-azk" ''P-439-z" 5 03/22/2018 "P-400-f' 86431 "P-442- ''P-439-aa" 9 azrn'' 10/17/2017 ''P-406-a" 84751 ''P-442-azr'' ''P-439-v" 2 02/12/2018 "P-406-b" 86020 ''P-442-azs" "P-439-v" 10 03/21/2018 "P-406-c" 86413 "P-442-azt" ''P-439-aa" 8 04/25/2017 ''P-409-a" 82822 "P-442- "P-439-p" 4 azu" 05/16/2017 "P-409-b" 83048 ''P-442-azv'' "P-439-q" 2 05/16/2017 ''P-409-c" 83048 "P-442- "P-439-q" 2 azw" 04/24/2017 "P-411-a" 82810 "P-442- "P-439-p" 4 bah" 04/24/2017 "P-411-b" 82811 ''P-442-bac" "P-439-p" 4 07/11/2017 "P-411- 83686 "P-442-bai" ''P-439-s" 3 h" 08/02/2017 "P-411-k" 83918 "P-442-ba1" ''P-439-s" 11 11/23/2017 "P-411- 85181 "P-442- ''P-439-w" 7 n" bao" 12/07/2017 "P-411-o" 85333 "P-442- ''P-439-w" 12 bap" 03/26/2018 "P-411-s" 86491 "P-442-bat" "P-439-aa" 10 03/26/2018 "P-411-t" 86491 "P-442- ''P-439-aa" 10 bau" 03/26/2018 "P-411- 86491 "P-442-bav" ''P-439-aa" 10 u" 04/12/2017 "P-412-a" 82669 "P-442- "P-439-p" 1 haw" 08/10/2017 "P-412-b" 84014 "P-442- !'P-439-t" 1 bax" 11/22/2017 "P-412-d" 85172 "P-442-baz" ''P-439-w" 7

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 30 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 12/06/2017 ''P-412-e" 85326 "P-442- ''P-439-w" 11 462,125.14 bba" "P-439-x" 01/09/2018 "P-415-a" 85671 ''P-439-s" 11 665,188.16 "P-442- "P-439-y" 07/14/2017 ''P-416-a" 83725 bbc" "P-439-t" 4 152,396.29 02/13/2018 ''P-419-a" 86038 "P-442- 12 430,032.02 bbd" 09/07/2017 ''P-429-a" 84323 12 554,492.57 Subtotal "P-442- bbh" "P-442- bbp" p 118 336 107.81 3. Export sales supported by a bill of lading without the date o_f shipment Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page No. No. 07/02/2017 "P-325-i" 92398 "P-442- ''P-439-d" 11 I' 1,287,802.80 agp" Subtotal p 1,287,802.80 4. Export sales not sul'J'(>_rted by a bill of lading and/or proof of inward remittance Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page No. No. 04/01/2017 "P-175-a" 90365 - ''P-439-a" 1 I' 13,695.85 04/12/2017 "P-175-b" 90672 - ''P-439-a" 5 13,695.85 04/15/2017 "P-175-c" 90698 15,978.49 05/11/2017 91237 - "P-439-b" 2 343,744.65 05/24/2017 ~~P-192-a" 91517 16 178.60 06/15/2017 91982 - "P-439-b" 14 1,778 109.76 08/23/2017 "P-194-a" 93486 1 363,023.76 ''P-199-a" - "P-439-c" 6 ''P-220-a" - "P-439-d " 3 - "P-439-f' 7 02/02/2018 ~'P-228-a" 96399 - "P-439-k" 5 14,276.71 16,656.16 01/31/2018 ''P-230-a" 96398 - "P-439-k" 5 16,656.16 14 276.71 02/07/2018 "P-230-b" 96517 - "P-439-k" 8 02/09/2018 "P-230-c" 96518 - "P-439-k" 8 02/14/2018 "P-230-d" 96619 - "P-439-k" 9 16,656.16 14 276.71 02/16/2018 ''P-230-e" 96620 - "P-439-k" 9 14,276.71 570,296.75 02/23/2018 "P-230-f' 96755 - "P-439-k" 11 05/06/2017 "P-281-a" 91193 - "P-439-b" 13 05/09/2017 "P-281-b" 91264 - "P-439-b" 14 570,296.75 359.18 05/09/2017 "P-281-c" 91265 - "P-439-b" 14 445 766.11 05)24/2017 "P-281-d" 91572 - ''P-439-c" 7 06/05/2017 "P-281-e" 91959 - "P-439-d" 1 688.32 754_,_586.62 07/03/2017 "P-281-f' 92430 - "P-439-d" 12 368.52 08/11/2017 "P-281-g" 93296 - "P-439-f' 2 08/16/2017 "P-281- 93366 - "P-439-f' 4 340.88 h" 12/08/2017 "P-281-i" 95417 - "P-439-i" 12 362.52 111,882.40 02/03/2018 "P-281-j" 96471 - "P-439-k" 7 03/20/2018 "P-281-k" 97474 - "P-439-1" 12 4,377.59 03/20/2018 "P-281-1" 97475 - "P-439-1" 12 4,153.50 710,951.47 03/12/2018 ''P-288-a" 97274 - - - 03/12/2018 "P-288-b" 97276 - - - 642,390.11 01/11/2018 "P-316-a" 96043 - "P-439-j" 14 636,182.04 03/23/2018 "P-334-d" 97506 05/28/2017 ''P-368-a" 91656 - ''P-439-m" 2 10,198,161.08 - ''P-439-c" 9 343,701.98 05/31/2017 "P-368-b" 91663 - ''P-439-c" 9 16,178.60 828,105.56 06/01/2017 ''P-368-c" 91680 - "P-439-c" 9 16,178.60 06/03/2017 "P-368-d" 91695 - "P-439-c" 10 06/06/2017 ''P-368-e" 91840 - ''P-439-c" 13 343,701.98

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 06f10f2017 "P-368-r' 91867 - '' P-439-c" 14 18,489.82 06h4l2017 "P-368-Il" 91980 "P-439-d" "P-368- - 3 18 489.82 06/17/2017 91983 "P-439-d" h" - 3 18,489.82 06f29f2017 "P-368-i" 92267 "P-439-d" 07/0112017 "P-368-i" 92282 - "P-439-d" 9 844 086.11 07f05f2017 "P-368-k" 92409 "P-439-d" 06116/2017 "P-368-1" 92512 - "P-439-d" 9 16 490.81 oi/15/2017 "P-369-a" 92662 - "P-439-e" 03/1272018 "P-375-a" 97275 - 12 16,490.81 03f28f2018 "P-386-a" 97561 - 03/3072018 "P-386-b" 97562 - ''P-439-m" 14 63,951.78 09f08f2017 "P-389-a" 93679 "P-439-m" 04/2612017 "P-390-a" 90933 - 3 585 585.67 05f03/2017 "P-390-b" 91064 "P-439-r' 05f06f2017 ''P-390-c" 91087 - "P-439-b" - 644 029.62 05110/2017 "P-390-d" 91224 "P-439-b" 05f13f2017 "P-390-e" 91242 - "P-439-b" 3 13,887.64 05117/2017 "P-39o-r� 91365 - 05f20f2017 "P-390-Il" 91378 - ~~P-439-b" 3 13 887.64 01/17/2018 ''P-394-a" 96146 - 01fl7f2018 "P-394-b" 96167 "P-439-b" 11 16 656.16 10/04/2016 ''P-40 1-a" 80605 - ''P-439-c" 11f15f2017 ''P-407-a" 85064 ''P-439-c" 7 16 180.61 06/12/2017 ''P-408-a" 83363 - "P-439-i" o3724i2018 ''P-420-a" "P-439-i" 9 16 180.61 - - 03/12/2018 "P-282-a" - 10 16,180.61 97268 - 03f12f2018 "P-282-b" ''P-439-w" 14 16,180.61 03/12/2018 "P-282-c" 97270 - 03f12f2018 ''P-283-a" 97271 - 14 16,180.61 97256 - - 03/12/2018 "P-283-b" 3 16,180.61 97258 - - 03f12f2018 "P-283-c" 3 16,180.61 97259 - - 03/12/2018 ''P-284-a" - 16 273,548.59 97273 - 03/12/2018 ''P-285-a" - 7 335.88 97261 - - 03/12/2018 "P-285-b" - - 806,944.24 97262 - - 0:371272018 "P-286-a" 2 851,926.40 03/12/2018 "P-287-a" 97264 "P-442- - 0:3712/2018 "P-287-b" 97265 aba" - 18,187.74 97267 - 04/16/2017 "P-290-e" ''P-442-abr" - 71,288,825.75 90780 "P-442-abs" - 02/16/2018 ''P-297-a" ''P-442-abt" - - 881,208.35 96723 03/12/2018 ''P-370-a" "P-442- - - 890 426.30 97257 abu" 03112/2018 .. P-371-a" - - 652 135.45 97272 ''P-442-abv" 03/12/2018 "P-372-a" "P-442- - - 766,588.52 97263 abw" 03112/2018 ''P-373-a" "P-442- - - 766,588.52 03f12f2018 ''P-374-a" 97260 abx" 03/12/2018 "P-374-b" 97266 "P-442- - - 766,588.52 12/13/2017 ''P-403-a" 97269 abv" - 85406 - 759,219.58 07/14/2017 "P-411-j" "P-442-abz" - 83719 ''P-442-aca" - 1,361,137.85 Subtotal "P-442-acb" - - - 1,125,080.62 "P-442- ach" - - 745,415.59 "P-442-adl" - - 745,415.59 "P-442- avu" - 608,834.86 "P-442-avv" - 644,956.65 "P-442- - 9 936,424.88 aV\V" ''P-442-avx" - 766,588.52 "P-442-avv" - 759 219.58 ''P-442-avz" ''P-442-azo" - 1,436, 935.25 "P-442- - 5 720 047.57 bak" - 745,415.59 - 798 997.26 - 280,679.03 - 22,054.18 p 126,654,059.57 5. Export sales supported by blurred sales invoices/sales invoices with incomplete or missina oaae/s)

