GHD PTY LTD. (FORMERLY GUTTERIDGE HASKINS & DAVEY PTY LTD.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION GHD PTY LTD. (FORMERLY CTA CASE N0.10374 GUTTERIDGE HASKINS & Present: DAVEY PTY LTD.), Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, vs. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JAN 1 5 202ft, Respondent. ?-...-- y : Z-0;:>-. x-----------------------------------------------------------x DECISION FERRER-FLORES, J.: The Petition for Review prays that the Court render judgment ordering respondent to refund or issue in favor of petitioner a tax credit certificate in the amount ofP59,134,055 .00 representing petitioner's excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWTs) for fiscal year (FY) ended June 30,2018 (FY 2018). 1 THE PARTIES Petitioner GHD Pty Ltd. (Formerly Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd.) is a foreign company with a branch office duly licensed by the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Bilang 68), and the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7042, as amended), with 1 Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated July 22, 2021 , Docket - Vol. I, p. 4 54 .

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 2 of23 principal or head office address at 10 Bond Street, Sydney NSW, Australia.2 Petitioner's registered address is at 11/F Alphaland Southgate Tower, 2258 Chino Roces Avenue comer EDSA, Makati City, Philippines.3 It is a registered taxpayer of the Bureau oflntemal Revenue (BIR), under Taxpayer Identification No. 203-471-895-000.4 Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue vested under the law with the authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of said office, including, inter alia, the power to decide, approve, and grant refunds and/or tax credits of overpaid and erroneously paid or collected national internal revenue taxes. He may be served with summons, pleadings, and other processes of this Court at his office at the Legal Division of Revenue Region No. SA Makati City located at 361h Floor Export Bank Plaza Bldg., Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. cor. Chino Roces Avenue, Makati City.5 ANTECEDENTS (ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL) On September 29, 2020, petitioner filed with the BIR, Revenue District Office No. 048, its letter requesting for the refund ofunutilized CWTs for FY 2018, in the amount of P59,134,055.00.6 Thereafter, on October 6, 2020, petitioner filed its Application for Tax Credits I Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914).7 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT On October 15, 2020, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review. 8 Respondent posted his Answer on January 25, 2021,9 interposing his special and affirmative defenses. On January 26, 2021, respondent transmitted the BIR Records for this case, consisting of 859 pages, in one (1) folder. 10 \ 2 Exhibits "P-1" and "P-2", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 804 to 893. 3 Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issues (JSFI), Docket- Vol. 1 p. 444. 4 Exhibit "P-3", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 894. ' Par. 2, Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket- Vol. 1, p. 444. 6 Exhibit "P-9", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 924 to 928. 7 Exhibit "P-9-A", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 929. 8 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 6 to 23. 9 Docket- Vol. 1, pp. 208 to 217. 10 Compliance dated January 26, 2021, Docket- Vol. 1, pp. 205 to 206.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 3 of23 The Pre-Trial Conference was set and held on June 15, 2021. 11 Prior thereto, Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on June 8, 2021; 12 while Petitioner's Pre-Trial Briefwas submitted on June 11, 2021.13 On July 15, 2021, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issues, 14 which was admitted and approved by the Court, in the Resolution dated July 22, 2021, 15 thereby deeming the termination of the Pre-Trial. The Pre-Trial Order dated July 22, 2021 was then issued. 16 As trial ensued, petitioner presented its testimonial and documentary evidence. It offered the testimonies ofthe following individuals, namely: (1) Ms. Katrina S. Maninang, 17 petitioner's Tax Manager; and, (2) Mr. Emmanuel Y. Mendoza, 18 the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA). 19 The Amended Report of the said ICPA was submitted to the Court on April27, 2022.20 Respondent's counsel manifested during the hearing held on June 15, 2022, that he will no longer present his witness in this case.21 Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on July 5, 2022/2 and respondent's Comment (to Petitioner's Formal Offer ofEvidence) was posted on July 25, 2022.23 In the Resolution dated October 5, 2022,24 the Court admitted petitioner's offered exhibits, except for Exhibit "P-28-299-A" for being illegible. \ 11 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated February 8, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 220 to 221; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 15, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 412 to 415. 12 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 222 to 225. 1' Docket-Vol.l,pp.231 to244. 14 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 444 to 450. 