CTA Case No. 2778 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ATLA S CONSOLIDATED MINING C.T.A. CASE NO. 2778 AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, F' r�~t j . -l.: .i.on F~ I'". , THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE !� F\r?<;; pondE':' n t.. DE C I S I 0 N Suit bro ught by petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining a nd Deve l opment Corporation for re c o ve r y of .i. 1 l ('?(.) i::\ l l y n r- after no action was seas onably t a k e n by respondent Commiss ioner of J n t.P r�n c:\ l Reve nu e on p Pt ition e r s a dmini s trati ve c l ai m for refund. Th e fac t s of th e case a r e not di s puted~ th e par-t :i..r? ~; h a v .i. n (_:] <:5 1...\ hm .i. t. -l:.r,~cl t h .i ~; c: ;,:~. ~;(? fn r- d F?c: i ~:; .ion on the ba s is o f the pleadings and the record s after 240 )

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 ,, .a::. p c-? t. :i. 1.:. :i.one r � h a. �":; p I'" f.�~ �:; f:~ rJ t:.C�? d .i l: <;; on q1..!f�~c:; -1.-. ion o�f l aw a s to wh ~ ther or not lime s tone dug out: i:I nd proc ess ed into lim e u s ed in the production u �f c n pp E� r� cone f.0n t r�o-~ tE~ ::; is s u hj !=.'c: t. t .n �Z\<;L....Y.P�...J..9. t:.\~.f.T.l. t r.,, :-: a s a minera l or mineral product. 1" F !? t i t:. :i.on E~ r� .i �::; a mining c: u r� pur�i':\ t. ion c:lu 1 y E:~ :-: i c,;, i.: :i. n q I.J n cl E? r�� <0. rJcl h y v i.. r�� t .UF} of thE~ t..f�Jc� F' 1�1i 1 i p p :l.n t"' ~; , h avi ng i t s offices at A. f.3o r-:i.i�HJO Dldq . , Aya l a Av e nue, Makati, Ri za l . I t i <;; in th ~ mining uf co pp e r ore from .i.. t�:; mirJE' '::> p r �o p!'~ r�� t y .=.l.n cl in c: i::l J. 1 E~ cl Dun !:3 o ,.. ol. <':In u, To J. E'c:lo, of r�� F' f.) I.J "1:.!�:�~ Cf J. y 1::.h E�? biqq E~ ~:; t. copp E�?r� � rn i nP in t .s. n ., pp. 6~ 18-19, hearing 10 / 1 / 82.) t hf:? 0 pE?fl pit mr:? t.hnd of "lh .i. ~=� re movi ng all s urface and top material s o�f l :.i..rn E.' <:; t o n! � ~;o.:i. l <":Inc! into the copp!�:�?J'". or�p d E' po �:; .i..t.<:; fot.lnd hE�~ lCJ\�~. (t. . -:::;. n . ,pp. J..<"l�- ~?.1.~ 10 /1/82; pp. 16-� 1 7, 2/17/83.) ::::" of thE�~ 1 a. nd or of thr~ Biga Lime Quarry located .:i.n To 1 ()do C .i. l.: y c c>rJ t .<:>..i r1 .i.n q 1 .i mr?-:::; t u r1 G"�~ � 241

DECISION CTA CASE NO . 2778 ::::. , 1�1�. -.1.. to 1-� 1�-� .1. 7 , I< , t . <::; .. n .. , pp .. l8, '.".:":.'.".:':\. 10 / l ./ f~?,) And ,,,_s pet.i -l::.ionPt... is not. l'" fD q I.J .i. f "F~ c:l ~ cl U I'" j_ f1 CJ cove r-ed .i.n this J. C'f7 5), t .n gove~nment pe~mit t o d.i..q 01..\'1.:. thr:-? limr:-?sto nf:~ .. 67, P . D.. 463; Sec. Con ?:;o 1 .i. (I <I tE~d f''J .i.nE~S ndm:i.n .i.. <:;; -l:.t'" i:\ t i \/(71 [Jt--der�; t.. ~:; . n .. , pp . :?.t --.. :.? 4, .1..0/.l/H ? .. ) 4.. Bene a th the su~face of the B.i.ga L.i.me Quarr y a~e deposits of c:oppe~ o~e, a nd to mine th ese coppe~ depo s i t s , pet.i.tione~ had to ~Pmove a nd eli q 01...\ -1:: l .i.mE-:'<:';tcHH:? ~ -:;;o.i.l E:l.nd t''DC k �:;:; .. mo s t of th e limestone was l o:::~ f t in t�. !� 1 r-:-~ m.i.. rF-'? �:::;j_ tt0 D.<::; wa s te~ a lthough a s ma l l pur- t: i. on the-? r--r?D 'f t 1;--! <':'. ~;; Ll .i. l j_ :;,: f�? (:1 by pc-?t i t� i.onE?I'' as a in 1 t:.hf-:> c:unvo::::~r�<;;.i..u n o f C: 0 p pE? y-- co n c: E~n t. f"iJ. t.Ps , On the cv:i. d <:-~ n c.:e ~ �1. �. 1- lo:::~ p I' " OC e ~;S�? d by p t:' t.i. t:i.oncr � :i..nto J .i. m E-~ ; a nd t.he in thE� cunver�-,::;:i.on of c:oppe t�� C01'1Lf31 n -l::. t"'~.:\ tE�? .. 1 :i. tnE~ rn i:-:r2d w.it:h to cau�::;c;~ thF! c opper� f 1 Od -1::. a.nd unwanted waste like lime and u t h ('0 r.. m "''� t f? r-- :i. <:'- 1 s to ~::, ink. Th is waste at the bottom 242