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 32 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit 05/05/2017 Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page I' 414,104.18 12/26/2017 No. ''P-442-ao" No. 1 815,073.58 12/26/2017 "P-187-d" ''P-442-gb" 154,945.31 02/14/2018 .. P-214-r" 91085 ''P-442-gd" "P-439-b" 10 1,601 244.98 12/27/2017 "P-214-t" 95788 "P-442-gy" 1 211 703.26 08/10/2017 "P-225-1" 95790 "P-442-pw" "P-439-i" 7 1 878 391.53 12/27/2017 "P-248-y" 96618 ''P-442-s1" 9067819.11 12/27/2017 95793 ''P-442-sn" "P-439-j" 7 04/13/2017 ~~P-250-c" 93176 ''P-442-so" 20,358 038.96 12/27/2017 95791 ''P-442-vs" "P-439-k" 9 2 099,072.58 12/27/2017 .. P-250-e" 95792 "P-442-xv" 740,759.90 "P-250-f'' 90756 ''P-442-xz" "P-439-j" 7 740,759.90 12/27/2017 "P-255-b" 95794 435,741.12 95795 "P-442- ''P-439-e" 13 02/16/2018 ''P-256-a" aab'' 2,759,795.51 12/20/2017 "P-256-b" "P-439-j" 7 29 727 076.22 "P-442- 03/30/2018 adx" "P-439-i" 7 3,012,231.46 03/3/2018 "P-442-aga" "P-439-b" 3 670,427.51 03/30/2018 �'P-442-ahz" "P-439-i" 7 24,091,660.49 03/9/2018 1 320 780.66 03/3/2018 "P-442- "P-439-.i" 7 828 823.22 03/23/2018 4,325,064.63 Subtotal "P-274-d" 95796 app" "P-439-j" 7 Pl07,253,514.12 ''P-301-a" 96716 "P-442- "P-439-k" 11 95674 "P-321-b" 97594 asw" "P-439-j" 5 "P-325- 97008 ''P-442-atp" ''P-439-m" 4 as" "P-442-ava" "P-340- 97604 "P-439-1" 3 97166 "P-442- au" 97007 awu" ''P-439-m" 4 97537 "P-346-k" "P-439-1" 6 "P-351-g" "P-439-1" 3 "P-362-o" ''P-439-m" 2 "P-380-f'' 6. Export sales with different amounts per sales invoice Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page I' 2,961,184.49 No. No. 545,051.97 08/14/2017 ''P-423-a" 84044 ''P-442-bbi" "P-439-t" 2 5,486,386.45 p 8 992 622.92 03/01/2018 ''P-424-a" 86186 "P-442- ''P-439-z" 6 bbk" 04/08/2017 ''P-426-a" 82646 "P-442- "P-439-p" I bbm" Subtotal 7. Export sales supported by a bill of lading with corrections but not countersigned Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Bill Date Remittance Amount Exhibit Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Page No. No. 11/22/2017 "P-412-c" 85157 "P-442- ''P-439-w" 6 I' 2,883,956.21 bay" Subtotal p 2,883,956.21 8. Export sales dated outside the eriod o.f the claim Invoice BL/Airway Proof of Inward Date Bill Remittance Amount 04/02/2018 Exhibit Invoice Exhibit Exhibit No. Page I' 319,506.84 04/02/2018 No. No. No. 150,189.10 04/02/2018 56,968.28 04/02/2018 "P-421-a" 86552 - - - 207 950.92 "P-421-b" 86553 "P-421-c" 86562 - - - "P-421-d" 86572 - - - - - -

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 33 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 04/02/2018 I "P-421-e" 86573 - - - 36 252.54 Subtotal p 770,867.68 9. Export sales without supportin documents BL/Airway Invoice Proof of Inward BUl Date Exhibit Remittance Amount Exhibit Invoice - Exhibit Page I' 234,400 539.84 No. - No. 261 692,674.60 - 9 000.91 03/21/2017 "P-222" - - - - 1,582,000.66 3 921.29 03/25/2017 "P-223" - - - - 1 175 756 828.58 07/15/2017 "P-376" - - - - 21 771,562.13 - 07/15/2017 "P-377" - - - - 07/15/2017 "P-377" - - - - 06/17/2017 "P-378" - - - 03/24}2018 "P-387" - - - 04/11/2017 to "P-430" 77,587,326.60 02/08/2018 03/20/2018 "P-432" - - - 25,400,026.92 - "P-433" - - - 20 701 788.93 Subtotal P1,818,905 670.46 Total Additional Disallowances P2,232.314,333.05 In sum, only the total amount of P31,382,276,647.33 satisfied the essential elements to qualify as VAT zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)( 1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, computed as follows: Export Sales to DAH Amount Less: Disallowances 1"33,615,800, 744.79135 Disallowances sustained by the Court Disallowances per Court's further p 1,209,764.41 verification 2,232,314,333.05 2,233,524,097.46 Total Valid Export Sales P31,382,276.647.33 Considered Export Sales to BOI, PEZA, SBMA, and CDC-registered entities. Petitioner claims that it also derived its zero-rated sales to export-oriented entities registered with the BOI, SBMA, PEZA, and CDC, in the aggregate amount of P49,278,029.47, broken down as follows: 801/SBMA Customer /CDC Amount Registered 40,744,193.57 Century Pacific Agricultural Ventures, BOI p 2,920,155.24 Inc. General Tuna Corporation BOI 135 Sub-Annex ''C.4", BIR Records, p. 25.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 34 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x General Tuna Corporation 80I 115,280.00 Hi-Las Marketing Corporation 80I 46,134.01 Philbest Canning Corporation 80I 2,065,000.00 Amley Food Corporation 80I 17,800.00 Gem Foods International, Inc. S8MA 1,277,796.65 Millbrae Exports, Inc. CDC 2,091,670.00 Total Zero-rated Sales to Export Oriented Entities p 49,278,029.47 To recall, respondent imputed additional output VAT in the amount of P5,918,954.44 against petitioner and deducted the same from petitioner's input VAT refund claim. 136 The amount of P5,918,954.44 can be traced from petitioner's claimed zero-rated sales to export-oriented entities registered with the BOI, SBMA, PEZA, and CDC ofP49,278,029.47. Under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(5) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as implemented by Section 4.106-5 ofRR No. 16- 2005, as amended by RR No. 4-2007, for a "considered export sale" to qualify as zero-rated, the following essential elements must be present: 1. The sale was made by a VAT registered person; and, 2. There was a sale of goods or services to an entity entitled to incentives under Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 ("OIC"), and other special laws. As for the first essential element, it is already settled that petitioner is a VAT-registered person. As for the second essential element, any VAT-registered person claiming VAT zero-rated "considered export sales" must present, among others, the following documents: 1. The sales invoice as proof of sale of goods; and 2. The proof of entitlement to zero-rating under the OIC or other special laws. As for the first type of document, petitioner presented the sales invoices 137 in support of its alleged "considered export sales" to the following customers: V 136 Refer to Exhibit "R-2", 8/R Records (Exhibit "R-5"), p. 22. 137 "P-157.1-a" to "P-157.1-ns"; "P-157.2-a" to "P-157.2-1"; "P-158-a" to "P-158-aj"; "P-160-a" to "P-160-h"; "P-162- a" to "P-162-e".

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 35 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Customer Name Amount Exhibits Sale of goods to BOI-registered entities Century Pacific Agricultural Ventures, f' 40,744,193.57 "P-157.1"; "P-158; Inc. "P-159" General Tuna Corporation General Tuna Corporation 2,920,155.24 "P-157.1" Philbest Canning Corporation 115,280.00 Amley Food Corporation Sale of goods to PEZA-registered entity 2,065,000.00 "P-157 .2"; "P-159" Hi-Las Marketing Corporation 17,800.00 "P-157.2" Sale of goods to SBMA-registered entity 46,134.01 No supporting Gem Foods International, Inc. documents 13B Sale of ~oods to CDC-registered entity Millbrae Exports, Inc. 1,277,796.65 I "P-160" to "P-161" Total Zero-rated Sales to Export 2,091,670.00 "P-162" Oriented Entities p 49,278,029.47 However, after careful examination of the sales invoices presented, the Court finds that only the "considered export sales" to Millbrae Exports, Inc. and Amley Foods Corporation in the amounts ofP2,091,670.00 and P17,800.00, respectively, are duly supported by invoices and may be accorded VAT zero- rating. In contrast, the remaining portion of P47,168,559.47 must be disallowed outright for failure to comply with the invoicing requirements under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 16-2005, as amended, to wit: DATE EXHIBIT REF. INVOICE NO. AMOUNT 1. TIN OF THE PURCHASER NOT INDICA TED IN THE INVOICE ISSUED BY PETITIONER A. CENTURY PACIFIC AGRICULTURAL VENTURES INC. 04/03/2017 "P-157.1-a" 8671 I' 14,000.91 04/03/2017 "P-157.1-b" 8672 80,761.59 04/05/2017 "P-157.1-c" 8673 378,336.00 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-d" 8670 37,230.00 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-e" 8674 104,181.75 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-f' 8677 18,377.59 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-g" 8678 19,739.72 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-h" 8679 438,865.20 04/06/2017 "P-157.1-i" 8680 77,880.00 04/10/2017 "P-157.1-j" 8695 172,368.00 04/10/2017 "P-157.1-k" 8696 102,600.00 04/10/2017 "P-157.1-1" 8697 22,374.66 04/10/2017 "P-157.1-m" 8698 289,668.00 04/11/2017 "P-157.1-n" 8700 275,788.80 04/11/2017 "P-157.1-o" 8701 230,100.00 04/11/2017 "P-157.1-p" 8702 115,809.75 138 Exhibit ''P-163".

