CTA Case No. 5382 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF ~ ~HILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QIJEZON CITY SILKAIR <SINGAPORE> PTE LTD., Petitioner~, - vet~sus C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 Drc ulgated: THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X - -- - - - - - - DECISION 1J a .lC... ]. c. - a.~.m 'f Le '1 Ma~ .... L. 3ept em bE'~ 1'334 tre a'Tiu.lr.t R WI ::-� ot ._) "r ~- J. ~fart ion \ ld . ~, r~P,.. , nts for� .><P�"' t Sect on 132 of tha Tax Code, ,s anendQd. PPti ll'l ~~ s <'!. 11 .- ��r~ ly f :i r I . I) ..: ... ... r: E ,., 'y r � t , ~� � t- � , ; f r1 n ~~ 1 f " 1T , 1l e f-�1 ; l II.) , �,:..)r (' 1c J ;,.; r t ::- r~ 1 lTl d P. ~ a 1 E' ._, l �t pc>~�a 1r. l '~�IT th2 Ae1�onaut i cs Boat�d per Reso 1 ltion No. The facts ~re s1molP.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 2 During the period covering March to September of 1994, Petitioner bought Petron jet A-1 and AvGas 100 LL types of aviation fuel from Petron Corporation,s facili~y at Mactan International Airport, Lahug, Cebu and paid the corresponding specific tax thereon in the aggregate sum of P1,726,731.08. Pursuant to Respondent's BIR Ruling No. 339-92, dated ., ;:ao-:: nBu; 'J '"''.1 !. ...; _; L- Petitioner~' s pr.wchase and consumption products have been declared not subject to excise tax under Section 132 of the Tax Code, as amended, on account of findings therein that the Cebu link of the route Singapore/Cebu/Singapore ~as an international flight an international carrier, and that the :aws of Singapore exempt Philippine carriers similal�~ taxe�;; on petrole~m products used by them, Petitioner, on January 31, 1995 filed a written claim for refund with the Respondent on said amount of specific taxes (see Exh1bLt II C"). On May 22, 1996, 1nstant action before t~is Court allegedly due to Respondent's delay in granting said claim for refund and in order to protect and preservp its rignt to see~ judicial remedy within the prescriptive period set unde1�~ Section 230 cf t~e Tax Code.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 3 At bar, Petitioner reasserts its stance a quo. the other hand, Respondent answers, inter alia, the �allowing special and affirmative defenses, to wit: XXX XXX XXX 7. A claim for tax refund partakes of the nature of a tax exemption, hence, must be construed strictly against petitioner, 8. Petitioner must prove that the alleged refundable excise taxes were actually paid, remitted to, and received by respondent; XXX XXX XXX 10. In addition, petitioner must establish that the alleged refundable excise taxes were neither automatically applied as tax credit against its tax liability for the succeeding quarter/s of the succeeding year nor included as creditable taxes declared and applied for the succeeding taxable year/s; 11. Moreover, petitioner has the burden of showing that it has complied with the provisions of Section 230 of the Tax Code, as amended; 12. Finally, the presumption is that the excise taxes in question were assessed and/or collected in accordance with law; hence, it is for petitioner to prove that the taxes sought to be refunded were erroneously and/or illegally collected by respondent. Records show that the hearing of herein case involv2d mainly the presentation and formal offer of Petitioner's exhibits with the Respondent opting to simply submit his case for decision based on the pleadings. Petitioner filed its memorandum on February