DEC IS I 01\1 ��-� CTA CASE NO. 2778 .(.j. of the conveyor was thrown away as tailings while c:uppc::>r�� powder was accumulated di'��.ir:-:~ c:l:, kriD\'-ln as copper concentrate. rn.i..nc::> l' i':\ 1 in t:o c:o ppc':' t��� <J.nd Eviclr::>nt.ly, t .h E' lime dues n ut bec:ume the (E:d 1s. I ; .J; l �. . <:;. n., p. 16, ~)/LI./Bl; pp. 16- 17, 20-27, 10 / 1 /82.) from the records, the li.mestone processed into lime a nd used as flotation agent was from mines c:onc:ession of tailings, topsoi l waste and pE�~ t. i t .i un (;~ ,... . 1�:7? f i::. .in the mine s site as waste . PP~~ .~.:,:.�~t. ���� .".':":.'�-/.,., l 0/ .l. I f:3:? ; p. 6, ~:i/ 1.4-/B .l . ) b .. p r-dc: E'"""" i nq b y petitioner of the :l.0 ./ .1 /U?; pp . n. , ( -1::. " �::;" p" 8, 10/29/83; pp . 28, 31, .10/.l/H:::..) And nobody pur-c hased the limes tone or the lim e ma nuf ac tured it. ( t .. <o;, n .:, p. ~.?9, 1() /.'.l. / (3 ~)11 ) Seemingly, neither the Vi':\ ll..I.C'~� ( t . ,,,, . n � , p p .. ~5 -�� 7 , 9 I 2 9 / B ::::; ; p p � 7 ��- E3 ~ 1 ::::; --� .1. 4 , 5./14/81; Lxhs . D, D- 11.) 243

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 ���- 5 ..... 7. The evidence presented s hows that for cost i:":\C c: Ut...tf'l t i r1q n. nd :i.r1 t.e r��n <::l. J. ma n <:~ gem e n t. control~ petitioner assigned to �?ach c.'l.nd e v er y identifiable activity or prucess involved in th E:' m:i.r1 inq of co pper from bl as ting and digging and h <::\ 1...1.1. :i.nq t.u loading for ex port. . In va r- iably~ c o s t diqqing at�J,'::'IY the to the proc ess of digging ou i:: t:. hf? cop p Ee l'- C: I'" U ~5 hi nq and pul vQ r- i:;;:i.ng thr�"m, <:~ nd co n ve rting the min era l into exportable co pp P I'" C:DnCE?fl t.r-o�!. i:.t:':; to ;:?:-:pol'-tinq thf? c:onc:f?n t:r-<:1tf? . It was from this assignment of c o s t estimate to the p roduci ng lime fr o m the limes tone, that p e titi one r es t a bli s h ed "produc tion cos t" o f lim E?~, period in v ol ved in this case, ( F::. :< h s � D-<.l. ' F �- .l to F ---::~ ; t .. s:; .. n. ~, pp. "7--� .14' ~j/ :J.. .q.;' f.3l; pp . ~) -�- 4 ~� 8--9 ~� .1 3���- 17, 2/17/83; pp . 5- B, 9/29/83.) E3 . :r. t:. ,..., .~3. :;; t h j_ s p r.. clc1Lt c t ..i. c:ln c: cJ ~-; t . cJ �f '' l .i.tllf.�? '' t ha.t in corn put i. n q thE�? . . ~,~~t Y.~Lq..r.::gf!.l. t.<::\ :-: of the lime, details of which a r e as follow s : 24 4