1' Docket- Vol. I, pp. 467 to 468. 16 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 454 to 461. 17 Exhibit "P-15", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 27 to 39; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 22, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 462 to 464. 18 Exhibit "P-16", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 762 to 777; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, June 15, 2022, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 778 to 780. 19 Oath of Commission dated July 22,2021, Docket- Vol. I, p. 465; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 22, 2021, Docket - Vol. I, pp. 462 to 464. 20 Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 609 to 630. 21 Minutes oftl1e hearing held on, and Order dated, June 15, 2022, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 778 to 780. 22 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 781 to 803. 23 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 956 to 959. 24 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 966 to 967.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 4 of23 Petitioner's Memorandum was filed on November 23, 2022,25 while respondent's Memorandum was posted on November 16, 2022.26 This case was submitted for decision on January 16, 2023.27 THE ISSUE As stipulated by the parties, the issue for this Court's resolution is as follows: "WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO ITS CLAIM FOR REFUND OF OR ISSUANCE OF TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC) FOR THE AMOUNT OF PHP59,134,055 REPRESENTING PETITIONER'S ALLEGED EXCESS AND UNUTILIZED CREDITABLE WITHHOLDING TAX (CWT) FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 (HEREINAFTER, 'FY 2018 ')."28 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that it filed its administrative and judicial claims for refund of excess and unutilized CWTs for FY 2018 within the two-year prescriptive period provided in Sections 204(C) and 229, National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended; that its excess and unutilized CWTs for FY 2018 in the amount of P59,134,055.00 are duly substantiated by documentary evidence; that the income from which the CWTs being claimed for refund were withheld was reported as part of the revenue declared in petitioner's income tax return (ITR); that petitioner did not exercise the option to carry over its excess and unutilized CWT for FY 2018 to the succeeding taxable periods; and, that it applied its "prior year's excess credits" from FY 2017 as payment for its regular corporate income tax (RCIT) for FY 2018. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent contends that the instant petition for refund of CWTs for the entire FY ending June 30, 2018 is filed out of time; that the certificates representing CWTs for FY 2018 were not entirely executed under oath; that proof of actual remittance to the BIR and testimonial evidence of the payors and withholding agents are required; that petitioner failed to prove certificates of taxes withheld pertaining to prior years were declared as part of the income " Docket~ Vol. 2, pp. 968 to 992. 26 Docket ~ Vol. 2, pp. 994 to I004. 27 Resolution dated January 16,2023, Docket~ Vol. 2, p. 1010. 28 Issue, JSFI, Docket~ Vol. 1, p. 445.

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 5 of23 for their respective years to prove the existence of prior excess credits; that petitioner accumulated credits for prior years are not enough to cover tax due for FY 20 18; and, that claim for refund is strictly construed against the taxpayer for the same partakes the nature of tax exemption. THE COURT'S RULING The present Petition for Review is partly meritorious. Petitioner complied with Section 76 of the NIRC of1997, as amended. Pertinent to the resolution of the present case is Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides: "SEC. 76. Final Acljustment Return. - Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor." The above provision discusses the two options of a taxable corporation whose total quarterly income tax payments in a given taxable year exceed its total income tax due. The taxpayer may either: (1) carry-over the excess amount to the succeeding taxable quarters/years until it is fully utilized, or (2) file a claim for refund in the form of cash or tax credit certificate. Note, however, that, once the carry-over option is taken actually or constructively, it becomes irrevocable for that taxable period.29 The phrase 'tor that taxable l 29 Rhombus Energy, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 206362, August I, 20I8, citing the case of Republic ofthe Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 6 of23 period" refers to the taxable year when the excess income tax, subject of the option, was acquired by the taxpayer.30 In exerc1smg its option, the corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return (by marking the option box provided in the BIR form) its intention, either to carry over the excess credit or to claim a refund. To facilitate tax collection, these remedies are in the alternative and the choice of one precludes the other.31 A perusal of petitioner's amended Annual ITR for FY 2018 shows that petitioner had income tax credits in the total amount of P124,634,714.00,32 broken down as follows: 33 Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT p Creditable Taxes Withheld- FY 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.. L Add: ................... . from Previous Quarter/s P1(),y~~,670:go 1' for the 4th Quarter 42,399,385.00 i 59,134,055.00 i I '-----'-----'--~---::-:;~=-:-'=-:-;;-;;-i II Total Tax Credits P124,634,714.00 Petitioner claims that its income tax due for FY 2018 in the amount of P32,719,577.0034 was paid using a portion of its prior year's excess credits of P65,500,659.00,35 thus, leaving the prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P32,781,082.00 and creditable taxes withheld during FY 2018 in the amount ofP59,134,055.00, or a total ofP91,915,137.00, unutilized as of June 30, 2018, as shown below: !""" p 65,500,659.00 32,719,577.00 . ; Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT i--�� p 32,781,082.00 . ........................................... . 59,134,055.00 1 i Less: Income Tax Due ,........................................................................................................................ p 91,915,137.00 j i Balance of Prior Year's Excess Credits i Add: Creditable Taxes Withheld- FY 2018 I Excess CWT as of June 30, 2018 (?hils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (?hils.) Energy Corporation, G.R. No. I880I6, January I4, 20I5; Phi/am Asset Management, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. I56637 & 162004, December I4, 2005; Systra Philippines, Inc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 176290, September 21, 2007. 30 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (?hils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (?hils.) Energy Corporation), G.R. No. 1880I 6, January 14, 20I 5; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Bank ofthe Philippine Islands, G.R. No. I78490, July 7, 2009. 31 Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et a/., G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999. 32 Exhibit "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, at pp. 904 to 914. 33 Schedule 7- Tax Credits/Payments, Exhibit "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, at p. 9IO. 34 Lines I6 and 44, Exhibit "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 904 and 905, respectively. 35 Line 1, Schedule 7 - Tax Credits/Payments, Exhibit "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 910.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 7 of23 In its original and amended Annual ITR for FY 2018, petitioner marked the box corresponding to the option "To be refunded", 36 clearly manifesting its intention to claim for a refund of its excess/unutilized CWT for the FY 2018. Furthermore, as can be gleaned from its Annual ITR37 and Quarterly ITRs38 for FY 2019, petitioner reflected only the amount off'32,781,082.00 as "Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT"/ "Prior Year's Excess Credits- Taxes Withheld". Correspondingly, the excess CWT for FY 2018 in the amount off'59, 134,055.00 was not carried over in the succeeding taxable periods and, therefore, may be the subject of a tax credit or refund claim, under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. To prove its prior year's excess credits of f'65,500,659.00, petitioner submitted its Annual ITRs for FYs 2007 to 201739, and the related BIR Forms No. 2307 for FYs 201440 to 201541 issued by its withholding agents. As earlier mentioned, petitioner's total tax credits for FY 2018 amounting to f'124,634,714.00 comprised of prior year's excess credits in the amount of f'65,500,659.00, and CWT during FY 2018 in the amount of f'59,134,055.00. The amount of f'65,500,659.00 carried-over to the Annual ITR of FY 2018 came from petitioner's total overpayment of f'113,825,534.00 per its amended Annual ITR for FY 2017,42 of which the amount off'48,324,875.0043 pertains to CWT during FY 2017. Since petitioner opted to be refunded of its f'48,324,875.00 CWT during FY 2017 per its Annual ITR for FY 2017,44 the said prior year's excess credits off'65,500,659.0045 pertains to its excess CWT as of June 30, 2017 (or end of FY 20 17). The Court finds the submission of petitioner's Annual ITR for FY 2017 sufficient to prove petitioner's "Prior Year's Excess Credits Other Than MCIT" of f'65,500,659.00 for FY 2018. In the language of Phi/am Asset Management, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,46 any refundable amount indicated in the final adjustment return (FAR) ofthe preceding taxable year may be credited against the estimated income tax liabilities for the 36 Line 21, Exhibits "P-4" and "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 895 and 904, respectively. \ 37 Line I, Schedule 7- Tax Credits/Payments, Exhibits "P-13" and "P-14", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 944 and 952, respectively. 38 Line 3IA, Exhibits "P-10", "P-11" and "P-12", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 930,933 and 936, respectively. 39 Exhibits "P-26-1" to "P-26-11". 40 Exhibits "P-28-224-A" to "P-28-298-A", "P-28-300-A" to "P-28-389-A". 41 Exhibits "P-28-1-A" to "P-28-223-A". 42 Line 20, Exhibit "P-26-11", p. I of8. 43 Sum of 1'33,133,378.00 and 1'15,191,497.00, Lines 5 and 6, respectively, Schedule 7 - Tax Credits/Payments, Exhibit "P-26-11 ", p. 6 of 8. 44 Line 21, Exhibit "P-26-11", p. I of8. 45 1'113,825,534.00 less 1'48,324,875.00. 46 G.R. Nos. 1566371162004, December 14,2005.