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 - L~ - 25, 1999 while Respondent submitted his on November 9, 1.998. In his memorandum, Respondent contends the following arcuments, to wit: XXX XXX XXX "Wot~thy to note het~e fur�thet~ i s the but~den of the petitioner to prove that it satisfied its claim by cleal' and convincing evidence. But nowhere in the evidence submitted by the petitioner herein proved that its country of origin which is Singapore also exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine carriers. In the case at bar, petitioner asserts the application of t~e foreign law. We\1 settled is the rule, that when in a litigation the application of a foreign law is sought, it is necessat�y to pt~ove befot~e the cour~t, in a satisfactory manner, the existence of such law as a question of fact, and when proof of such fact is lacking, it is impl"'Opet' to apply an unknown law to a suit pending before the court. Sy ,Joe Lienq, etc. vs. Sy Quia, etc {16 Phil 137). Thus, a foreign law must be proper~ly pleaded and proved as a fact. <Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43). While it is true that petitioner is a holder of a regular operating permit with the routing Singapore/Cebu/Singapore, it also caters to monitor and liaise in the operation of schedules and services and/or charter flights to and from Cebu and in M&tro Manila and other provinces by Silkair (Singapore) Private Ltd. which is domestic in character. Petitioner failed to prove that all the various purchases of jet fuel were all consumed outside the Philippines. Likewise, it must be noted that aviation delivery receipts/invoices offered in evidence contain numerous erasures which tend it to become unreliable, moreso sel~ serving though certified as true copies issued by the petitioner's accountant, Lorna L. Sandi ko.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 5 XXX XXH Petitioner, although a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, has a distinct and separate personality from the latter. A subsidiary corporation is one which is so related to another corporation that it has the power either directly~ or indirectly through another corporation or series of corporations, to elect a majority of the directors of operation. <Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1970 Edition, volume 3, page 33). But ownership or control by a single stockholder of one or more corporat1ons is not sufficient ground to disregard separate corporate personality. <Burnet, Commissioner v. Clarke, 287 US 410, 53 S. Ct. xxx 207, 77 L. Ed.) Authot~itjes t~ule that i t :i.s L:?<iAJful to obtain a corporate charter, even with a single substantial stockholder, to engage in a specific activity, and such activity may co- exist with other private act~vities of the stockholder. If the corporation is a substantial one, conducted law~ully and without ft~aud on anothet~, i t s sepat~ate identity is to bE~ r~espected. <Commer~cial laws of the Philippines, 1970 Edition Volume 3, page 32). Thus, Singapore Airlines is the proper taxpayer which should have filed this instant petition being the real party in 1nterest. After a painstaking scrutiny of the f a c t s .1 the disquisition of the A.nd the arc: la>vs j cwi spt~udence in point, We at~e con fr~ont ed with the following issues, nam ely: 1. Whether or not the Petition at bat~ has complied with the provisions of Sect :i. on of the Tax Code, as amended; and :i.f in i::'30 affi t~mat i ve; the 2. Whether or not Petitioner or its parent company, Singapore Airlines, h2s legal standing to pursue the instant claim t~e refund before this Court; and :i.f in favor P e t i t i one>�~; for of

DECISIIJN C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 -5 - 3. Whet h 2 I'' or' not Pet i t ion e �r is 1 e ['1.::::. ll v entitled to its claim for refund under Section 123 of th2 Tax Code, as amended, in vie~->~ of Respondent's assertion that Petitioner's evidence f2 "ed to s~ow that the laws of Singapore similarly grants exemption to excise taxes on petroleum products purchased bv Philippine air .�~rriers; and lastly, 4. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove the factual requirements of Petitioner's claim for refund. As r-espondent posed the question of whether or not the patitioner has complied with the prescriptive period provided by Section 230 of the Tax Code, we must deal with this fat'emost issue as this would ~eterminative of whether or not the other issues s t i l l deserve our consideration. The records show that a written claim for refund was filed by the Petitioner on January 31? 19':35; that the petition at baJ�' was filed on May 22, 1':395; that her�ein rla'm for refund of excise taxes covers purchase of ~�1viat ion fuel and that t~e l' 199'+ up to September' 30, 1994; f0el deliveries were paid by the Petitioner through bank checks which were �,'f\CE� i V ed by Petron Corporation, per' cash r'ece i pt s CExh.bits J to M>, on separate dates starting from May ;=~3, 1994 up to October' ,-='7, 199L~. It is further observed that Petitioner presented Petron CorporatiGn's various Authority to Accept Payment foJ�' Excise Taxes ("ATAPET" fo1�' bt�evity; Exhibits F to F- ~G} "'Jith cor't~espanding mac'f~r~e vali.dation ther. eon on

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO, 5382 7- t' "',~ i s e taxes d ..t e covPring t~e period February 9, to September~ 14�, 1994 in order to prove that such excise on the aviation fuel it indeed remitted and paid to respondent's Bureau. Upon this factual bac~drop, Section 230 of the Ta>< Co~e~ as amended, provides the following r~equir~ements, to wit: SEC. 230. Recovery of tax erroneously of illegally c ollected. No suit ol�~ pr-�ocePding shall be maintained in a ny court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim fo�r' t'efund 01"' cr�erjit has been duly filed with the Commissioner~ but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether~ or~ noi~ such tax, penalty, ot' sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or~ pr'oceeding ".'oalL b e begun after' the expir'a t i on of t wo years from the date of pa y ment of the tax or penalty re gardless of any supervenin g cause that ma y a'r"'lse aftel�' payment: Pl"'ovidt:�d~ however, That the Commissioner may, even without written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid. <Underscoring supplied) Applying the ab ov esaid Section 230 to the facts of the case at bar, We readily see that Petitioner has met the need for filing a written claim for refund with the Respondent prior to recourse to judicial r~emedy. l.J i t h