DEC I S ION -�- CTA CASE NO . 2 778 . ... b ..... r:::f:\ Yt1FJ:l J OF (.~D V f-\L. Qf~E I'1 .J .A XE E-l FPU 1'1 __Q_CT CJ B �-:~J(~ . l:?z::::; T.LL.... ~>..Lt::. rr~:.t::tf~fE .,. . ..J .9..7.~:~ Uu ,:~ t-� t E-~ I" (.~ rn ot.m t. Da t e:.> (]. 1::;: . F~:.~~ i cl Gq Y P.. t::. f.::~- ~::.1. ef\J .~.:t N~:l rllt)f'.:t:. 19T 3 4-t. h F' 4 , J. I.J-4 � 27 l --� lf.3 -�-7 .lJ. F l .l ::; 5 7 65 U c 'l".nbr? r- N o ve rnb e r�� :::; ~� .1. 9E!. f.J.(l DP c: e rn bF�r- ..................~1:.~...!Q.~:~ .~..9.4. p l.l, Ll-'1-!3.6.1. :-.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :.:-.::::: 1 974 .l "-"� t . F' ::~; , 1 :? 4 " 7 .1 3 - 26 -7 4 2 3 .1. 7 44 9 F ,J '"' n u ,, I'" y " .9..~ .~:~'fl.(>. .~. :':l:..~?. FQhi'" U i::\ t'"Y F' lb, F:Pb. ~:'.\ ~? t' li:1: .n:: h :-_-:; :::::::::::-.:: ::::::::: :--~::-.::: :::::.:::::::: (.)p t- .i 1 2nd F' U, E-l60. EQ 7 �-�.1. 9 -- 7 4 F.1. 4-:? 4-.1.6E-l MC:>.y c;, !T? ~:i . <JIO " ....fl..:~ .? E.Jf:l .~/~Z. F' :? 7 ,4 7 :::) � .1.4 ::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ,.J Lll V ::::: l'" d ' F' 9 ~� C:<~: .t " ~~9 9 ..-� .1. 9 �-7 4 A uq 1.J s t . ~:; e p t. P rn h E�~ ,... f:!, (J<JIJ.. 07 .. .. . .. ?:. !\ ])?.. -~- ~~.?. F' ~? 1..:� ~� 0 6 0 . :::; 7 ==:::: :::: = :-.:: :::: :::: :=.:::: ::::: :::: CJ c:: �t. nh F~I'" 4t h P 7 , Of.<:? .. 4.1 " 1\ID \/f.:? fll hf.::! r- 6 , :~; ~_':, .1.. ~?B D ecernbe l~ . \. J;J ~ / 1:~:) :~? ~- :::~; F' :.? l ~� !36 ~-' " f:3 :? :-_-:: :::::::::: ::."':: ::::: ::::: :::-.: :::: :::::::::::: .1.97~) l s t. F' <Jl , 4 2 :?. b9 4 -2 .1. -7 5 409 .1. 8 33 F 7, 5 5~'. ~. o ,J a nu a r� y " F P b r" t.t a r �y " ... .7..:~.9f.~.Q. ~ -:~~: :0: t�1.:=\I�"T h P :? 4� , t.<m. ~5::::: ::::::::: :::-.::::: ::::: ::::: :::::::::=:---::::::: 2 45