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 36 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 04/11/2017 "P-157.1-q" 8703 20,431.95 04f17 /2017 "P-157.1-r" 8705 3,595.13 04/21/2017 "P-157.1-s" 8709 04/21/2017 "P-157.1-t" 8710 77,341.00 04/21/2017 "P-157.1-u" 8711 81,420.00 04/26/2017 "P-157.1-w" 8720 04/26/2017 "P-157.1-x" 8721 9,244.62 04/26/2017 "P-157.1-y" 8722 42,480.00 04/26/2017 "P-157.1-z" 8732 05/11/2017 "P-157.1-ab" 8741 8,485.40 05/11/2017 "P-157.1-ac" 8746 80,402.49 05/11/2017 "P-157.1-ad" 8747 247,608.00 05/11/2017 "P-157.1-ae" 8748 86,184.00 05/11/2017 "P-157.1-af' 8749 05/12/2017 "P-157.1-ag" 8761 5,144.80 05/12/2017 "P-157.1-ah" 8762 45,600.00 05/15/2017 "P-157.1-ai" 8753 05/15/2017 "P-157.1-aj" 8754 7,750.00 05/15/2017 "P-157.1-ak" 8755 172,368.00 05/15/2017 "P-157.1-al" 8756 274,352.40 05/15/2017 "P-157.1-am" 8757 05/16/2017 "P-157.1-an" 8765 81,608.25 05/16/2017 "P-157.1-ao" 8766 88,446.33 05/16/2017 "P-157.1-ap" 8767 189,604.80 05f17 /2017 "P-157.1-aq" 8771 130,496.94 05/17/2017 "P-157.1-ar" 8772 67,266.00 05/18/2017 "P-157.1-as" 8773 76,344.66 05/18/2017 "P-157.1-at" 8774 26,338.80 05/18/2017 "P-157.1-au" 8775 15,513.60 05/22/2017 "P-157.1-av" 8781 202,532.40 05/22/2017 "P-157.1-aw" 8782 184,830.00 05/22/2017 "P-157.1-ax" 8783 75,913.74 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-ay" 8784 65,419.20 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-az" 8785 224,078.40 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-ba" 8786 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-bb" 8787 8,696.60 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-bc" 8788 140,100.00 05/23/2017 "P-157.1-bd" 8789 189,604.80 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-be" 8790 48,370.77 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-bf' 8791 296,358.24 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-bg" 8792 61,872.60 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-bh" 8793 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-bi" 8794 72,974.52 05/24/2017 "P-157.1-bj" 8795 30,164.40 05/25/2017 "P-157.1-bk" 8796 112,003.29 05/25/2017 "P-157.1-bl" 8797 68,947.20 05/25/2017 "P-157.1-bm" 8798 241,315.20 05/25/2017 "P-157.1-bn" 8799 34,473.60 05/30/2017 "P-157.1-bo" 8807 86,184.00 05/30/2017 "P-157.1-bp" 8808 106,200.00 06/01/2017 "P-157.1-bq" 8812 12,480.00 06/01/2017 "P-157.1-br" 8813 92,160.00 115,522.00 5,664.00 35,191.80 101,856.00 210,888.00 121,684.80 242,400.00 84,960.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 37 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 06/02/2017 "P-157.1-bs" 8818 103,953.24 06/02/2017 "P-157.1-bt" 8819 1,030.75 06/02/2017 "P-157.1-bu" 8820 06/02/2017 "P-157.1-bv" 8821 259,889.16 06/05/2017 "P-157.1-bw" 8826 46,507.25 06/05/2017 "P-157.1-bx" 8827 37,440.00 06/06/2017 "P-157.1-by" 8830 06/13/2017 "P-157.1-bz" 8841 209,355.30 06/14/2017 "P-157.1-ca" 8842 305,908.80 06/14/2017 "P-157.1-cb" 8843 06/14/2017 "P-157.1-cc" 8844 37,280.32 06/15/2017 "P-157.1-ce" 8849 157,742.75 06/15/2017 "P-157.1-cf' 8850 07/17/2017 "P-157.1-cg" 8948 42,042.25 07/21/2017 "P-157.1-ci" 8951 101,500.00 07/21/2017 "P-157 .1-cj" 8952 313,984.88 07/21/2017 "P-157.1-ck" 8953 41,627.08 07/21/2017 "P-157.1-cl" 8954 189,254.00 07/21/2017 "P-157.1-cm" 8955 60,300.00 07/21/2017 "P-157.1-cn" 8956 127,440.00 07/24/2017 "P-157.1-co" 8957 07/24/2017 "P-157.1-cp" 8971 1,216.00 08/01/2017 "P-157.1-cq" 8976 113,280.00 08/03/2017 "P-157.1-cr" 13726 08/04/2017 "P-157.1-cs" 13724 38,798.00 08/04/2017 "P-157.1-ct" 13725 6,832.98 08/05/2017 "P-157.1-cu" 13718 7,592.20 08/05/2017 "P-157.1-cv" 13720 08/05/2017 "P-157.1-cw" 13721 337,536.00 08/05/2017 "P-157.1-cx" 13722 169,014.50 08/05/2017 "P-157.1-cy" 13723 49,035.00 08/08/2017 "P-157.1-cz" 13730 107,596.80 08/08/2017 "P-157.1-da" 13731 56,026.40 08/08/2017 "P-157.1-db" 13732 59,598.77 08/08/2017 "P-157 .1-dc" 13733 47,830.86 08/09/2017 "P-157.1-dd" 13746 08/09/2017 "P-157.1-de" 13747 2,802.00 08/14/2017 "P-157 .1-df' 13769 28,933.60 08/14/2017 "P-157.1-dg" 13770 44,528.40 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-dh" 13767 30,604.80 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-di" 13768 61,555.20 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-dj" 13777 117,480.00 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-dk" 13778 69,326.40 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-dl" 13779 117,480.00 08/15/2017 "P-157.1-dm" 13962 167,376.50 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-dn" 13783 80,455.50 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-do" 13785 195,817.23 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-dp" 13786 128,640.00 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-dq" 13787 120,!75.00 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-dr" 13788 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-ds" 13789 1,789.20 08/16/2017 "P-157.1-dt" 13790 258,552.00 12,780.00 18,268.14 50,220.17 119,939.40 I ,958.00 50,750.00 1,581.75 66,818.25 363,600.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 38 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 08/18/2017 "P-157.1-dv" 13925 63,720.00 08/18/2017 "P-157.1-dw" 13926 197,074.08 08/18/2017 "P-157.1-dx" 13927 08/18/2017 "P-157.1-dy" 13928 37,539.84 08/18/2017 "P-157.1-dz" 13929 32,025.60 08/19/2017 "P-157.1-ea" 13930 152,190.00 08/20/2017 "P-157.1-eb" 13956 275,788.80 08/22/2017 "P-157.1-ec" 13931 68,947.20 08/23/2017 "P-157.1-ed" 13933 275,788.80 08/23/2017 "P-157.1-ee" 13934 40,629.00 08/23/2017 "P-157.1-ef' 13935 77,062.86 08/24/2017 "P-157.1-eg" 13937 157,142.16 08/24/2017 "P-157.1-eh" 13939 51,300.00 08/24/2017 "P-157.1-ei" 13940 90,084.30 08/29/2017 "P-157.1-ej" 13947 172,368.00 08/31/2017 "P-157.1-ek" 13963 271,120.50 09/11/2017 "P-157.1-el" 14104 277,476.57 09/12/2017 "P-157.1-em" 14106 72,688.00 09/12/2017 "P-157.1-en" 14107 106,200.00 09/21/2017 "P-157.1-eq" 14125 57,150.94 09/22/2017 "P-157.1-er" 14126 58,176.00 09/25/2017 "P-157.1-es" 14132 179,550.00 09/25/2017 "P-157.1-et" 14133 35,910.00 09/28/2017 "P-157.1-eu" 14129 233,415.00 09/28/2017 "P-157.1-ev" 14130 273,600.00 09/28/2017 "P-157.1-ew" 14131 68,400.00 10/02/2017 "P-157.1-ex" 14137 215,460.00 10/02/2017 "P-157.1-ey" 14138 193,920.00 10/04/2017 "P-157.1-fd" 14144 143,640.00 10/04/2017 "P-157 .1-fe" 14145 10/04/2017 "P-157.1-ff' 14146 5,357.80 10/09/2017 "P-157.1-fg" 14271 233,810.01 10/09/2017 "P-157.1-fh" 14272 10/16/2017 "P-157.1-fi" 14347 31,000.00 10/16/2017 "P-157.1-fj" 14348 170,510.00 10/16/2017 "P-157.1-fk" 14349 160,840.89 10/17/2017 "P-157.1-fl" 14350 10/17/2017 "P-157.1-fm" 14351 56,942.20 10/19/2017 "P-157.1-fn" 14281 50,760.00 10/19/2017 "P-157.1-fo" 14282 10/20/2017 "P-157.1-fp" 14327 5,607.00 10/20/2017 "P-157.1-fq" 14328 41,296.50 10/20/2017 "P-157.1-fr" 14329 177,754.50 10/20/2017 "P-157.1-fs" 14330 175,615.00 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fu" 14357 234,492.30 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fv" 14358 107,730.00 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fw" 14359 51,692.50 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fx" 14360 90,241.83 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fy" 14361 112,800.00 10/27/2017 "P-157.1-fz" 14362 94,400.00 10/30/2017 "P-157.1-ga" 14364 39,060.00 10/30/2017 "P-157.1-gb" 14365 329,940.00 72,162.00 38,976.00 144,573.66 10,260.00 19,200.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 39 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 10/30/2017 "P-157.1-gc" 14366 233,415.00 11/15/2017 "P-157.1-gd" 14508 121,540.00 11/15/2017 "P-157.1-ge" 14509 189,222.00 11/15/2017 "P-157.1-gf' 14510 203,896.98 11/15/2017 "P-157.1-gg" 14511 128,874.00 11/21/2017 "P-157.1-gh" 14514 11/21/2017 "P-157.1-gi" 14515 27,361.60 11/21/2017 "P-157.1-gj" 14516 90,780.48 11/21/2017 "P-157.1-gk" 14517 175,404.00 11/22/2017 "P-157.1-gl" 14518 109,698.00 11/22/2017 "P-157.1-gm" 14519 287,280.00 11/22/2017 "P-157.1-gn" 14520 35,136.00 11/22/2017 "P-157.1-go" 14521 187,047.96 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gq" 14528 122,569.56 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gr" 14529 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gs" 14530 6,584.70 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gt" 14531 57,600.00 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gu" 14532 68,416.40 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gv" 14533 50,750.00 11/29/2017 "P-157.1-gw" 14534 16,169.00 12/12/2017 "P-157.1-gx" 14681 115,200.00 12/12/2017 "P-157.1-gy" 14682 73,320.00 12/12/2017 "P-157.1-gz" 14683 74,405.52 12/13/2017 "P-157.1-ha" 14684 79,145.64 12/13/2017 "P-157.1-hb" 14685 134,842.05 12/13/2017 "P-157.1-hc" 14686 42,480.00 12/18/2017 "P-157.1-hd" 14696 275,022.00 12/18/2017 "P-157.1-he" 14697 53,865.00 12/20/2017 "P-157.1-hf' 14708 245,440.00 12/20/2017 "P-157.1-hg" 14709 108,342.00 12/22/2017 "P-157.1-hi" 14713 127,440.00 12/22/2017 "P-157.1-hj" 14714 215,460.00 12/22/2017 "P-157.1-hk" 14715 69,043.20 12/22/2017 "P-157.1-hl" 14717 66,541.23 12/26/2017 "P-157.1-hm" 14718 18,124.80 12/26/2017 "P-157.1-hn" 14719 148,918.77 12/26/2017 "P-157.1-ho" 14720 106,752.00 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hp" 14860 141,305.85 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hq" 14861 35,324.10 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hr" 14862 107,730.00 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hs" 14863 25,452.00 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-ht" 14864 76,800.00 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hu" 14865 100,992.00 01/03/2018 "P-157.1-hv" 14866 61,360.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-hw" 14867 28,200.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-hx" 14868 197,505.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-hy" 14869 56,400.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-hz" 14870 125,685.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-ia" 14871 125,685.00 01/04/2018 "P-157.1-ib" 14872 179,550.00 01/11/2018 "P-157.1-ic" 14949 39,834.62 01/12/2018 "P-157.1-ie" 14952 86,052.00 286,274.52 38,782.80