DFCISJON C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 n -- .lsr- r::c,�i�, PetitlO'' r'-, fJ!ed with w1thin the stated two--yeat~ ' �- 1 . 5l.l �.-. '- ' Section 127 of the Tax Code to be able to kn ow the date of paym~!nt of tht>se excisE:' t,=,ixes., thus: "x x x the excise tax on locally manufactl..n-�ed pett-�olel.nl p�,,od:_. c::ts ard ::ndLgE�10US petro'r>um levied drlO"-'' Sect"o'ls 145 2'1r 2S1(c:} (4), t'espectively, of this Title sh.::\11 be paic:! wit h in 15 days f�r-o'": date of r'emove:d the;�e of f1���om thP place of :n-oduct;,_on. x x x" (Underscoring s~pplied) The aviatlO'l fuel purchas ed by the Petitioner is a locally manufactured petroleum product subject to SPrtLn~ L45 of the Tax Code, hence, the excise tax levied on it should be paid by Petron Corporatior within of r::.- c'ays ft'Oill "� ... J date of removal from the place of pr'oduction. In the . ase of Rr as - Asan Ti mbe r Co mpan y, Inc. vs . Comm iss i onet' of Int erna l Re v en u e, CTR Cas e No . 3524 , d ated Dece mbe r 17, 1993, this Cour't had the occasior th' orovisions of the aforequoted Section 127 i~ relatio~ -,,~-u~ Section 230 of the Tax Code where the prescr1ptive period of two yeat'S fr"om the date of payment of the taxes. Because of the peculiar circumstanres s urrounding the payment of excise taxes as p:�'OV ided fot' ir Section t;=:7 of the ax Cc. cl e, the det e.-�m 1 n,:;1t, on of what pa.ymen-t; fall within the two yeat~ prescl�'ipt ive pet'iod and those

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 53a2 - 'J ��- outside were oroperly exolained in the !=ka~:;- Asan case in this manner: "The Tax Code pr~ovicle�:; for~ the judicial remedy of filing a claim for refund within a period of (2) years from the date of payment of the tax oursuant to the provision of Section 230 (formerly Section 292). Section 135 [now Section 127J of th~ Tax Coc:le insofa1�~ as oet~tinent m~ovides "that s>lecif:i.c taxes on locally manufactm~ed petroleum products levied under Sections 153, 155 and 155 of this t i t l e , except lubr~icatino oil and crease, shall be paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of removal thereof from the place of production. XXX XXX XXX Following the provision of Section 135 of the Tax Code, the specific taxes paid on the rest of the petroleum products purchased by petitioner falls due on the 15th day following the c'ate o'"' it~; , E wGV<':l.l. ""'r�e.-~2f0l�~e, all shipments of petroleum products, except oils and lubricants, paid by petitioner 15 days prior to October a, 19aO or on September 23, l9aO ar~e deemed tlaid on Octobe~~ a, 19aO (the petition for review havinc been filed o~ October 8, 19a2J which is well within the two- year prescriptive period as prescribed under Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Th e s o e c i f LC � t a x (H. co ' e c- t e d f r~ o m petitioner on its purchases of petrol~um products other than oils on September 23, 19aO shall be paid within 15 ~ays from the date of its removal or on October a, 19ao. It follows that on October a, 19aO, purchases of locally manufactured petrol~um products, except oils, on September 23, 19aO are deemed paid. Thus, purchases of fuels prior to September 23. 19aO have p~~e set~ i bed. " Applying the above maxim to the case at bar, the excise taxes paid on the petr~oleum pr'oducts pur~chased by