DECISION -- CTA CASE NO. 2778 ..... 7 ..... (ipr.. �i. l F' 7 ~ J. 00 � J. :s 7-21-75 4092041 F t''1 i:~ y 10-2-75 40721 72 F ,JJ...\f'lF'! '7 ~ ~.? ~:.iB � oc? ,Ju. l y ::; ,�-d . z..~.u:;;:'.~':.. !!.n .J.. " (.~t.tqu st F' ~.?~.? ~ l !J .I.f.� 0 ~j f:3t.-? p tern i:J E' ,... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=: F' 7 ~ 9 '7 ::~; � ::~; ::!; 9 , B 7'1� � :?C? \J. .~. ;? ~!~Q ~.. ~:~.~?. F' :::. J.. , :::; 7!:3 "~;:~ .1 :=::::::=:::-.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: UJ"'a nd "l'ntal :::::::::::::::::::::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: 7.. On Decemi:Jer 22 , 19 75, petitioner filed its claim for ta x credit of the aforesaid s um of F'l tJl, 9 ~.? '5 . ~;:~~) tha.t: no action was taken seaso nably by re s pondent on the cl a im, petitioner filed its petition for rev iew with this Court on Februa r y 18, 1976. I th E! �f o llcw,,.ing pOSE!~::. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO IT S CLAIM FOR TA X CREDIT. WHETHER OR NOT THE UTILI ZATION OF WASTE LIME S TONE BY THE OPERATOR OF A COPPER MINE CONVERTS S AID WA S TE INTO TAXABLE MINERAL Hl.J H,JFc�r TLI THE A.P. ...Y.('I~::.PBJ~:.t.'J Tf21X . NUT THE MINING LAW AND RE GUL ATIONS REQUIRE THE UWNER UF THE S URFACE RIGHT S OF LAND CUNTAININU LIME S TONE TO S ECURE A PERMIT TO DIG AWAY SAID LIMESTONE THOUGH AS AN INCIDENT OF IT S COPPER MINING OPERATION TO REACH THE COPPER DEPOSITS BELOW. 24u

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 --� El --� WHETHER OR NOT ~ IN THE ALTERNATI VE, THE AD VALOREM TA X ON LIME S TONE .. -�������������� �-��"' ''" ' ''''''''' ' I S BASE D ON IT S IMPUTED AND HYPOTHETICAL PRODU CTION COS T, THERE BEING NO MARKET VALUE. a nd s tat es i t s po s ition as foll o ws : a . Digging a way th e lime s ton e i s a n in c id e nt of co pp e r mining , th e t axa ble ac ti v i t y i t ~'J a s li c en sed to conduc t; h . Th e lime s ton e was not the ~:; it('�? , t. i:Ol. :-: a b 1 e se v e r a n ce o f mi n e r a l product c: " l.....i.. k F~ r� o c k ~:; CJ the,,. topsoil n ecessa r i l y sc r a pe d a nd dug away in ord e r to reac h into the min a hl& c opper depos its be low the s urfac e , t:. h f'~ 1 :i.m E�'c.; ton P b e c a mP was t e mat P ri a l , ;,:~ n e:\ tur� a J. inci d e nt o f the procpss o f co pper mining; d" Th e u t i l :.i. ;, i':\ t:.:i. CHl of th is was t P lim es ton P co n ve rt that was t P into a t axa bl P mi nPr a l did n o t s u h j e c t . t .C� t .h r:-~ ~~ ~:.1. YJ:\ J:..c:_JX::.~~ ~.Tl t .C:\ :-: ; E'' " In p <'.ly :i.n(.::J on coppe r min e r a l , the v alue of the limes tone a nd the cos t of ex tr ac tion was nec essa ril y in c lud e d as p ar t of the of the c oppP r min 0 r a l. Thu s. , :i. mpo si nq <:\noth(?. l'". l i me s tone would in effect 247

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 ... c:; ... be col l ec tin g ad .Y �L<::J..r:..~.r.r.~ limestone c:ornponFm t; f. In the a lt ernative~ petitioner paid excess ad va lore m tax in the amount of P109,829.00 because while the ta x is meas ured by the gross value of the raw mineral which is limestone, the petitioner paid un t. hE~ b;:,,si~; o �f thE~ cost. "lime" \1-Jh:i.c: h i s the processed product. All the expenses of processing mu s t therefore be e liminated; a nd, !::J � .i.s no lE~qc.. l for� u.s.i. nq 11 p r�� ucl u c t ion c: n <:; t 11 a:; t. h (�:�~ ba <::; :.i.s o �f Since parties are a greed on the 1 i mE?S t. o n E:> ( c.�,,_nd ��1 i m E~ for. t h i':\ t m<::\ t t.E? I'" ) h ,::~d n n rn a 1~ 1-:: e t I tax be co me s due. Hence, petitioner i s entitled to the f u ll credit of its payment of P181,925.25. Res pondent contends that. while the provisions o �f SPc:: t:. ion f.::.7 of Pre si dential Decree No. 463 d oes not require the owner of a pri va tely owned land fr�om secu l��.i.nq a permit. to extract or remove quarry n::'soun::es on h.i. s l and �for� per s onB. l u s e, the said pri vi l e ge do 8~ not include e xe mption from payment o f t : h E�~ 2/., I'" o y a 1 t y o 1'.. !3ci.............Y..0.l.~.J..t.:~.~':'..f.T.l. t. a >: pr...tr.. s uan t to 24a