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 8 of23 taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable year. Thus, the amount of P65,500,659.00 representing the balance of petitioner's total tax credits for FY 2017 may be carried over and allowed as a credit for the P32,719,577.0047 income tax due for FY 20 18. With the above findings, we shall now proceed to determine petitioner's compliance with the requisites for claiming a tax credit or refund of excess and unutilized CWTs. Requisites to claim a tax credit or refund ofexcess and unutilized CWT. In addition to the requisites provided under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, jurisprudence and pertinent Revenue Regulations (RR) provide that, in order for a taxpayer to be entitled to a refund or an issuance of tax credit certificate for unutilized excess CWTs, the following three (3) requisites must also be complied with: 1. The claim for refund must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period as provided under Sections 204(C) and 229 ofthe NIRC of 1997; 2. The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and, 3. The income upon which the taxes were withheld must be included in the return of the recipient.48 Thus, it behooves petitioner to establish the foregoing requisites. 47 Lines 16 and 44, Exhibit "P-5", Docket- VoL 2, pp. 904 and 905, respectively. 48 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Phils.) Enerrzy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Enerrzy Corporation), G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015; United International Pictures AB vs. Commissioner ofinternal Revenue, G.R. No. 168331, October II, 2012; Citibank NA. vs. Court ofAppeals, eta!., G.R. No. I07434, October 10, 1997; ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, eta/., G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991; Section 2.58, Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 9 of23 First requisite: Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims for refund were timely filed. As to the first requisite, that the claim for refund was filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period, the pertinent legal bases are Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, which read as follows: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refond or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may - XXX XXX XXX (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." XXX XXX XXX SEC. 229. Recovery ofTax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. -No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any 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 excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a 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." (Emphasis supplied) The above-stated provisions mandate that the administrative and judicial claims for refund of erroneously or excessively paid tax must be done within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax. \

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 10 of23 It is well settled that the two (2)-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund of overpaid income tax/CWTs commences to run from the date of filing of the FAR49 (or Annual ITR). This is so because it is only when the FAR covering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer would know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures. 50 In other words, it is only logical to reckon the two (2)-year prescriptive period from the time the FAR or the Annual ITR was filed, since it is only at that time that it would be possible to determine whether the corporate taxpayer paid an amount exceeding its annual income tax liability _51 In this case, petitioner filed its original Annual ITR52 via the electronic filing and payment system or eFPS of the BIR on October 15, 2018. Thus, counting from October 15, 2018, petitioner had until October 15, 2020, within which to file both its administrative and judicial claims. Considering that petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund with the BIR on September 29, 2020,53 and its Application for Tax Credits I Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) on October 6, 2020,54 while the present judicial claim was filed on October 15, 2020,55 both claims for refund of unutilizedlexcess CWTs were seasonably filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period. Thus, the first requisite was fulfilled. Second requisite: A portion of the claimed excess CWTs was duly substantiated with BIR Forms No. 2307. With regard to the second requisite, the basis thereof is Section 2.58.3(B) ofRR No. 2-98, as amended, which states: "Sec. 2.58.3. Claim for tax credit or refund.- XXX XXX XXX (B) Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditable income tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course\ 49 ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court ofAppeals, eta/., G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. TMX Sales, Inc. and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992; Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. The Philippine American Life Insurance Co., eta/., G.R. No. 105208, May 29, 1995. 50 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. TMX Sales Inc.. eta/., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992. 51 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. The Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 182582, April 17,2017. " Exhibit "P-4", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 895 to 903. " Exhibit "P-9", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 924 to 928. 54 Exhibit "P-9-A", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 929; and Exhibit "P-15'' (Q&A No. 25), Docket- Vol. I, p. 32. " Docket- Vol. I, pp. 6 to 23.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 1I of23 only when it is shown that the income payment has been declared as part of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom. (Emphasis supplied) In Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank,56 the Supreme Court held that the Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307) is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld, to wit: "The certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld. It is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld at source to be presented and to testify personally to prove the authenticity of the certificates. In Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals,51 this court declared that a certificate is complete in the relevant details that would aid the courts in the evaluation of any claim for refund of excess creditable withholding taxes: XXX XXX XXX Moreover, as correctly held by the Court of Tax Appeals En Bane, the figures appearing in the withholding tax certificates can be taken at face value since these documents were executed under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to Section 267 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, xxx XXX XXX XXX Thus, upon presentation of a withholding tax certificate complete in its relevant details and with a written statement that it was made under the penalties of perjury, the burden of evidence then shifts to the Commissioner oflntemal Revenue to prove that (1) the certificate is not complete; (2) it is false; or (3) it was not issued regularly." (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, it is undeniable that the fact of withholding may be established by presenting the pertinent BIR Forms No. 2307 complete with relevant details. To prove the fact of withholding of its P59,134,055.00 CWT during FY 2018, petitioner submitted various Certificates ofCreditable Tax Withheld at \ 56 G.R. No. I80290, September 29,2014. " 548 Phil. 32 (2007) [Per J. Austria�Martinez, Third Division].