DECISION C~T.A. CASE NO. 5382 10 -�� petitioner falls due on the 15th day following the date shipments of petroleum prod._tcts, paid by petitioner~ fifteen <15) days prior to !Yiay E:2, 1'394 ot~ on May 7, 1994 (the petition for re~iew havin1:;1 been filed on May 2E~, 1996) are well within the two-year prescriptive period provided by Section 230 of the Ta:-< Code. Again following this Court's interpretation in the afo,.~equoted At~as--Asan case, the specific taxes collected frum pet;tioner on its purchases of petroleum products on be paid within 5 days from the date of its r�emoval 01�' on IT1ay 2C::, 19':3Lt.� It follows t~en that on May 22, 1994, purchases of locally man~factured petroleum ~:n��oductr, on May 7, 1994, at~e deemed paid. The ptwchar.es Anent the second issu~, th~re is no rhyme nor reason as to why ~espondent persists on denying the instant 2laim for refund through the alleged lack of leqal stan~inq of tha Petitioner to pursue its case at BIR Ruling No. issued b).' the Respondent on December~ 1' l 9'3Z: has uneqt.ll. VOr.a'l 1cy decla1�~ed and thus adm:i.ttecl, the fact that Petitioner is an i nt et'nat ion a l a i r rarrier whose local pur~hase and consumo~ion of petroleum products for its Sincapore/Cebu/Sinqapore route j s not subject to excise tax pursuant to Section 132 of the Tax Code, as amended <Exhibit B). Thus:

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 - 11. ... Decem be~~�-� 1, 1992 Bengzon, 7arraga, Narciso, Cudala Pecson, Bengson & Jimenez 6th Floor~, SOL Building Am or- so 1 o St., Legaspi Village Makati, Metro Man1la Attn. Atty. Em~ico G. Valdez Gentlemen: This refers to your letter dated July 9, 1992 requesting in behalf of your client, SILKAIR (Sinl~apo~'e) PTE LTD., a ''� J. ing exemnting the latter from excise taxes on petroleum products purchased in the r:-�r' i 1 i pp in e s. It is represented that SilkAir is a corporation duly oroanized a~d exicting under the laws of Singapore and engaged in international airline business; that on May 14. 1992~ the Civ~l Aeronautics Board approved the petition of Sil~Atr fer issuance of a Temporary Operating Pe~mit <TOP) as a foreign air carrier w;th routinq Sinqapore/Cebu/Singapore; a~d that the laws of Singapore exemot Phil:poine carriers from similar taxes on petroleum products sold to the latter. Tn suoport ~~ ~he above representation, you pr~esented th(;) following documents, viz: (l) Copy of Articles of Pssociation and Certification of the Company's Secretary; (2) Certificatirn of the Civil AeronaG+ics Board rega rding the approval of the petition of SilkAir for Temporary Operating Permit; (3) Certification from Customs and Excise Depar~tment, Sin~1ap01�~e, that commel-cial .:dT operating companies enjoy duty exemption from payment of customs duties on petroleum up-ifted by the aircraft departing to destinations outside Singapor~e; and (5) Lette1�~ dated September 1, 1992 from Philippine qirlines <PI=~L.) confir'm"ng that it is exempt fr~om tax and duty on its fuel ourchases in Singapore. Based on the foregoing and since the Cebu link of the route Singapore/Cebu/Singapore is an international flight by an international Cr.:Jrt-�J.~r~, the oett'01P ':J"r'Dci� �L::, our~c:hased by

o::::c -r s .:. or-J C, T i-. -1 .-� .LC SilkAir and consumed in surh flights shall not be sub j ec: t to e xci c,e tax DUr'st..::n�t to Section 132 of t~e Tax Code, as amended. Very truly yours, <Sgd. Victor A. Deofprto, T �� .J ' " Deputy Commissioner Vet'i l y , Resp o ndent is estopped from questioning thE-' standing of the Petitioner as pr'ev i ous l y it as a taxable oe1��son enjovinq Pxempt i.on status under said Section l,..J:i.th thit'd issue, We also see matter' as a f"a.ii; accompl.i .. Respondent's BIR Ruling No. 339-~-.32, likewise, unmistakably acknowledged the t' e iJt' e sent at ion of the Petit i onet' ther�ein t h���o ugh supporting documents that the laws of Sin g;::mot'e exc-::mpt Philippine carriers ft'Om simi 1at' taxes on petr�o 1 e um f.Ji",OO.ttC:- t S sold to them. Again, Respondent ].s in cle<':l.Y' estoppeL Having br'ushed as ide Respondent's f��ivolous anc contumacious attitude in tryinq to doggedly defeat. legally herein claim for refund despite the incontestable existence and unrevoked status of his own Ruling as above mentioned, We now deem it wise to delve into the only nn r <c'!:2i... nJ. o:.1stacle to Petitioner'' s clai m, whi c h should h-c\'v'<? bet!f' :;11 ven preferential attention by the Respondent in the f i l�'st place, that :i. s' wh e t h e t' or' n ot it satisfied the factual elements of its claim covering the