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 ����� .1.0 ..... ~:; f? c t .i o n of thl'?. then ap plicable Natio nal Internal Revenue Code, which provides as follows: ~3r.:>c � 24:::;; � f:\.<:1... Y .f:l:J..f:?.r.r..f!l. ... t~.~::f:3.2.....<.::!.D... 9.l::~.I.Pl.,\t. o �f rr.l :Lf:l. q.r::~.9..1 .J..i::l,J::l.Sj .~.5...... .f.l.f:?.1:. ............FD.Y.f:3r.~.?_f:J.... 9.Y.....J . f:3 <::':.2.?.. � - There is hereby imposed on the actual market va lue of the annual gross output of the minerals or mineral products extracted or produced from all mineral l an d s not c: o v P r. e d h y 1 ~-:-~as r::? , a n s\<;L......Y.�...l..qx:..�'..f.T.l. t "' ~�: i n t he a mount of two per centum of the va lue of the output, except gold which s hall pay o ne and one- half per centum. Before the min era l s or min era l products are removed from the mines, the Commi ss ioner of Internal Rev enue or hi s representatives s h a ll first be notified of ~'" ' �'� c: l1 ,�- p rno va l on<~ fcH'" fll pt-� e~::.c r�ibec:l for.. the purpos e. (As arnenc:lec:l b y Sec. 2 , Republic Act No. 909; anc:l Se c. 48, Republic Act No. 6 1. 10.) Rc-:>ad:i.nq thE�' pr.. ov.i.sion s of the law, the ad on oJtput of mineral l a nds not covered ,::~nd co llected em the actual mar k et va lue of the annual gross output of the min era l s or mineral produc t s extracted or produced f ,~ om minl~' l'" a 1 land s .. in this case, cannot ~say that, c:lur-.i.ng the pe:~r iod covered, p eti tiorH?r- was f?nga.qecl .i. n the extraction or pi�- oduc t.:i.on of lim esto ne fr-om i t s mininq proper�ty and con cession s as a distin ct activity or busi ness. {1s the evide ncr.:> sta. nd s and 1-'Jh.i.ch is not co n tr. o ve r. tf?d b y respondent, petitioner is engaged 243

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 -�- l l in the mining of copper ore from its mines property and in the process thereof: 1. Petitioner had to dig away and remove a ll top material s co n sis ting of lim estone~ top s oil to r~::ac h into thE? c:oppet�- Dre c:ll:::> poc.~ .i. t:.s �found bE"? low. matter� of �fa ct~ as s t.a t:l�?. d a bo vP ~ p <? t :i. tion<=:?r- a~; CH\Iner� of t�.. .i q h i::. '"�' i':\ ~; not Pve n required to sec ur e a government permit. to dig out the limes ton e . 2. Mo s t of the lim esto n <? wa s left in the min e s ite as wa s te, alt hough a s ma ll portion thereof wa s utilized by petitione r as a flotation agent in the COnV!:"? I'"S :i. or�l o �f t.h E> coppc~r rocks .into concentrates. t The l.im f,~<:; tone ~\J a s �f i ,,.. ~..; pr�� ocp sse cl b y p e t i ticmer I i nto lim e, and b y c h emica l r eac tion with water~ the 1 im fc: hE~c: a m E-' C:\ c: 1 f.')r.�, n s:i.nq reaqent in the conver s ion of the in t:. o c:nppE? t'. It appeat~s th,3t. to cau SE' thE? coppe r- mineral powder to �float ,;~ nd C E:\ U ~:~ (?. cl t:. h f.~ unwanted waste like lime and to c.:;.i.. n k whi c h were thrown away as t. E:l. .i 1 i.nq<:;. The �float.:i.nq copper powder- was a c::c urnul <:\ tf.�?d a nd dried , known as copper concentrate ~'lhi c: h a m:i.ner�.:~l ap .::\n fOI'" f.')~-:por� t e cl t.o