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 12 of23 Source (BIR Form No. 2307),58 as well as the Schedule of CWT59 and Quarterly Summary Alpha List of Withholding Tax (SAWT)60 for FY 2018. Upon verification of these documents, the Court-commissioned ICPA, Mr. Emmanuel Y. Mendoza, provided a summary of petitioner's CWTs for FY 2018 in the amount of P59,134,055.00, with related income payments amounting to P557,115,404.00, as follows:61 Findings !. Annex Revenue CWT per schedule of Reference i CWT I Revenue recorded, reported and collected In 2018 subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable l Hlll~~'!/~111_1[ I~ i Transactions in Philippine peso ! cwi' ciai;;;.;.:~~�.;~.; ;;~a;;.;;:,;;��;;l.l;;;;;;;;.;Cit;;; siR: 1 i Fonn 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers i while the revenue were properly supported by If�����o�-���f����f���i���c�����i���a- ...l......r...e.....c,.,e. .i,,.p.....t..s.......a....n.....d.......b.....i...l...l...i..n....,g...,..s....t__a_,,,t,.,e,.,,m.,,,,,,,e,,,,,n,,,,,t,.,s,,,,.... 1'147,911,422.00 I' I 7,008,677.00 A-1 I CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR : Fonn 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers while the revenue were supported by official r~~eipts but wit~out billing statements A-2 CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR Fonn 2307 but without supporting official receipts and billing statements icwi'ciaimeci~.;~.;;;;:o;;eriysl.li>i>orted by siR i Fonn 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers I while the revenue were supported by official ! receipts but billing statements are incomplete ~--���..���--......,,.. ----- ... - ' '' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,. ' ............................,..,...., ' ................................ --- ... '''''"'''''''''' A-4 A-5 ; ...................6. 5.140,108 +����6����������1�82,647.00 1 CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR I Fonn 2307 with electronic signature and the 1 revenue were supported by official receipts and i statements i CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR ! Fonn 2307 with electronic signature while the I revenue were supported only by official receipts ;.................4...9,,397,467.00 6,638,767.00 11,424,834.00 ; .............�1,,127,747.00 [ but\Vith~utbillin~;.sta.t�.e.� m��..�..e..,nt��s���� ..................,............ , ............ : .............A�..�-.6. ! CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR ! Fonn 2307 and billing statements but without i supporting official receipts A-7 !cwi'ciaiffi~ct~eresurrorted by siR Fonn 2307, I official receipts and billing statement but the 638,030.00 i amount of CWT per schedule is higher than the 164,683.00 ! amount in the supporting BIR Fonn 2307 ! cwi'ciaimed~ere~oisllpported by 's"'I:~R 'F'o.n...n.. . � ~~97 .but.t~e billing stateiTients .�represent~�~��� A-9 I " Exhibits "P�29-l-l-A" to "P-29- I-98-A"; "P-29-2-l�A" to "P-29-2�43�A"; "P-29-3-1-A" to "P�29-3-3� A"; "P-29-4- l�A" to "P�29-4-6-A"; "P-29-5�1-A" to "P-29-5�56-A"; "P-29-6�l�A" to "P-29�6-30-A"; "P-29-7-1-A" to "P-29-7-12-A"; "P�29-8-l-A"; "P-29� I0-1-A" to "P-29�1 0-11-A"; "P-29-11- I� A" to "P- 29- I I-7-A"; "P-29-12-l�A" to "P-29- 12-2-A"; "P-29� !3- I-A" to "P-29-13-7-A"; "P-29� 14- I-A"; "P-29- 15-l�A" to "P-29-15-3-A"; "P-29-16-I-A" to "P-29-16-3-A"; "P-29-17�1-A"; "P�29-18-l�A" to "P-29- 18-3-A"; "P-30- I-1-A" to "P-30�1-26-A"; "P-30-4-l�A" to "P-30-4-2�A"; "P-30-6- I-A"; "P-30�7-1-A" to "P-30-7-2-A"; "P-30-9-l�A"; and "P-31- I-l�A"; Exhibits "P-30-2�1-A "to "P-30-2-5-A "; "P-30-3�1- A" to "P-30-3-23-A" [identified exhibits per Amended Sworn Statement of Mr. Emmanuel Y. Mendoza, dated June 9, 2022, Exhibit "P-16" (Q&A No. 17), Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 770 to 771}. " Exhibit "P�2 I��. 60 Exhibits "P�22�l" to "P-22-!2". 61 Table 7 and Annexes A-1 to C�l, Exhibit "P-17'', !CPA's Amended Report, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 619 to 622 and 631 to 660, respectively.