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 40 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 01/12/2018 "P-157.1-if' 14953 51,279.48 01/12/2018 "P-157.1-ig" 14954 72,720.00 01/12/2018 "P-157.1-ih" 14955 125,685.00 01/12/2018 "P-157.1-ii" 14956 288,465.03 01j15/2018 "P-157.1-ij" 14878 01jl6/2018 "P-157.1-ik" 14879 3,024.00 01/16/2018 "P-157.1-il" 14880 639.00 01jl6j2018 "P-157.1-im" 14881 01/17/2018 "P-157.1-in" 14883 3,024.00 01/17/2018 "P-157.1-io" 14884 8,568.00 01j17j2018 "P-157.1-ip" 14885 125,685.00 01/17/2018 "P-157.1-iq" 14886 42,480.00 01jl7j2018 "P-157.1-ir" 14887 3,517.92 01jl7/2018 "P-157.1-is" 14888 69,800.00 01/17/2018 "P-157.1-it" 14889 31,382.08 01/17/2018 "P-157.1-iu" 14917 7,272.00 01j18/2018 "P-157.1-iv" 14891 12,600.00 01/18/2018 "P-157.1-iw" 14892 182,600.55 01jl8/2018 "P-157.1-ix" 14893 187,620.00 01fl8/2018 "P-157.1-iy" 14894 22,680.00 01jl8/2018 "P-157.1-iz" 14895 12,210.00 01/19/2018 "P-157.1-ja" 14920 3,968.25 O!fl9/2018 "P-157.1-jb" 14921 39,234.60 01/19/2018 "P-157.1-jc" 14922 156,959.55 01/22/2018 "P-157.1-jd" 14924 792,929.61 01/22/2018 "P-157 .1-je" 14925 48,636.00 01/22/2018 "P-157.1-jf' 14926 84,960.00 01/23/2018 "P-157.1-jg" 14927 134,877.96 01/23/2018 "P-157.1-jh" 14928 14,605.92 01/24/2018 "P-157.1-ji" 14941 3,024.00 01/24/2018 "P-157.1-.ii" 14942 6,219.36 01/24/2018 "P-157.1-jk" 14943 10,439.55 01/26/2018 "P-157.1-jl" 14945 154,395.45 01/31/2018 "P-157.1-jm" 14971 9,908.64 01/31/2018 "P-157.1-jn" 14972 14,388.00 01/31/2018 "P-157.1-jo" 14973 209,280.00 02/01/2018 "P-157.1-jp" 15095 02/01/2018 "P-157.1-jq" 15096 861.84 02/01/2018 "P-157.1-jr" 15097 142,778.16 02/02/2018 "P-157.1-js" 15104 143,640.00 02/02/2018 "P-157.1-jt" 15105 107,730.00 02/02/2018 "P-157.1-ju'' 15122 35,910.00 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-jv" 15106 79,361.10 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-jw" 15107 91,008.00 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-jx" 15113 84,960.00 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-jy" 15114 61,371.60 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-jz" 15115 30,088.80 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-ka" 15116 186,264.00 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-kb" 15117 53,865.00 02/06/2018 "P-157.1-kc" 15119 175,168.98 02j07j2018 "P-157.1-kd" 15110 42,480.00 02j07j2018 "P-157.1-ke" 15111 31,999.20 161,595.00 53,865.00 71,820.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 41 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 02/07/2018 "P-157.1-kf' 15112 44,707.95 02/07/2018 "P-157.1-kg" 15120 20,060.00 02/07/2018 "P-157.1-kh" 15121 154,235.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-ki" 15125 89,775.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kj" 15126 229,230.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kk" 15127 183,150.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kl" 15128 236,750.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-km" 15129 234,200.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kn" 15130 71,820.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-ko" 15131 125,685.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kp" 15132 50,940.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kq" 15133 72,208.75 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-kr" 15134 17,955.00 02/08/2018 "P-157.1-ks" 15135 30,312.26 02/09/2018 "P-157.1-kt" 15136 53,865.00 02/09/2018 "P-157.1-ku" 15137 17,955.00 02/09/2018 "P-157.1-kv" 15138 70,750.00 02/15/2018 "P-157.1-la" 15149 209,541.60 02/15/2018 "P-157.1-lb" 15150 21,168.00 02/17/2018 "P-157.1-le" 15156 02/17/2018 "P-157.1-lf' 15157 861.84 02/17/2018 "P-157.1-1g" 15158 225,882.00 02/17/2018 "P-157.1-1h" 15159 107,730.00 02/21/2018 "P-157.1-1j" 15167 02/21/2018 "P-157.1-1k" 15168 35,048.16 02/21/2018 "P-157.1-11" 15169 30,164.40 02/21/2018 "P-157.1-1m" 15170 117,174.33 02/21/2018 "P-157.1-1n" 15172 32,015.28 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1o" 15190 108,600.00 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1p" 15191 102,866.72 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1q" 15192 347,520.00 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1r" 15193 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1s" 15194 2,009.25 03/03/2018 "P-157.1-1v" 15342 78,714.72 03/06/2018 "P-157.1-1w" 15222 143,640.00 03/06/2018 "P-157.1-lx" 15223 76,454.40 03/09/2018 "P-157.1-1y" 15329 03/09/2018 "P-157.1-lz" 15330 3,528.00 03/09/2018 "P-157.1-ma" 15331 545,164.29 03/09/2018 "P-157.1-mb" 15332 03/09/2018 "P-157.1-mc" 15333 14,590.80 03/12/2018 "P-157.1-md" 15344 4,955.58 03/12/2018 "P-157.1-me" 15345 282,324.42 03/13/2018 "P-157.1-mf' 15350 164,620.80 03/14/2018 "P-157.1-mg" 15351 135,272.97 03/14/2018 "P-157.1-mh" 15352 1,582.56 03/14/2018 "P-157.1-mi" 15353 28,608.00 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mk" 15361 251,370.00 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-ml" 15362 103,420.80 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mm" 15363 109,468.80 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mn" 15364 14,776.32 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mo" 15365 85,824.90 80,689.77 9,731.61 161,987.76 44,760.00 40,900.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 42 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mp" 15366 27,920.00 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mq" 15367 49,196.70 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mr" 15368 10,054.80 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-ms" 15369 94,299.66 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mt" 15370 86,880.00 03/16/2018 "P-157.1-mu" 15371 40,900.00 03/19/2018 "P-157.1-mv" 15387 27,920.00 03/19/2018 "P-157.1-mw" 15388 10,584.00 03/19/2018 "P-157.1-mx" 15389 173,846.88 03/20/2018 "P-157.1-my" 15392 22,347.36 03/21/2018 "P-157.1-mz" 15393 304,080.00 03/21/2018 "P-157.1-na" 15394 203,299.20 03/21/2018 "P-157.1-nb" 15395 75,222.00 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-nc" 15448 37,260.72 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-nd" 15449 71,820.00 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-ne" 15450 283,000.00 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-nf' 15451 25,238.64 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-ng" 15452 173,760.00 03/26/2018 "P-157.1-nh" 15453 144,354.60 05/11/2018 "P-157.1-ni" 8742 32,152.95 05/11/2018 "P-157.1-nj" 8743 143,535.20 05/11/2018 "P-157.1-nk" 8744 05/11/2018 "P-157.1-n1" 8745 602.91 06/06/2018 "P-157.1-nm" 8831 16,640.00 06/06/2018 "P-157.1-nn" 8833 20,160.00 06/08/2018 "P-157.1-no" 8834 76,704.00 06/08/2018 "P-157.1-np" 8835 339,360.00 06/08/2018 "P-157.1-nq" 8836 132,108.00 08/01/2018 "P-157.1-nr" 8977 224,388.80 08/01/2018 "P-157.1-ns" 8978 51,225.02 06/19/2017 8861 35,287.75 06/19/2017 "P-158-a" 8862 31,255.95 06/19/2017 "P-158-b" 8863 25,425.90 06/19/2017 "P-158-c" 8864 190,553.20 06/20/2017 "P-158-d" 8865 84,822.31 06/20/2017 "P-158-e" 8866 333,468.09 06/20/2017 "P-158-f' 8867 194,126.07 06/23/2017 "P-158-g" 8872 169,644.62 06/23/2017 "P-158-h" 8873 06/28/2017 "P-158-i" 8877 3,780.28 06/28/2017 "P-158-j" 8879 208,521.01 06/28/2017 "P-158-k" 8881 06/30/2017 "P-158-1" 8887 46,740.87 06/30/2017 "P-158-m" 8889 43,136.32 06/30/2017 "P-158-n" 8890 99,276.16 07/03/2017 "P-158-o" 8894 43,323.92 07/03/2017 "P-158-p" 8895 11,005.71 07/04/2017 "P-158-q" 8892 263,181.80 07/04/2017 "P-158-r" 8896 64,792.34 07/04/2017 "P-158-s" 8897 171,639.94 07/06/2017 "P-158-t" 8902 61,824.85 07/06/2017 "P-158-u" 8903 54,601.89 "P-158-v" 112,066.82 15,502.74 103,747.44

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 43 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 07/06/2017 "P-158-w" 8904 179,696.97 8905 74,059.64 07/07/2017 "P-158-x" 8907 50,965.16 8908 174,841.57 07/07/2017 "P-158-y" 8914 84,822.31 8915 84,115.46 07/07/2017 "P-158-z" 8916 51,107.22 8917 26,381.24 07 jll/2017 "P-158-aa" 8922 40,403.95 8925 49,638.08 o7 111/2017 "P-158-ab" 8926 8929 252,613.66 07/11/2017 "P-158-ac" 8930 26,526.28 8931 97,763.45 07/11/2017 "P-158-ad" 8739 117,009.34 07 fll/2017 "P-158-ae" 8848 p 41,235,354.57 8937 07/12/2017 "P-158-af' 13795 14114 07/12/2017 "P-158-ag" 14119 14140 07/13/2017 "P-158-ah" 14141 14142 07/13/2017 "P-158-ai" 14143 14356 07/13/2017 "P-158-aj" 14525 14706 sub-total 14950 15148 B. GENERAL TUNA CORPORATION 15151 15152 05/09/2017 "P-157.1-aa" 15153 I' 57,640.00 15154 06/14/2017 "P-157.1-cd" 15155 115,280.00 15160 07/17/2017 "P-157.1-ch" 15195 115,280.00 15196 08/17/2017 "P-157.1-du" 15354 115,280.00 8708 09/15/2017 "P-157.1-eo" 50,648.00 14079 09/19/2017 "P-157.1-ep" 14080 374,016.00 14081 10/03/2017 "P-157.1-ez" 14084 364,353.92 14085 10/03/2017 "P-157.1-fa" 14148 42,856.00 15336 10/03/2017 "P-157.1-fb" 15337 103,166.08 15339 10/03/2017 "P-157.1-fc" 273,499.20 10/25/2017 "P-157.1-ft" 327,264.00 11/24/2017 "P-157.1-gp" 42,485.88 12/20/2017 "P-157.1-hh" 29,220.00 01/11/2018 "P-157.1-id" 61,655.76 02/14/2018 "P-157.1-kw" 161,338.50 02/14/2018 "P-157.1-kx" 37,762.20 02/14/2018 "P-157.1-ky" 26,973.00 02/14/2018 "P-157.1-kz" 167,232.60 02/15/2018 "P-157.1-lc" 45,554.40 02/15/2018 "P-157.1-1d" 144,655.20 02/19/2018 "P-157.1-li" 113,046.84 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1t" 2,737.26 02/26/2018 "P-157.1-1u" 94,126.40 03/14/2018 "P-157.1-mj" 54,084.00 04/21/2017 "P-157.1-v" 115,280.00 sub�total p 3,035,435.24 C. PHILBEST CANNING CORP. 05/05/2017 "P-157.2-a" 147,500.00 147,500.00 05/13/2017 "P-157.2-b" 147,500.00 147,500.00 06/30/2017 "P-157.2-c" 147,500.00 147,500.00 08/30/2017 "P-157.2-d" 147,500.00 147,500.00 09/15/2017 "P-157 .2-e" 147,500.00 09/26/2017 "P-157.2-f' 10/13/2017 "P-157.2-h" 11/20/2017 "P-157.2-i" 11/20/2017 "P-157 .2-j"

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 44 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 11/21/2017 "P-157.2-k" 15338 147,500.00 02/24/2018 "P-157.2-1" 15340 147,500.00 sub-total 13334 I' 1,622,500.00 13578 D. GEM FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 13924 13960 05/23/2017 "P-160-a" 13961 64,795.93 07/10/2017 14086 08/23/2017 "P-160-b" 14087 100,322.34 09/07/2017 14088 09/07/2017 01 P-160-c" 437,038.84 09/15/2017 "P-160-d" 221,178.12 "P-160-e" "P-160-f' 6,613.34 2,939.26 09/22/2017 "P-160-g 20,192.39 09/22/2017 "P-160-h" 4,408.89 sub-total I' 857,489.10 TOTAL p 46,750,778.91 2. PURPORTED INVOICES WERE NOT FORMALLY OFFERED A. CENTURY PACIFIC AGRICULTURAL VENTURES INC. (Annex P-159 of Exhibit P-77} 05/17/2017 17020306 I' 293,220.00 05/29/2017 8805 05/29/2017 8806 23,131.80 06/28/2017 8878 07/13/2017 8927 223,719.30 01/16/2018 01/24/2018 8064630 126,522.65 01/24/2018 14944 02/08/2018 216,170.66 03/06/2018 8071584 03/06/2018 8078176 (383,351.12) 03/07/2018 8089360 8089361 285,621.36 sub-total 15224 (22,681.35) (183,141.00) (48,638. 91) (1,024,955.14) 3,220.75 I' (491,161.00) B. PHILBEST CANNING CORP. (Annex P-159 of Exhibit P-77} 04/22/2017 13160 147,500.00 147,500.00 07/18/2017 7992631 147,500.00 07/26/2017 7995354 442,500.00 sub-total I' C. GEM FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Annex P-161 of Exhibit P-77} 05/01/2017 13214 37,880.93 07/31/2017 7997261 14,769.42 07/31/2017 7997262 85.98 07/31/2017 7997263 687.82 07/31/2017 7997264 63,303.72 08/08/2017 8000810 2,023.00 10/05/2017 14147 144,184.13 10/25/2017 14331 2,939.27 11/20/2017 14490 5,143.71 01/30/2018 14959 97,914.16 01/30/2018 14960 2,939.26 02/09/2018 15139 44,762.07 02/15/2018 15140 3,674.08 sub-total I' 420,307.55 D. HI-LAS MARKETING CORPORATION (Annex P-163 of Exhibit P-77)