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 --� 1. 2 ..... processi ng into copper cathodes and rods. The lime did not become part of the concentrate. 3. The limestone processed into lime and used '"'~.; �f 1 ot,:;~. t:i.on agent was n ever removed from the mine conce<.;s.i.un of pet:. .i. t .i. on�:! r-� . And the record reveals t .h F! lim p~:; tonr�? nor the processed lime po ssesse d mar k e t value. T h i �:; c: ,,,, :::; P submitted for decision on pur�!�?. l y qur:> s tion <:', <Tf law, and .in the lic:Jht. of the factual setti ng sta t ed a bove, it seems clear beyond doubt. t: h <~. t. �. t.hr~ ..1. l�. ili ~~.:;~. t.icm limPstone by p e tition er~ which is e ngaged in mining copper ore~ b y c:o n vr.-?r. t .in!J ::~�.J c h ""'a~::; -1::. r~ into lime as a cleansing reaqent in the con ve r sion of co ppe r ore into copper mI erely inc:idPntal to its mining cop pPr. ut'"!�:�? !..�i�e t'.. �"'- t: inn "for. i s ad!:~qua te 1 y t i::l )�(E�' cl . ThE~ I'" Lil F.:' ,::~J.r- PC:~cly s t. a t E' d: "Wher-�e a c: C) r��pc:> r��<3. -t:..i. c>n i <.::; Pnq,:<qPd in di s tinct ht...lsine<=:;~; and, as a f eat ure thereof~ in an activity f merel y incid e ntal 1-'Jhi c: h no other person or I l busi n ess , the incidental and res tri c t e d act i v ity i s not tn h!'�? c::onsidf?.r"Pd as intended to be se parately ~ 51

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 -- .1.::::: -��� -� o1�� c:\dditioni::\ ll y t. i3, :-: ~::;> d � II ( Standard -Vac uum Oil~ Co. vs. Antigua~ 96 Phi l . 909, citi ng Craig vs. Ballard Co., .1.96 Sc. 238.) According l y, we hold t .h at. sincF..~ petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation on beE~n t;;:~.:-:ed it s copper mining operation, it may n ot be further doing s omPth.i..nq or. e nq ag.i nq in an activity or work n�f diqginq out. lirnest.one and into lime which is merely a part of ;:~nd j_nc idE�n t.i:':\ 1 to tht?. pr-oduction of copper con c:: f~ n tr.. a tF~<;;;. Petitioner i s therefore e n titled to t h P !""!?. f Ltn d c: lr�e d .i. t of the amount of paid on 1 irnr>. s l::.o nt�:>. (juJ�.. inq thP period covering from the 4th quarter of ~9 73 to th e 3rd quarter of 1975 . With thi s conclusion, the other issues posed by petiti o ner become moot a nd academi c. We not e howe ver , as pointed to by respondent, that the amount of P.1..1.,448.6.1. paid on January .1.8, 1974 under Official Receipt No. F- 1135765 is barred in ,J.c:c:oJ'" cl i::lnc !' I.AJith t.he pr.. ov.i.s:.i.ons of SE�c:t.i.o n ~) 06 of the then a pplicable Natio n a l Intern a l Revenue Code, as amended b y Pre s idential Decree No. 69. Fr�om the dat.f.:! o'f payment to the f.i..linq of the petition for

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 -- 1.4 .... I'""E' V .i.. E~h' \1-J :i. t h thi s Co urt on Februar y .18~ .1976~ the presc riptive period ha d already expired. Cou J'- t ,~c: t i. on f o r recovery of a n in ter�na 1 revenue or� illeq ;:dl y paid mu st. be instituted within two years after payment. (Koppel vs. Collector of Internal Revenue~ L - 1.05 50~ Sept. .16, .1.96.1~ 1.7; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling ~ L ����� ::,~ !.J- .lOf.-3 ~ aan. ''=!' ��-� !I .1968~ 22 SCRA .1. 2. ) WHER EF ORE , respon d e nt Co mmi ssi oner of Intern a l here by ordered to grant a t ax c redit to petition er Atla s Con so lidated Mining & De v elopment CuJ'� por�a t. ion .i,.n ,;~. mount of F'.1 70, 4 76.6 4 represe nt i ng erroneo u s l y p a .i d !".'.9 ... ..... Y..~J. ~?.t:!:'?JJ.l t a:-: for t. hE~ p E0 r�� iod f rom the 1 s t qu a rt er of 19 7 4 to the 3rd qu,::\ r� t E�~ r � of .1. 97 ~.i . No cost.s. Que z on Ci t y, Metro Ma nila, February .1.6 ~ .1988 . AMANTE Pr�<e. s id ing ~Judqe

-- DECISION CTA CASE NO. 2778 ��- l ~l -��� ~�J E: C:ONCl.Jn : ROAQUIN Juc:lq e CE RT I F I CAT I 0 N I certif y that this d ecision was r eac he d a ft er due con s ultation a mong the members of the Court of Tax Ap~ ea l s in acc ordance with Sec tion 1 3~ Arti c le VII I of the Co n s titution. AMANTE F F'r�es id in .. Court o f Ta x Appeals