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 13 of23 Findings Annex Revenue CWT per schedule of Reference CWT ! CWT claimed were supported only by photocopied Ii Form 2307 A-10 4,842,865.00 I 160,694.00 I CWT is not duly signed by the customer ....... ���� �.... ' A-ll 5,871,647:oo : 375,460.00 ' ~........................................................-------------- -- -- --�--�-��- .....................................................,.,,,, -- -----------� -�--� ......................................... .-- i"" ... �������t�"� 677,958.00 ! 101,694.00 ! CWT claimed were supported by Form 2307 but , A-12 ' [t)leforr11is ~at~~outside the period of claim i Subtotal P412,556,918..0.0...,i.....P47,443,893.00 1 ~...Transactions in foreign currency : !���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ..... ��������---��( t���� ....l' 1 CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR A-13 I' I8,3I5,55o.oo II' 540,890.00 i Form 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers I while the revenue were properly supported by ' I official receipts and billing statements : cwl' ciaimect ;.;.;~.; r~ore<i;; supported by s lR I Form 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers A-14 .......................2...4....:'..104.00 i 3,659.00 I while the revenue were supported by official ....... ����------t [ receipts ~\It \Vitlro\ltbilli~!!st~t~.1Ilents. , . =�:=��������������� I CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR I Form 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers A-15 9,794,836.00 L. I,067,077.00 I while the revenue were supported by official .. �����------� I receipts but billing statements are incomplete by r cwT claimed were prope~iy supported siR. .. ; Form 2307 with electronic signature and billing 1 statements, while the official receipt are .________ -1- A-16 9,383,438.00 i 712,083.00 ~~-~omple~e CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR f Form 2307 with electronic signature and official A-17 9,758,456.00 i 1,463,768.00 i receipt, while the billing statements are incomplete by f cwl' ciaimectwere properly supported siR. I Form 2307 and billing statements but without A-18 3,517,979.00 i 527,653.00 I supporting official receipts P 50,794,363.00 ! P 4,315,13o.oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [su/,I~I~T�������������������������������� ! Total income recorded, reported and collected in 1018 i subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable withholding ������ P463,35I,281.00j P5I,759,023.0~ tax . r���� 1i ����R�������e���.v..���e����n������u�����e�������r����e����c����o�����r����d�����e-�"�d"�����a������n�����d�������r����e����p�����o�����r����t��e�����d�������I���n��������F�������Y�������1�����0������1�����7������/���n������c�����o�����m��������e���L..T......a.....x........R......e.....t...u.....r.....n.......a:....n.....d........c....o.....l...l...e....c....t...e....d..."...I...n........F........Y.......L2.0.....1.....8.......s....u.....b.....j...e.....c....t.....to I creditable withholding tax f��������������������������������������"������������������������������������������������������������������������������� , ..... . It������T�����r����a����n�����s����a��� c...t...i...o....n.....s......i...n........P.....h.....i...l..i...p.....p....i...n.....e......p....e.....s...o................................. ";c:�������������� i CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR ! Form 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers I ! while the revenue were properly supported by �t������ i official receipts and billing statements B-1 I' 30,071,889.0.0. .. ��������������������������� . ����-���������������������������� r����������� I CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR � Form 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers 3,505,167.00 ' I while the revenue were supported only by official 1 receipts B-2 i cwi'claimed were supported by BIR Form 2307 I with electronic signature and the revenue were 38,855,419.00 . 2,051,821.00 �+�� i supported by official receipts and billing ' statements ��:������������������������������������������� B-3 � CWT claimed were supported by BIR Form 2307 i with electronic signature while the revenue were 533,114,00 . [... s~pp()r!ed only ~y()ffjcialreceipts 3,554,094.00 1 CWT were not supported by BIR Form 2307 but I the official receipt and billing statements are B-5 ;......................... _7,,3,2, 143.00 j 109,821.00 242,858.00 I 4,857.00 i presented B-6 t 65,049.00 [ CWT is supported only by photocopied 2307 B-7 756,924.00 I I CWT claimed were supported by Form 2307 but P 77,718,494.00 I P 5,921,287.00 ' ithefor'lrlisdate~o~tsidetheperio~o~claim ! Subtotal