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 45 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 08/09/2017 8001057 I' 18,411.83 08/09/2017 8001058 08/09/2017 8001059 2,985.95 08/09/2017 8001060 5,310.38 sub-total 19,425.86 TOTAL Grand Total 46,134.01 417,780.56 p 47,168,559.47 As to the second essential element, to prove that its customers, Milbrae Exports, Inc. and Amley Foods Corporation, are duly registered with the BOI and CDC, respectively, petitioner submitted the Certifications issued by the respective agencies, to wit: Customer Proof of VAT Certification Exhibit %of Export Name Zero-rating Period No. Sales BOI Certification Amley Food was issued on January 1 to "P-77- 93.48% for the Corporation February 27, December 31, period January 2017 I C"I39 "P- 1 to December Millbrae 2017 31,2016 Exports, Inc. CDC Certificate March 1, 2016 443-a" of Registration to April 30, 2018 "P-445-b" and Tax Exemption Upon examination, We find that the sales made to Millbrae Exports, Inc. in the amount of P2,091 ,670.00 are indeed zero- rated export sales based on the certification issued by the CDC on February 17, 2016. With regard to sales to Amley Food Corporation, We cannot consider the same subject to VAT zero-rating. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fi.lminera Resources Corporation (Fi.lminera casej,l 40 the Supreme Court ruled that sales made to a BOI-registered buyer are export sales subject to the zero percent rate if the following conditions are met: 1. The buyer is a BOI-registered manufacturer/producer; 2. The buyer's products are 100% exported; and 3. The BOI certifies that the buyer exported 100% of its products. For this purpose, the BOI Certification is vital for the seller-taxpayer to avail of zero-rating benefits. The certification is evidence that the buyer exported its entire "' Docket- Vol. ll, p. 674. 140 G.R. No. 236325, September 16,2020.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 46 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X products and shall serve as authority for the seller to claim for refund or tax credit. Relative thereto, petitioner must present the following documents: 1. The buyer's Certificate of Registration with the BOI; and, 2. The BOI Certification that the buyer exported 100% of its products. A cursory examination of the BOI Certification issued to Amley Food Corporation shows that petitioner fell short in proving that Amley Food Corporation's products for the period subject of the present claim, i.e., from April1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, are 100% exported. To emphasize, the BOI's records show that Amley Food Corporation has exported 93.48% of its sales value from January 1 to December 31, 2016. Thus, petitioner's sales of P17,800.00 cannot qualify for a VAT zero rating. In sum, petitioner's valid zero-rated sales for the period covering April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 amounted to P31,384,368,317.33, as determined below: Export Sales to DAH Considered Total Export Sales Reported Zero-Rated I' 33 615,917,839.03 I' 49,278,029.47 I' 33 665,195,868.50 Sales (based on the amended Quarterly VAT - Returns) (117,094.24) (117 094.24) Less: Adjustments Unsupported Zero-Rated (1,209,764.41) Sales Disallowances sustained (2,232 314,333.05) (47' 186,359.47)141 /2 280 710,456.93) by the Court for failure p 31,382,276,647.33 p 2,091,670.00 1'31,384,368,317.33 to establish compliance with the essential elements to qualify for VAT zero-rating Disallowances per Court's further verification for failure to establish compliance with the essential elements to qualify for VAT zero-rating Valid zero-rated sales 141 1'47,168,559.47+1'17,800.00

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 47 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Sixth requisite: The input VAT claimed by petitioner are not transitional input taxes. The input taxes are not transitional, as understood under Section 111 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: "SEC. 111. Transitional/Presumptive Input Tax Credits. - (A) Transitional Input Tax Credits. - A person who becomes liable to value-added tax or any person who elects to be a VAT-registered person shall, subject to the filing of an inventory according to rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, be allowed input tax on his beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies equivalent to two percent (2%) of the value of such inventory or the actual value- added tax paid on such goods, materials and supplies, whichever is higher, which shall be creditable against the output tax." As held by the Supreme Court in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 142 transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT-registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the acquisitions of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies. During the transition period from non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax credit alleviates the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer. Since there is no showing that the claimed input taxes are transitional, petitioner has complied with the sixth requisite for the grant of an input VAT refund. Seventh reauisite: Not all input taxes being claimed are due or paid. Anent the seventh requisite in claiming a VAT refund, it is indispensable for petitioner to provide supporting documents proving that the input taxes claimed during the period covering April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 were due or paid under Section 11 O(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, to wit: 142 G.R. Nos. 158885 & 170680, Apri12, 2009.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 48 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x SEC. 110. Tax Credits.- (A) Creditable input Tax. - (1) Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued in accordance with Section 113 hereof on the following transactions shall be creditable against the output tax: (a) Purchase or importation of goods: (1) For sale; or (ii) For conversion into or intended to form part of a finished product for sale including packaging materials; or (iii) For use as supplies in the course of business; or (iv) For use as materials supplied in the sale of service; or (v) For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is allowed under this Code. {b) Purchase of services on which a value-added tax has actually been paid. (2) The input tax on domestic purchase or importation of goods or properties by a VAT-registered person shall be creditable: (a) To the purchaser upon consummation of sale and on importation of goods or properties; and (b) To the importer upon payment of the value-added tax prior to the release of the goods from the custody of the Bureau of Customs. Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (1'1 ,000,000): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the ~

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 49 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee. The above provisions are implemented by Sections 4.110- 1 to 4.110-3 of RR No. 16-2005, which read as follows: "SECTION 4.110-1. Credits For Input Tax.- "Input tax" means the VAT due on or paid by a VAT-registered person on importation of goods or local purchases of goods, properties, or services, including lease or use of properties, in the course of his trade or business. It shall also include the transitional input tax and the presumptive input tax determined in accordance with Sec. 111 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. It includes input taxes which can be directly attributed to transactions subject to the VAT plus a ratable portion of any input tax which cannot be directly attributed to either the taxable or exempt activity. Any input tax on the following transactions evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued by a VAT-registered person in accordance with Sees. 113 and 237 of the NJRC of 1997, as amended, shall be creditable against the output tax: (a) Purchase or importation of goods (1) For sale; or (2) For conversion into or intended to form part of a finished product for sale, including packaging materials; or (3) For use as supplies in the course of business; or (4) For use as raw materials supplied in the sale of services; or (5) For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is allowed under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, (b) Purchase of real properties for which a VAT has actually been paid; (c) Purchase of services in which a VAT has actually been paid; (d) Transactions "deemed sale" under Sec. 106 (B) of the NTRC of 1997, as amended; (e) Transitional input tax allowed under Sec. 4.111 (a) of these Regulations;

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 50 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x (f) Presumptive input tax allowed under Sec. 4.111 (b) of these Regulations; (g) Transitional input tax credits allowed under the transitory and other provisions of these Regulations. SECTION 4.110-2. Persons Who Can Avail of the Input Tax Credit. -The input tax credit on importation of goods or local purchases of goods, properties or services by a VAT- registered person shall be creditable: (a) To the importer upon payment of VAT prior to the release of goods from customs custody; (b) To the purchaser of the domestic goods or properties upon consummation of the sale; or (c) To the purchaser of services or the lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee. Relative thereto, Section 4.110-8 of RR No. 16-2005 provides for the substantiation requirements of input tax credits as follows: "SEC. 4.110-8. Substantiation of Input Tax Credits. - (a) Input taxes for the importation of goods or the domestic purchase of goods, properties or services is made in the course of trade or business, whether such input taxes shall be credited against zero-rated sale, non-zero-rated sales, or subjected to the 5% Final Withholding VAT, must be substantiated and supported by the following documents, and must be reported in the information returns required to be submitted to the Bureau: (1) For the importation of goods- import entry or other equivalent document showing actual payment of VAT on the imported goods. (2) For the domestic purchase of goods and properties - invoice showing the information required under Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code. (3) For the purchase of real property- public instrument i.e., deed of absolute sale, deed of conditional sale, contract/agreement to sell, etc., together with VAT invoice issued by the seller. (4) For the purchase of services- official receipt showing the information required under Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 51 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Verily, to prove entitlement to credits for input taxes due and paid, petitioner must not only present the supporting documents prescribed under Section 4.110-8 ofRR No. 16-2005 but also, these documents must comply with the invoicing requirements under Sections 113(A) and (B), 237 and 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as implemented by Section 4.113-1(A) and (B) of RR No. 16-2005, which were quoted earlier. Based on its Amended Quarterly VAT Returns143 for the period covering April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, petitioner reported current input tax from various purchases of goods and services amounting to P1,538,046,028.73, out of which the amount of P1,218,800,809.92 144 is the subject of its administrative claim for refund145, as shown below: Particulars FY FY FY FY Total 1st Qtr 2018 2nd Qtr 2018 3rd Qtr 2018 4th Qtr 2018 I' 62,931 258.13 P-450-c P-29/P-450-e P-35/P-450�� P-450-k 52,058,815.37 10,872,442.76 Deferred from 645,357,343.77 the previous p 20,153,348.91 I' 17,048,737.55 I' 14,161,000.03 p 11,568,171.64 317 727,043.40 525 026,139.27 quarter 39,022,982.10 Less: Deferred for 40 077.44 the succeeding 17,048 737.53 14,161 000.04 11,568,171.62 9 280 906.18 p 1 538 046 028.74 _p"riod 319 245,218.81 p 1,218,800,809.93 Amortized input tax on capital goods exceeding 2 887,737.51 2,592 828.41 2,287,265.46 !'1M 3,104 611.38 Input tax on domestic purchases of goods other than 129,437,440.44 178 735,782.68 244,961,566.10 capital goods 92,222,554.55 Input Tax on importation of goods other than 65,856,117.10 119,303,871.30 76,416,213.00 capital goods 56,150,842.00 Input tax on domestic purchases of 108 281,885.32 152 080 513.68 143,823 321.73 services 120,840,418.54 Services Rendered by 9,563 209.48 11,091 999.61 13,026,744.28 Non-Residents 5,341,028.73 Creditable Withholding VAT (reflected as Others in VAT 6,946.99 5,004.15 19,620.44 Returns) 8,505.86 Total Input tax during the P277 667,961.06 1'316,033,336.84 1'463,809 999.83 1'480,534,731.01 ' period Less: Output tax 57,947,061.26 63 669,011.29 131 774,115.09 65,855,031.16 Excess Input tax 1'219,720,899.80 P252,364,325.55 1'332 035,884.74 1'414,679,699.85 143 Exhibits "P-450-c", "P-29"/"P-450-e", "P-35"/"P-450-g", and "P-450-k". 144 With discrepancy ofPO.OI. 145 Exhibit "P-69", Docket- Vol. 1, pp. 539 to 551.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 52 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Out of the reported input VAT of P1,538,046,028.74 during the period of claim, respondent found that petitioner's allowable input VAT amounted to P1,422,392,553.50, 146 while the remaining input VAT amounting to P115,653,475.24 was disallowed due to the alleged non-compliance with the invoicing requirements, among others. Moreover, the additional amount of P209,618,068.1 0 was deducted from petitioner's claim for refund, which represents the output VAT imposed upon petitioner, compromise penalty, and the input VAT allocated to sales allegedly not qualified for zero-rating, as well as exempt sales. To the point of being repetitive, the input VAT amount of P325,271 ,543.33 was disallowed for refund by respondent, and, thus, has been the subject of the present claim before the Court. To support its input taxes from importations and domestic purchases of goods and services, petitioner submitted the Single Administrative Document ("SAD"), Temporary Assessment Notices, and SSDT147 issued by the BOC and VAT sales invoices and official receipts 148 issued by its various suppliers. The denied portion of petitioner's claim for refund of the excess and unutilized input tax aggregating P325,271,543.33 are accounted for as follows149; ICPA Particulars Amount Annexed to Exhibits Report, Exhibit "P-77" No. Table Nos. 6 and 10 lSO Annex B, pp. "P-78" to Item No. 20-22 "P-106" Annex C, p. "P-1 08" The total amount of 23 to "P- disallowed input VAT due 121" to Non-compliance with "P-122" the to "P- invoicing Annex D, p. 128" 24 "P- 130" Item Nos. 1 requirements, to "P- to 4, 6 to 14, double/over-claimed input !56" I 16, 20, & 21 VAT, Pll4,899,296.26 insufficient/no "P-164" Annexes F ptpo. supporting documents, N, "P-166" invalid ATP/failure to to "P- indicate ATP, and 24-27 171" AnnexP, o. 29 supported by out-of-period s to VAT Sis or ORs Annexes T, pp. 29-30. Non-VAT per ITS 2 Item No.5 754,178.95 Annex E, p. 24 "P!29" verification 146 Exhibit "R-5", BIR Records, p. 47. 147 Exhibits "P-170-a" to "P-170-1". 148 Exhibits "P-78-a" to "P-155-b". 149 See Exhibit "P-77", pp. 7, 12 to 14. 150 Exhibit "P-77", pp. 5 to 6.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 53 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Total Disallowances pertaining to Input VAT P115,653,475.23 durin2 the neriod Additional output VAT "P-157.1" 5,918,954.44 AnnexO, p.28 to "P- 3 Item No. 15 based on considered export sales without prior 163" ao"uroved VAT zero-ratin2 4 Item No. 17 Allocation of input tax on 51,333.07 Annex Q, p. 29 "P-165" unremitted exoort sales 5 Item Nos. The total amount of input AnnexR o. 29 - 18 & 22 VAT allocable to exempt sales 19,226,034.11 Annex U, p. 30 - The total amount of 6 Item No. 23 disallowed input VAT 184,409,246.48 Table V-1, p. allocable to sales not 31 aualified for zero-rated 7 Item No. 19 Compromise Penaltv 12,500.00 Total Disallowances P325,271,543.33 Based on the ICPA report, out of the input VAT of 1"115,653,475.23, We find the following disallowances amounting to 1"92,561,103.84 proper, thus, shall be sustained: No. Particulars Disallowed Input Annexed Exhibits Amount VAT perCIR to Exhibit "P-77" The total amount of Annex B, "P-86" to "P- p 42,669,750.22 disallowed input DO. 21-22 106" VAT due to Non- AnnexC, p. "P-1 09' to "P- 2,324,802.13 21,984,083.28 compliance with the 23 121" 18,504,135.80 invoicing AnnexO, p. "P-123" to "P- 5,144,460.88 requirements, 24 128" insufficient/ no Annexes F "P-130" to "P- supporting 156" 1 documents, invalid 1'114,899,296.28 to N, DO. 24-27 ATP/failure to AnnexP, p. "P-164" 29 indicate ATP, and supported by out-of- period VAT Sis or Annexes 8 "P-166" to "P- ORs (Item Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 14, 16, 20 & to T, 169" and "P- I, 179,692.58 21\ pp. 29-30. 171" Non-VAT per ITS Annex E, p. 24 2 verification (Item No. 754,178.95 "P-129" 754,178.95 51 Grand Total Pll5 653 475.23 p 92 561 103.84 In addition, upon further verification, the Court finds that the total amount of 1"17,602,110.62 should likewise be disallowed for the reasons stated below: 1. Inout VAT not declared seoarately Exhibit Name of Supplier Date SI/OR No. Input VAT Amount No. VAT REG. "P-78- MALLBERRY SUITES TIN I' 409.07 iv" 01/12/2018 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 336531 "P-85- SARANGANI VAT REG. 144,020.98 b" RESOURCES CORP. 05/05/2017 TIN v OFFICIAL