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 i1P'f... i. or:i .JtinP 1'394 UD to Seot em bet~ p~rtially rule in the affirmative. To definitely the of its CC:l.S e, Petitioner submitted in evidence the following per~t inent documentary exhibits, which We partly reiterate, to wit~ var~ious ATAPETs' BIR For~m Nos. 231'3A &' 2319A-E, issued to taxpayer Petron Corporation for excise taxes due for ,June 5, 1994 to September' 14, 1.994 <Exhibits r-34 to F-56); various Aviation Delivery Receipt/Invoices ,:,1nc:! Cash Receipts issued by Petron Corporation to Singapore Airlines for the period March to September 1994 <Exhibits G to lvf, inclusive); and Lettel'~ dated June 16, 1992 of the General Manaqer� in the Phil:Lppines of Air~lines addr~essed to Pett��on a cr~ed it 1 in e be extended to Petitioner <Exhibit N). An examination of the pt'eced i ng exhibits r�eadily �::;haws Petitioner"s receipt and oavment i:"-'1'-.' ; ':�; i 0 fi thr~ou.gh the ...,,. �c o mn; o d at i G .-. o f S �; n q a o o t' e A i .,, 1 i n e s an d t h e c o t~ r' p s , ,u n d i. n g why Sin qar:JOt'e instead n .f . i. l: i. nne. !,;hp tr::>�, f i. ,, ��""'\ .3.vj. at ., on ac . �ni..lnt the accounts of both Singaoore Airlines and

DECISION C.T.A. CASE ~0. 5382 L 1;. - herein Petitioner, succinctly exolains the aDI:lar~Pnt C:: :i. '.r r� e !:>an c y, t o wit : XXX XXX XXX 0. And could you please tell us how Silka1r Singapore Private Lim1ted becamE PPtron Corooration's ~lient? A. Silkair is basically in Mactan, before 1~ is ooerated by Singapore Airlines. And Singapore Airlines, sometime in mid 1992, [ceased] operation in Mactan. And its subsidiar~y, which is Silkair, took over tho ooeration ir Mactan for direct flight to Mactan to Singapore international flights. And be:\sed on this, Singapot~e Ait~lines, being our client for quite sometime, requested us to accommodate Silkair in terms of credit. to extend the same credit and same conditions in sale of fuel at Mactan. XXX XXX }{ X X Q. ivtt~. Witness, wher'e vvas (sic) the billinq'; and invoices made? P. The invoices are preoared at Mactan International Airport, but these are forwarded to our head office in Makati. And I am personally in- charge of distribution and even C'O~.J.eci.ion of" che~-:;e i.nvrri.CI-"�-,, o. of the aviation deliv(:~,.�\y .~... t..-;C��::iot�:. w~-,~,�h wf.�.1 {"\8 rnai.�!e l~i Mactan after its deliv~ry to vnur head office in Manila, Petran Ccn~por'ation, what did you do with these aviation delivery recejcts? A. I personally sent it to the head office in Manila which is the Singapot~e Airlines where the collection is ::JP ;_ nq mar! e. Q. Whv did you senrl it to Singapore Airlines in Manila office?

DECISION C. T.A. CASE NO. 5382 15 �- A. Singapore Airlines is the one preparin~ the checks fo r Cebu operations [ofJ Silkai~~. So, all the collections fm~ both S:i.ngapot'<:'! Ai1��:t ines and Si lka:i.r' are done here in the Manila off1re since it is improbable for me to take people every now and then at Cebu, t"lactan. Gl .. Are all these documents for the sale of jet fuel to Silkair? A. Yes. Q. I will refer you to Exhibits G, H, I, K, L, M, G-3, H-3, J-7, J-11, K-1, K- 9 and K-14. In these particular documents, the aviation delivery receipts and the cash receipts are shown to be sold to Singapore Airlines. The names Singapore Airlines are desianated in those particular documents only. Will you please reconcile your statement that these aviation delivery receipts are proof of sa'e~ Jf jet fuel to Silkai~'? A. Yes, i : you will notice like in E}: '�1 ~. bit C3- 3, althouqh 1t v-~as stated t:�~at �' '.e fuel was sold to Singapore Airlines. perhaps this could be a typographical error on the part of our previous accountant in Mactan, but you see the booking copy in which the customer n umber is 13321-40. This reflects for Silkair because Singapore Airli~es formally (sic) the '- ollecti on, our' customer�' q .mbe�r" for� Singapore Airlines is 13320-40 and in fact we have a run on our compu~er that Singapore Airlines and Silkair has a separate credit line. Q. So, you ar~e sayinq that the cust omf:::r�� numbet' distinguishes the t'ece i pt s [given] to Singapore Airlines~ A. Yes. XXX XXX XXX