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 14 of23 Findings Annex Revenue CWT Reference per schedule of CWT [ T_ra_flsa_~tio_f1slnJo~~i~f1EIJr~~~~C>' .... ���������------1 ... j [ CWT were properly supported by BIR Fonn 2307 1 ! issued by the Petitioner's Customer's while the i I' 7,104,829.00 I' 339,549.00 : I revenue were properly supported by official f receipts and billing statements B-8 1 cwiciaiffiect;;,;;~;;p~operiysupported by siR ' T"' i i Fonn 2307 but without supporting official receipts 1 t Ii and billing s.tatements. .... !1 B-9 .. L... ! 3,559,854.00 533,978.00 i i CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR [ Fonn 2307 and billing statements but without Ir���-.s....u.....p......p.....o.....r....t.-i..n-.--"g�-�--�-o�-��f-��-f���i���c�����i���a����l������r..��e�---c----e..---i--p,----t..s-- , B-1 0 3,n4,946.oo 1 558,742.00 i ����------1-.. p 14,389,629.00 i p 1,432,269.00 i I ~IJ~I(JiaJ ... .������ ..... ....P..........9.....2....,..1.....0. 8---,�1--��2-�--3�"'."'0'""'"0'"'"'"''I'I'"''''P"' ___7,,_,,,_,,3,,...5,....3....,,,.5,.,.5,,.,.6.0�0�'''"'"!1: ; Total income recorded and reported in FY 2017 but collected i In 2018 subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable w_lthholdlng tax_......................................................................................................................... 1 ; ~..... . . .. .. . . . . ''"'" . . . ...!...... ; .. . . . . ; I Revenue recorded and reported in FY 2016/ncome Tax Return and collected in FY 2018 subject to i creditable withholding tax : 'iransa~li~lisilii'i.iiif,f,i/i;J,eso �����i I������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� i CWT claimed were properly supported by BIR I Fonn 2307 issued by the Petitioner's Customers i while the revenue were supported by official I receipts but without billing statements I' I,656,000.00 I' 33,120.00 = !������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������ :: i Total income recorded and reported in FY 2016 but collected i in 2018 subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable i withholding tax P 1,656,000.00 P 33,120.00 1�-�������������������������������������������������������������� L i .: ����t��� ...................................................................)......................................................................, J'55?,II5,40~.~0 !'59~14?,69~.00 l.. i;.....G. RANDTOTAL ' Less; Difference between SAWT and CWT per income tax . I Iretuf11lpersche,d,u__l_e_.,.................................................... -i 11,644.00 i 1 GRAND TO, _T__,_A__,,_,L�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� P557,115,4o4.oo 1 P59,134,o55.oo 1 However, the examination done by the ICPA revealed that a total of Pl,Ol7,843.00 should be disallowed from petitioner's claim, due to the following grounds:62 CWT Findings Reference Not Prooerlv i i , Substantiated [ Revenue recorded, reported and collected In 2018 subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable i withholding tax (cwT cl~im~d~~~e supportedbyBIR Form2307, ! official receipts and billing statement but the Annex A-8 I amount of CWT per schedule is higher than the larrro_~l1t. il1thesuppor\in�o.J31Il.,Fo___ n__n__2_ . 3...o.....7..................................... , (Exhibit "P-29-8-1-A") i CWT claimed were not supported by BIR Fonn Annex A-9 l.. 2307butthebi1Iil1~statements arepresented .....................i.........'.':'A'"'"'''"P-29-9-1-C") , 164,683.00 i CWT is not duly signed by the customer Annex A-ll (Exhibits "P-29-11-1-A" r��������������������������������������������������������� to "P-29-11-7-A") ! CWT claimed were supported by Fonn 2307 but Annex A-12 r the fonn is dated outside the period of claim (Exhibits "P-29-12-1-A" to "P-29-12-2-A") 101,694.00 : Subtotal p 854,617.00 62 Table 7, Exhibit "P-17", !CPA's Amended Report, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 619 to 622.