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 54 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Subtotal RECEIPT 144,430.05 NO. 3249 p 2. Overdeclared input VAT Exhibit Name of Supplier Date SI/OR No. Input VAT Amount No. VAT REG. "P-78- ECCO HARDWARE INC 03/08/2018 TIN I' 30.72 cq" CHARGE SALES "P-108- ADELA M. BUSTOS 2/21/2018 INVOICE 33,019.00 a" TRUCKING NO. 85774 VAT REG. "P-108- ADELA M. BUSTOS 3/5/2018 TIN 46,106.65 c" TRUCKING OFFICIAL RECEIPT "P-122- RVB MACHINE SHOP NO. 0089 m" to VAT REG. "P-122- & ENGINEERING 03/15/2018 TIN 14,400.00 q" OFFICIAL SERVICES RECEIPT NO. 0090 VAT REG. TIN CHARGE INVOICE NO. 7521 Subtotal p 93 556.37 3. Input Vat supported by blurred OR/SI Exhibit Name of Supplier Date SI/OR No. Input VAT Amount No. VAT REG. TIN SALES INVOICE NO. 816- 000096719, 816- 000095037, 816- 000094286, "P-78- ACE HARDWARE 07/06/2017 816- I' 362.51 ay" 000091921, PHILIPPINES INC 817- 000107250, 817- 000107833, 817- 000105952, 815- 000096070, 816- 000094289 VAT REG. "P-78- REACHEM 03/23/2018 TIN SALES 1,178.57 cy" INDUSTRIES INC INVOICE NO. 34429 Subtotal p 1,541.08 4. Input VAT supported by ORs but failed to indicate the nature of service rendered

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 55 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Exhibit Name of Supplier Date SI/OR No. Input VAT Amount No. 04/06/2017 NMC CONTAINER VAT REG. I' 25,074.44 "P-78- 04/06/2017 TIN cz" to LINES, INC. OFFICIAL "P-78- 04/06/2017 RECEIPT dg" NMC CONTAINER 04/27/2017 NO. 18,806.98 05/20/2017 0162747 "P-78- LINES, INC. 05/20/2017 VAT REG. dh" to 06/08/2017 TIN "P-78- NMC CONTAINER 06/22/2017 OFFICIAL 19,886.98 dn" 07/02/2017 RECEIPT 33,840.00 LINES, INC. 07/02/2017 NO. "P-78- 07/05/2017 0162748 2,160.00 do" to DS DYNATEC VAT REG. 2,280.00 "P-78- -"---� TIN 15,600.00 ds" INDUSTRIAL OFFICIAL 24,357.01 07/14/2017 RECEIPT 2,160.00 "P-78- SOLUTIONS AND NO. 2,280.00 dv" to 0162749 13,500.00 "P-78- ENGG VAT REG. 41,280.00 ee" TIN RTX ELECTRONICS OFFICIAL "P-78- RECEIPT ef" TRADING AND NO. 0055 VAT REG. "P-78- SERVICES TIN eg" OFFICIAL RTX ELECTRONICS RECEIPT "P-78- NO. 0666 eh" TRADING AND VAT REG. TIN "P-78- SERVICES OFFICIAL ej" to RECEIPT "P-78- PPLM INDUSTRIAL NO. 0667 em" CORPORATION VAT REG. TIN "P-78- AERON EQUIPMENT OFFICIAL en" SALES & RENTAL RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 5423 "P-78- VAT REG. eo" RTX ELECTRONICS TIN OFFICIAL "P-78- TRADING AND RECEIPT ep" NO. 001005 SERVICES VAT REG. "P-78- TIN eq" RTX ELECTRONICS OFFICIAL RECEIPT TRADING AND NO. 0668 SERVICES VAT REG. TIN BETAN CALIBRATION OFFICIAL TECHNIQUE RECEIPT NO. 0669 �- VAT REG. TIN LEADING OFFICIAL BLDG .INTELLIGENCE RECEIPT (LBI)PHILS INC NO. 19657 VAT REG. TIN OFFICIAL

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 56 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RECEIPT NO. 078 VAT REG. "P-78- DOLE ASIA COMPANY 07/27/2017 TIN 67,387.41 er" LIMITED OFFICIAL 2,160.00 2,280.00 "P-78- RECEIPT 5,508.00 es" 7,344.00 NO. 02804 2,160.00 "P-78- 2,280.00 et" RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. 2,856.84 TIN "P-78- TRADING AND 08/01/2017 OFFICIAL 83,247.37 eu" RECEIPT 6,477.76 SERVICES "P-78- 489,951.01 ev" NO. 0670 2,280.00 "P-78- RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. ex" TIN TRADING AND 08/01/2017 OFFICIAL "P-78- RECEIPT ey" SERVICES "P-78- NO. 0671 ez" RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. "P-78- TIN fa" TRADING AND 08/21/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT "P-78- SERVICES fb" NO. 0657 "P-78- go" RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. TIN "P-78- TRADING AND 08/21/2017 OFFICIAL gp" RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 0658 RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. TIN TRADING AND 08/30/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 0672 RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. TIN TRADING AND 08/30/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 0674 VAT REG. MONARK EQUIPMENT 08/31/2017 TIN CORP OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 00951 J.E. PALERMO VAT REG. TIN CONSTRUCTION & 09/06/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT MATERIALS SU NO. 3890 MT.MATUTUM VAT REG. TIN HEALTH CARE 09/07/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT FOUNDATION, INC. NO. 230262 DOLE ASIA VAT REG. TIN COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 09/20/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02838 RTX ELECTRONICS VAT REG. TIN TRADING AND 09/30/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 0675

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 57 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x VAT REG. "P-78- RTX ELECTRONICS TIN gq" TRADING AND 10/01/2017 OFFICIAL 2,160.00 "P-78- 2,160.00 gr" SERVICES RECEIPT 18,214.29 2,160.00 "P-78- NO. 0662 2,280.00 gs" 2,280.00 VAT REG. 4,203.21 "P-78- gt" RTX ELECTRONICS TIN 153.60 50,127.47 "P-78- TRADING AND 10/01/2017 OFFICIAL 41,396.58 gu" SERVICES RECEIPT 2,070.01 "P-78- 2,379.84 gy" NO. 0663 "P-78- VAT REG. ha" TIN "P-78- hb" to WRU CORPORATION 10/19/2017 OFFICIAL "P-78- RECEIPT he" "P-78- NO. hf" to "P-78- 0003406 hh" "P-78- VAT REG. hi" to "P-78- RTX ELECTRONICS TIN ht" "P-78- TRADING AND 10/30/2017 OFFICIAL hv" to "P-78- SERVICES RECEIPT hy" "P-78- NO. 0676 ia" to "P-78- VAT REG. ib" RTX ELECTRONICS TIN TRADING AND 10/30/2017 OFFICIAL SERVICES RECEIPT NO. 0682 VAT REG. RTX ELECTRONICS TIN TRADING AND 11/30/2017 OFFICIAL SERVICES RECEIPT NO. 0678 VAT REG. TIN 2GO GROUP INC 12/08/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 0541336 VAT REG. SOUTH COTABATO TIN INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES 12/11/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 206930 VAT REG. KPS TRUCKING TIN SERVICES 12/12/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 0035 VAT REG. KAICOSH TIN CORPORATION 12/13/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO.Oll4 VAT REG. TIN GRANDCITY HOTEL 12/21/2017 OFFICIAL SOUTH COTABATO RECEIPT INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES NO. 121140 VAT REG. TIN 12/23/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 207543