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 - 15 -� Q. How would you accoJnt the appearance of the name of Singapore Airlines Private Limited in this receipt? A. Because our people there could have taken Singapore Airlines and Silkair as one and the same, because t~ey are subsidiar~ie'> 1 ~ke om~ company PNOC and Petron, many people are thinking that they are just one and the same, but its a separate entity. And Sinqapore Airlines is different from Silkair and as such, we have created a custoner account number for Silkair whirh is 13321-40. X X >< XXX X X >< PetitiGner has a�so ~ttfficiently dewonstrated by way of the aforestated BIR Ruling that it :1as been licensed by Civil Aer~onaut i cs B o -=:\'r~d to only ti p Sinqaoore/Cebu/Singapore l'''OUte. In the absence of any evidence showing that it has assumed flig h ts uthet~ than said the ~,i� a fs that ";> t i t i on e t~ utilized a1�..1. of its aviation fuel exclusivelv f Ol�' such t~oute. s Re<=;pondent~ allegation in his t�.� ,:md fr~om Cebu and Metr�o Manila and othet' pr-ovinces i~, not supported by eviden~e on record. it appeal-'S �to be baseless and a bc:n-r�en asser-tion. However, as earlier discussed and in line with this Co u t't' s r' u 1 in g in the Aras-Asan case, purchases made by petit1oner of Jet A-1 and Avgas 100 LL prior to May 7. 1994 have already pt'e scr~ i bed, thus petitioner' is only

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 - 17 --� entitled to a reduced amount of P1, 193,571.06, detailed a~.; foJ.Jows: l?.xh. Aviation Delivery Date Excise Ta:-< De 1 i ver~ed Rt.~ceipt/Invoice K-L~ 9Lt�908 05-.. 10-94 p lA, 494. 20 94934 f�(-~) 9'+895 05-13-9L~ 22, 312. 50 9495:1. t�<�. ��G 05-08-94 18, 028. 50 94':36C.~ v, - �-l~ 05-:!.5-9L~ l3, 654. 05 94971 l-<.-8 94'387 05-17-94 19, 656. .q.�.=...�. 94-986 ~\-9 9�+997 05--1.8-9-4� ~~ 1. ~ 898. 38 95106 K��� 10 95133 05-20-94 6, 892. 48 95138 t\-11 951;:::4 05 20-�94 4.1 574. ~~ 951.51 94934 ...~t"J 95185 K-12 95199 05-�22-94 i=:2, 634. 86 1-<.-13 95i:=.::t:::i::: 05-;=:4-94 17' 1. C~b .. 48 1-<.--14 ;=:o, 329. 96 95230 05-�7.~9-'34 952lt1 K--15 95;:::48 0 5 ..- 2 9 - 9 4 15, 57C~. 3-4� 952E.7 05--27�-94 K-1.6 95275 L:::o, 494. 18 95282 K. -17 01005 05�-3l-9Lt. .;-::,~.-t. ' 334. 3C.~ 01008 05-�13-� 94 !-<' -� ...:.:.; 01021 C.Cq 31f~n 50 \ 01008 0104-0 J --L7.~ 01051 06-05-9'+ 14, 9-4-6. 40 01065 06.. 07-94 J-3 01086 ;::~ :t' 779. 38 01097 06-10-9L~ J-�+ 0111C' 18, C.:61. 7LI. 01139 J-5 01148 06--12--94 18, 818. G5 ,J-6 01156 01.173 06-14-94 17' 9c~ 1. 40 J-7 01181 06-15-94 01190 06-17--94 c.:o, 1.84. 78 J-8 01211 () 1 C~22 ;:::o, 08L~. a;:::: 01233 J-�9 06-19-9'+ 18, B5L 98 J-10 06-;::: 1-94- 18, ::'561. E,2 ,T-11 06--E~E.-94 22, ft31 n 50 J-12 OE.--26-9�:~ 18, 683. 00 J-13 05-28-94 17' ;:~40. 72 J-1/.t- 06-�-;:;::E,-9!.1 l 8, bB3. 00 I-1 07-0l-94 23, 714. 3i.~ I-~:;: 07-03-91.~ 17' 828. ~58 20, EA6. 50 I�-3 07--05-9'+ I- 4 07-�08-'34 510. 84 �:::i-\ T-��5 07-�-1 0�� 94- 07-1. Z:~-'3�} L-"~'' I-E. 07-15-94 3, 065. 4'+ I ..... 7 18., 368. 84� 18, 704 .. 4�=,_� I-8 07-17-94� 13, 582. 56 I --9 07-- ~. 'J-�.. 94 16, E.45. 7~~ ()7�.... 2;~-{":34� I-10 8 ,' 91.0. 72 I�- 1t 07--E-~4-94- 15 ;:~ 10. 58 I-tc: 07-;::~G-94 21.' 531. 8C I-�13 07--.. 29-94 56 �::,7 �=a?-:;' 07--31-9f.l. I-14 '-'-'' 1-VW� H-1 oa--o~:::--9'+ lB .. 204. 6C:~ 17' 216. 9�=,_�

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 5382 H-�2 01251 - 1.8 - � E:: l ., 34�1 .. 46 H-3 0126LJ- 1.5, '+14. 85 (l 1. i.~:77 08-05�-94 16, 1.f..4. 96 H-4 01417 08-07--94 ;;:~o, 591.75 01465 :1.8. t;=.:t �.:-.;;::. H-5 (l8-07-9L~ H-6 01~500 1 ~;, ~384~ 3;::: H-7 08�-09�-94 18,980. 50 01510 OB-12-94 H-a 01523 08-14- r.JL~ ~~ Lt , .::.;s ;~) ~: t f, 015'+0 08-1f.:..-9Lt 1���!-9 <)155.3 08� :L0�ci4 17 .. 785. 7LI� 01571 18,747.26 H-1.0 01587 08-�i.~: 1-9L~ ~::0, 291. 88 01501 14, 9;?0. ;~:2 H-1.1 015'39 08-23�-94 OB-;::::6-94 17, E'78. ao H-12 0161i.~: 08-28-94 2, 903. E,O H- 13 01539 C)8��- 3(J-9.br 19, 6LJ-2. 1 Lj- (J1bb3 H-1.4 01672 09-02-94 20,71.5.52 09-04-9'1� 6,399.82 G-1 0168i.7~ 09--(lij.�-94 09-05-94 14,084.84 G-c:~ 01801 09-11--94 1'3,104.26 01816 09--16-94 15,484.28 G-3 01828 09-18--94 14, 1~il. 4B o;a44 21 , 810 . 3C:: G-LJ. 09-i~0-94 16,817.0B C:<), 31(>. S2 G-5 09--23-94 16,631.44 G-6 09-;:::5-94 P1, 193, 57L 06 G-7 09�-27�-94 G-8 09 ��30-94 G-9 G-10 G��� 11 G- L:~� T 0 T nL Prescinding fro m the above, We consider as bereft of logic and applicabil1ty the argument of the Respondent in his Answer that Petitioner must be able to establ1sh that the alleged refundable excis e taxes were neither automatically applied as tax credit against tax liability for succeeding quarters nor included as creditable taxes declared and applied for the succeeding years. It must be noted that the rule on carry over of tax Ct'edits for' the succeeding y ea1��� applies only to creditable income and value-added taxes and it has nothing to do with the payment of excise taxes. The fol�'m on the Authority to Accept Payment for Excise Taxes <BIR

tN r.T.A CAS~ NO. ~3q_ - ... 9 - F simply a. Y WHEREFORE � n v::. o .... r ~lr 0'1 fn 1 ' - ,; PARTIALLY GRANTED I~P.sp rdr:n lv ORDERED ~ REFUND r amo Jrt of Pl, 1 '33, 57 .... -,�, 1 Ed� at"' y. No WE CONCUR: CERTIFICATID het�eby cet'tl.t='/ -:;hat tne above deC'lS"0'1 wast~ d after d~e consL:tation between the membPrc tp of Tax ~ppeal in accordance with Ce-.o. on 13~