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 58 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x "P-78- TNL EXPRESS 01/05/2018 VAT REG. 1,584.00 ig" to TIN 47,880.12 "P-78- WORLDWIDE CORP OFFICIAL ij" RECEIPT 231.43 NO. 7055 2,886.00 6,120.00 "P-78- KAICOSH 01/09/2018 VAT REG. 2,280.00 ik" to CORPORATION TIN 12,978.60 "P-78- OFFICIAL it" RECEIPT 300.00 NO. 0121 14,487.81 49,345.71 VAT REG. 218,628.00 "P-78- MALLBERRY SUITES TIN 1,865.99 iu" 01/12/2018 OFFICIAL 52,736.79 RECEIPT NO. 336531 "P-78- IRELAN'S 01/12/2018 VAT REG. iw" to ENTERPRISES TIN "P-78- OFFICIAL ix" RECEIPT NO. 6802 "P-78- IRELAN'S 01/19/2018 VAT REG. iy" to ENTERPRISES TIN "P-78- OFFICIAL jc" RECEIPT NO. 6803 VAT REG. " P-78- RTX ELECTRONICS TIN jv" OFFICIAL TRADING AND 02/15/2018 RECEIPT SERVICES NO. 0679 VAT REG. "P-78- R & G RUIZ 03/01/2018 TIN jw" CONSTRUCTION, INC. OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 0106 VAT REG. TIN "P-78- SGS PHILIPPINES INC 03/07/2018 OFFICIAL kd" RECEIPT NO. 0156907 "P-78- KAICOSH CORPOR 03/12/2018 VAT REG. ke" to TIN "P-78- OFFICIAL kl" RECEIPT NO. 0160 VAT REG. "P-78- ASIAN MARINE 03/12/2018 TIN km" OFFICIAL TRANSPORT CORP RECEIPT NO. 58032 VAT REG. "P-78- ASIAN MARINE 03/12/2018 TIN kn" OFFICIAL TRANSPORT CORP RECEIPT NO. 58037 VAT REG. "P-78- AJ SUELA & REDUCTO 03/16/2018 TIN kr" TRUCKING SERVICES OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 5874 "P-78- ASIAN MARINE 03/20/2018 VAT REG. ks" TIN TRANSPORT CORP

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 59 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 58035 VAT REG. "P-78- R & G RU!Z 03/22/2018 TIN 31,800.00 kt" CONSTRUCTION, INC. OFFICIAL 6,804,000.00 RECEIPT 300,134.94 NO. 0108 363,430.18 790,903.60 VAT REG. 537,068.86 357,409.40 "P-81- NARCISO FARM, INC. TIN a" 06/01/2017 OFFICIAL 103.53 57,036.00 RECEIPT 40,649.09 NO. 0301 1,386.97 4,160.92 "P-83- DOLE ASIA VAT REG. a" TIN COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 04/07/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02761 "P-83- DOLE ASIA VAT REG. b" TIN COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 05/04/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02769 DOLE ASIA VAT REG. TIN "P-83-c" COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 06/05/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02780 "P-83- DOLE ASIA VAT REG. d" TIN COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 06/29/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02789 "P-84- DOLE ASIA VAT REG a" TIN. COMPANY,LTD(DPGSL 07/27/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT PHILIPPINES) NO. 02806 VAT REG. "P-108- ADVENT TRANSPORT 03/02/2018 TIN b" SERVICES OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 0059 "P-122- TROPILAND . VAT REG. v" to "P- ENTERPRISES TIN 122-x" 04/12/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 5026 "P-112- 03/01/2018 VAT REG. TIN y" to "P- CMKT ENTERPISES OFFICIAL 122-ac" RECEIPT NO. 423 "P-134- DAVAO INT'L VAT REG. a" CONTAINER TIN TERMINAL INC 08/11/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 115833 "P-134- DAVAO INT'L VAT REG. b" CONTAINER TIN TERMINAL INC 11/30/2017 OFFICIAL RECEIPT NO. 126781

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 60 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x I I I IP 10,704,150.74 5. Input VAT without supporting documents 6 658,432.38 p 6,658,432.38 "P-79" I VARIOUS SUPPLIERS I - I- P17,602, 110.62 I I I TOTAL Considering the foregoing, out of the input VAT of Pll5,653,475.23 (previously disallowed by respondent), the Court finds that the amount of P5,490,260.77 was properly supported in accordance with the invoicing and substantiation requirements under the law and regulations, computed as follows: Total input VAT for the period covering April!, 2017 p 115,653,475.23 to March 31, 2018 accounted for by petitioner (Item Nos. 1 to 14, 16, 20 & 21) 92,561,103.84 Less: Disallowances 17,602,110.62 (11 0, 163,214.46) Per !CPA report P5,490,260. 77 Per the Court's further verification Total Disallowances Valid Input VAT per this Court's verification Hence, petitioner complied with the seventh requisite, i.e., the input taxes are due or paid, but only in the amount of P5,490,260.77. As for the deferred input VAT amounting to P5,144,460.88 and bond already refunded by BOC amounting to P1,075,123.00, or in the aggregate amount of P6,219,583.88, petitioner is already amenable to these disallowances. 15I Eighth requisite: A portion of the input taxes claimed by petitioner are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sales. The eighth requisite is that the input VAT claimed is attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated based on sales volume. 151 Petition for Review, Docket- Vol. I, at pp. 32 and 33.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Page Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 61 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x sroMQaafutlaeeVardscrAthAaeTsmsr3a-l1soyldue,uiVbss2njAc0etauiTc1nmst8gsroseeatuatdoulnteofrets'nita4nasr6algl0imfseo,atr0oro,l0uetp3hsnfe,e't8o3tiin5f3ptf8g,ie'6o3.r76int6oo51e,d7,.r1f8c'd925oe5,,vc65,el867ar606irn8,e,35g.d575A06i0n,,p.86ria2i4tln3s1c.d4A,o3n2me,s0xei1ezsnem7tdirneoptogd-t siaqdaluleloaencsrtta,iHefttierhoedwiutnhsee:tvtohesera,siptdsoeiticnaniclfpeiacumpt seVoatAiultenTisot,nboeatfrhs'feis's1dv,4oaC2lnio7dut,8hri8etn2pvs,u8oh1tlau4lVml.2Ae7pT1roo5ffop2proecrttathiintoeinnosoanatteemrbl'ysee Total Zero-Rated Sales VAT Returns p3 868.50 Divided by the Reported Total Sales per VAT Returns Total VATable Sales per VAT Returns p 2,660,376,823.43 Divided by the Quarterly VAT Reported Total Sales per Returns Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT p 36,785,576,550.64 Valid input p 1,427,882,814.27 sales VAT allocated to VA Table p 103,266,190.23 Total Exempt Sales per VAT Returns p 460,003,858.71 Divided by the Quarterly VAT Reported Total Sales per Returns p 36'785,576,550.64 Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT p 1,427,882,814.27 Valid input sales VAT allocated to Exempt p 17,855,683.29 Thus, with regard to petitioner's compliance with the eighth requisite, only the amount of represents its valid input VAT attributable f'1,306,760,940.76 zero-rated for the subject to the total declared period of the claim. Ninth requisite: Petitioner's input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters 152 To properly determ n apsetpietiroBneIrR's'srfeifnudnidnagbsle(1a'1m,4o2u2n,t3, 9w2e,5s5h3a.5ll0c)oannsdidtehristhCeovuarlti'ds total valid input VAT input VAT in its entirety, i.e., the findings (1'5,490,260. 77).

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 62 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x As regards the ninth requisite, petitioner reported output taxes from its taxable sales for the 1st to 4th quarter of FY 2018 in the aggregate amount ofP319,245,218.80, to wit: FY ending March 2018 Output VAT 1st Quarterl53 p 57,947,061.26 2nd Quarterl54 3rd Quarter!ss 63,669,011.29 4th Quarterl56 131,774,115.09 65,855,031.16 Total p 319,245,218.80 In the recent case of Chevron Holdings, Inc. (Formerly Caltex Asia Limited) vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, 157 the Supreme Court held that the input tax attributable to zero-rated sales, may, at the option of the VAT-registered taxpayer, be: (1) charged against output tax from regular 12% VAT-able sales, and any unutilized or "excess" input tax may be claimed for refund or the issuance of tax credit certificate; or (2) claimed for refund or tax credit in its entirety, and such option is vested with the taxpayer-claimant, to wit: "Thus, the input tax attributable to zero-rated sales may, at the option of the VAT-registered taxpayer, be: (1) charged against output tax from regular 12% VAT-able sales. and any unutilized or "excess" input tax may be claimed for refund of the issuance of tax credit certificate; or (2) claimed for refund or tax credit in its entirety. It must be stressed that the remedies of charging the input tax against the output tax and applying for a refund or tax credit are alternative and cumulative. Furthermore, the option is vested with the taxpayer-claimant. " [Emphases and underscoring supplied.] Applying the foregoing, records show that petitioner chose the first option, i.e., it computed its claim for refund in the aggregate amount ofP1,218,800,809.92 by offsetting its output tax from the regular VATable sales against its available input taxes for the l�t to 4th quarters of FY ending March 2018, as shown hereafter: '"Line 15ll, Exhibit "P-450-a". 154 Line 15B, Exhibit "P-450-e". 155 Line 15B, Exhibit "P-450-g". 156 Line 15B, Exhibit "P-450-k". 157 G.R. No. 215159. July 5, 2022.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 63 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x It is clear from the foregoing that petitioner opted to claim a refund of its unutilized or "excess" input tax, which is the amount after charging the input tax allocated to zero-rated sales against its output tax liabilities. Following the same computation, since petitioner's valid input VAT allocated to sales subject to the 12% VAT in the amount of P103,266, 190.23, as earlier determined, is not enough to cover its output VAT liability amounting to P319,245,218.80, the output VAT still due amounting to P215,979,028.57 shall then be charged against its valid input VAT attributable to total reported zero-rated sales of P1,306,760,940.76, leaving an excess input VAT attributable to total zero-rated sales of P1,090,781,912.18, as herein computed: Output VAT p 319,245,218.80 Less: Valid Input VAT allocated to sales 103,266,190.23 subject to 12% VAT p 215,979,028.57 Output VAT Still Due Valid input VAT allocated to zero-rated p 1,306,760,940.76 sales 215,979,028.57 Less: Output VAT Still Due p 1,090,781,912.18 Excess Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales However, as discussed earlier, petitioner was able to properly substantiate only the total amount of P31 ,384,368,317.33 out of its total declared zero-rated sales of P33,665, 195,868.50. Consequently, only the input VAT of P1,016,881,096.42 is attributable to the said valid zero-rated sales ofP31,384,368,317.33, as computed below:

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 64 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Excess Input VAT attributable to p 1,090,781,912.18 total reported zero-rated sales r 33,665,195,868.50 Divided by Total Reported Zero-rated r 31,384,368,317.33 sales p 1,016,881,096.42 Multiplied by Valid zero-rated sales Excess Input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales However, since respondent had already issued a TCC in the amount of P893,529,266.59 in favor of petitioner for its input VAT on domestic purchases, the said amount of P893,529,266.59 shall be offset against the valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales ofP1,016,881,096.42, as found by this Court, to determine the amount of input VAT still to be refunded to petitioner. Thus, for the 1st to 4th quarters of FY 2018, petitioner is still entitled to the refund of the amount of P123,351,829.83 (P1 ,016,881,096.42 less P893,529,266.59). Although petitioner carried over the claimed amount of P1,218,800,809.92 in its succeeding quarters/period, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC claimed"15B in its Quarterly VAT Return for the 4th quarter of FY ending March 2019, albeit, only in the amount of P1,199,574,775.84, since the discrepancy of which amounting to P19,226,034.08159 pertains to input VAT allocable to exempt sales which were already deducted and do not anymore form part of the petitioner's allowable input tax to be carried over, as disclosed in its VAT Returns for the 1st to 4th quarters of FY ending March 2018. Accordingly, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT off>1,332,824,668.48 as of the end of the 4th quarter of FY ending March 20 19, to be carried over to the next quarters. Such being the case, the excess valid input VAT of P123,351,829.83 was not utilized or applied against any output tax liability during the 1st quarter of FY 2020 y and in the succeeding quarters. 158 Exhibit "P-450-m", Line 23D. 159 FY ending Input Tax allocable Exhibit (Line March 2018 to Exempt Sales 23C) Ist Quarter p 3,387,096.62 2nd Quarter "P-450-a" 3rd Quarter 3.R79.258.45 "P-450-e" 4th Quarter 6,174,493.83 "P-450-g" "P-450-k" Total 5,785,185.18 p 19,226,034.08

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 65 of67 X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In fine, petitioner was able to satisfy the ninth requisite and has sufficiently proven its entitlement to the refund or issuance of TCC in the amount of P123,351,829.83, representing excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 1st to 41h quarters of FY ending March 2018. Respondent's imposition of a compromise penalty is not proper. Respondent imposed compromise penalty amounting to P12,500.00 for failure to supply the correct information and deducted the same from petitioner's input VAT claim. Petitioner argues that it cannot be compelled to pay the compromise penalty since a compromise agreement implies a mutual agreement between the parties regarding the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. This Court agrees with petitioner. Under Revenue Memorandum Order ("RMO") No. 7- 2015,160 compromise penalties are the only amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liability. They may not be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer if a taxpayer refuses to pay the proposed compromise penalties. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because, by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties with respect to the thing or subject matter which is so compromised, and the choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. 161 Absent a showing that petitioner consented to the compromise penalty herein, its imposition should be deleted. The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.162 Hence, there being no compromise agreement between the parties in the instant case, the compromise penalty imposed by respondent should be cancelled. Penal~ 160 The Revised Consolidated Schedule of Compromise Violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. 161 The Philippines International Fair, Inc. vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue, et. a/., G.R. L-1298 and L-12932, March 3 I, I962, 4 SCRA 781. 162 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., G.R. L-35266, January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 92- 93.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 66 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Final note An applicant for a tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also comply with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements, such as VAT invoicing requirements provided by tax laws and regulations. 163 Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds or credits are strictly construed against the taxpayer, just like tax exemptions. The burden is on the taxpayer to show that he has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. 164 However, once the requirements laid down by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, have been met, a claimant should be considered successful in discharging its burden of proving its right to refund. Thereafter, the burden of going forward with the evidence, as distinct from the general burden of proof, shifts to the opposing party, the respondent. It is then the turn of the latter to disprove the claim by presenting contrary evidence. 165 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the additional amount of One Hundred Twenty-Three Million Three Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty- Nine Pesos and Eighty-Three Centavos (P123,351,829.83), representing petitioner's excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the 1st to 41h quarters of FY ending March 2018. SO ORDERED. lttun'J41~ !CONCUR: LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice 163 Philippine Gold Processing and Refining Corp. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 222904 (Notice), July 15. 2020. 164 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corp., G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113 & 197156, 12 February 2013,703 SCRA 310-434 165 Winebrenner & It'l.igo Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner oflnternal Revenue, G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015, 752 SCRA 375-412.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 67 of67 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. �ate Justice 2nd Divi,.�LUJ.<...-n.�cting Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, and the 2nd Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., CTA Case No. 10212 Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson CUI-DAVID, fl. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: Respondent. JUN 1j/201233 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- :-,.- ,-.-,.- -. - X SEPARATE OPINION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: I concur with the ponencia of my esteemed colleague Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David in ruling that: (1) petitioner complied with the requisites for granting a claim for refund of unutilized input tax; (2) certain zero-rated sales must be disallowed for failure to show proof of actual shipment and/or incomplete supporting documents, failure to comply with the invoicing requirements (such as incorrect Tax Identification Number) and failure to formally offer some invoices; and, (3) some input taxes must be disallowed because of non-compliance with the invoicing requirements or blurred sales invoices/Official Receipts (ORs). However, with due respect, I espouse a different view as regards the computation of the refundable amount. In my previous Separate Opinion in the Court En Bane case of Maersk Global Services Centres (Philippines) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue', I outlined what I deem to be the correct steps in computing the amount of the refundable input value-added tax (VAT) based on the recent Supreme Court decision in Chevron Holdings, Inc. (formerly Caltex Asia Limited) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue> (Chevron)) CTA EB No. 2541 (CTA Case No. 9537), 27 April2023. G.R. No. 215159, 05 July 2022.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. CIR X------------------------------- X 1. Determine the amount of substantiated or valid input VAT; 2. Deduct from the substantiated or valid input VAT any input VAT directly attributable to a specific activity to arrive at the substantiated or valid input VAT not attributable to any activity; 3� Multiply the substantiated or valid input VAT not attributable to any activity by the ratio of Valid Zero-Rated Sales over Total Sales to determine the amount of substantiated or valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales; 4� Add to the amount computed in no. 3 any substantiated or valid input VAT directly attributable to zero-rated sales to arrive at the total substantiated or valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales; and, 5� Deduct from the total substantiated or valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales any input VAT already charged by the taxpayer-claimant against its output VAT liability and any input VAT carried-over instead. Applying the foregoing steps, I forward and submit the following illustration thereof, to wit: Step 1- It is observable from the Decision that the amount of Step 2- substantiated or valid input VAT is 1'1,427,882,814.27. Step 3- No input VAT is directly attributable to a specific activity. Step 4- The amount of substantiated or valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales is computed as follows: Step s- Total Valid Zero-Rated Sales 1'11,184,168, 117-11 Divided by the Reported Total Sales per Quarterly VAT Returns 16,78'i,';76,<;<;0.64 Multiplied by Total Valid Input VAT Valid input VAT allocated to total valid zero-rated sales 1,427,882,814.27 PI,218,227,478.24 No input VAT is directly attributable to a specific activity. Refundable amount is: Output VAT l'wl,24'i,218.8o Total VATable Sales per VAT Returns . 1'2,660,176,821.41 Divided by the Reported Total Sales per Quarterly VAT Returns 16,78'i,'i76,<;<;0.64 1, p

SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No.10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. ClR x-- ----------------------------- x Multiplied by Total Valid Input 1,427,882,814.27 VAT Valid input VAT allocated to 103,266,190.23 VATable sales VAT paid per VAT Returns - Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales that was 1'215,979>028.57 effectively applied against the P1,218,227 ,478.24 output VAT 215,979,028.57 Valid input VAT allocated to total valid zero-rated sales Pl,002,248,449�67 Less: Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales that was effectively applied against the output VAT 893�529,266.59 Valid and substantiated input VAT that found to be Plo8,71Q,18l.o8 unutilized and should be refundable Less: Already supported by a tax credit certificate (TCC) Amount still to be refunded In contrast, the ponencia computed a refundable amount of 1'123.351,829.83 in the following manner: Output VAT 1'319,245,218.8o Less: Valid Input VAT allocated to sales subject to 12% VAT 10J,266,190.23 Output VAT Still Due 1'215,979,028.57 Valid input VAT allocated to zero-rated sales Less: Output VAT Still Due l'1,J06,760,940�76 Excess Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales 215,979,028.57 Excess input tax attributable to total reported zero-rated sales Pl,090,781,912.18 Divided by total reported zero-rated sales Multiplied by valid zero-rated sales PJ.,OQO, 781,912.18 Excess input tax attribntable to valid zero-rated sales 3J,665,195,868.5o Less: Already supported by a tax credit certificate (TCC) J1,J84,J68,J17�33 Amount still to be refunded P1,m6,881,o96.42 893.529,266.59 P12J,J51,829.83 From the above, the difference resulted from the treatment of the "Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales that was effectively applied against the output VAT" or "Output VAT Still Due" amounting to P215,979,o28.57� With due respect, I submit that such amount should be deducted from the valid input VAT allocated to total valid zero-rated sales and not just from the valid input VAT allocated to total zero-rated sales. It must be noted that the option of the VAT-registered taxpayer on whether to charge against output tax from regular 12% VAT-able sales and , any unutilized or "excess" input tax may be claimed for refund or thy

SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No.10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. ClR Page 4 ofS X------------------------------ -X issuance of tax credit certificate, or whether to claim for refund or tax credit in its entirety, only applies to substantiated input tax attributable to valid zero-rated sales. This can be gleaned from the following computation of the Supreme Court in Chevron3, citing Section 4.110-44 of RR No. 16-2oos5, as amended by RR No. 4-20076 : Thus, the refundable input VAT is computed by getting the percentage of valid zero-rated sales over total reported sales (taxable, zero-rated, and exempt) multiplied by the properly substantiated input taxes not directly attributable to any of ~~e transactions., Supra at note 2; Citation omitted and emphasis supplied. 4 SEC. 4.110-4. Apportionment of Input Tax on Mixed Transactions.- . .. Illustration: ERA Corporation has the following sales during the month: Sale to private entities subject to 12% I' I 00,000.00 Sale to private entities subject to 0% 100,000.00 Sale of exempt goods 100,000.00 Sale to gov't. subjected to 5% final VAT Withholding 100,000.00 Total Sales for the month I' 400,000.00 The following input taxes were passed on by its VAT suppliers: Input tax on taxable goods 12% I' 5,000.00 Input tax on zero-rated sales 3,000.00 Input tax on sale of exempt goods 2,000.00 Input tax on sa1e to government 4,000.00 Input tax on depreciable capital good not attributable to any 20,000.00 specific activity (monthly amortization for 60 months) B. The input tax attributable to zero-rated sales for the month shall be computed as follows: Input tax directly attributable to zero-rated sale - !' 3,000.00 Ratable portion of the input tax not 5,000.00 8,000.00 directly attributable to any activity: Taxable sales (0%) x Input tax not directly attributable Amount of Total Sales to any activity PlOO,OOO.OO x P20,000.00 - !' 400,000.00 Total input tax attributable to zero-rated sales for the month !' ' Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005. Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, As Amended, Otherwise 6 Known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005, Revenue Regulations No. 04- 07.

SEPARATE OPINION CTA Case No. 10212 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. CIR Page 5 ofS X------------------------------ -X Accordingly, Chevron Holdings is entitled to the refund of unutilized input tax allocable to its zero-rated sales for January 1 to December 31, 2oo6, in the total amount of P1,140,381.22, 103 computed as follows: First Second Third Fourth Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 5.762,011.70 79,131,661.58 Valid Zero-Rated 313,164,583.06 4,669.743�23 66,091.331.71 501,152,183.16 Sales Divided by: Total 1,276,656.14 272,400,438.61 299,500,840.65 4.294,269.68 reported sales Multiplied by: Valid 23.489�59 1,650,503.65 1,86o.385.53 678,062.88 input tax not PI,J40,18I.22 directly attributable 28,294�48 410,534�26 to any activity Input tax attributable to zero- rated sales TOTAL All told, I vote to PARTIALLY GRANT petitioner Dole Philippines, Inc.'s Petition for Review and ORDER respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the recomputed amount of P1.08,719�18J.o8.