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 15 of23 CWT Findings Reference Not Properly Substantiated i Revenue recorded and reported In FY 2017/ncome Tax Return and collected In FY 2018 subject to [ cre~ltable. withholding_ tax_ ...... i CWT were not supported by BIR Form 2307 but Annex B-5 .. �: i the official receipt and billing statements are (Exhibits "P-30-5-1-B" to ! f presented : "P-30-5-1-C") � . . . ~. .'. . . . . . . .1. . o.�.9....� 8 2 l . o o t�cwT claimed were supported by Form 2307 but .� :�� Annex B-7 ........ . ! the form is dated outside the period of claim I (Exhibits "P-30-7-1-A" to I !............................................... "P-30-7-2-A") 65,049.00 1 Subtotal p 174,870.00 I G'iiANril'ol'Ai��� .. �������i-i---=-=:1''-1:,0:=29-,:4:8-7:.:0-0--1 c. [Less: Difference be.�tw����e�����e�����n�����s'.A'.'w'"T'����a����n��d,. ''w'"T'����p�����e�����r�����"IT'R'�����/ per schedule 1 [�������������������������������������������� .......................................................... I .... . +-i---::::-:::-1::i.:;,6=:c4-:-4;;::.0::-0'--1' [ GRANDTOTAL 1'1,017,843.00 Upon further verification, the following CWTs in the total amount of P165,550.98, shall likewise be denied based on the following grounds: Exhibit No. Payor Amount of Amount of Income Payment , CWT Revenue recorded, reported and collected in FY 2018 subjected by Petitioner's customer to creditable tax CWTare "I'I' only by photocopied BIR Form No. 230 "P-29-10-1-A" "P-29-1 0-2-A" Millennium Pan-Asia Hotel & Resort, Inc. .. �����i�� I' 25g,o?ooo L I' "P-29-1 0-3-A" Mt. Labo E;xploration and [)eyelopment(;()rp. 80,735.00 ! 1,230.77 ! "P-29-10-4-A" ................................. ��������������������������������t 20,528.31 ''P-29-1 0-5-A" MI. Labo ExploratioJ1and[)evel()pmentCorp: 160,315.00 : 1,230.77 1 ''P-29-1 0-6-A" 20,528.31 "P-29-10-7-A" SMC Consolidated Power 61,538.461 ..........................,., ................ SMC Consolidated Po\�er(;()rporatiOJ1 1,026,415.38 : . j ..... SMC Consolidated Power Corporation .... �����j 61,538.46 1 SMC Consolidated Power i)J26,415.38 T "P-29-10-8-A" SMC Consolidated Power Corporation ,6,i;5:li46T .................�...�.. �.... T ............... i 1,230.77.; "P-29-1 0-9-A" SMC Consolidated Power(;()rporation 1,026,415.38: 20,5~831 "P-29-1 0-1 0-A" SMC Consolidated Power Corporation T T .............. , ,6.1,.538.46 : 1,230.77 : "P-29-10-11-A" SMC Consolidated Power Corporation I ,026,4I5j8 20,528.31 Subtotal ���������������� C I 1'4,842,865,~6~ 1'160,693,82 . Revenue recorded and reported in FY 2017 Income Tax Returnand collected in FY 2018 subject to creditable .,,,. tax CWT is supported only by photocopied BIR Form No. 2307. 24:2,858.14! 4,857.16: "P-30-6-l:f.': JCentral Azucarera De La Carlota,Inc: .. . ,r---::1'.:=-'24-c2~,8:-:5:-::8.-::14-:+[--=,.:-4-:-,8::c5:-:7:-:.lc:-i6: Subtotal P5,085,723.50 : P165,550.98 ! TOTAL \ 63 Pertains to CWT issued by Propriedad del Norte. Inc. amounting to 1'71,919.64 but not recorded in the books and recorded CWT from Quezon Power (Philippines) Ltd Co. amounting to 1'60,275.25 (Sum of 1'26,511.60 and 1'33,763.65) but not reported in the SAWT, Table I, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 614; Annexes H-1 and H-4, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 697 and 702, respectively. 64 Annex A-1 0, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, p. 641. " Annex B-6, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, p. 655.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 16of23 Accordingly, petitioner was able to satisfy the second requisite, but only to the extent of the duly substantiated CWT of P57,950,661.02, as computed below: Particular I CWT related to revenue reported in I Total amount [Amount of claim i " ,' � � ����� iiv :iois�������������������� ' iivs:ioi7&:iol6 I, .j L sJ,747,379.oo'" 7,386,676.oo" ofCWT 59,134,o55.oo lr:~:~i~~11;1;~:?iri~:~i~~ �� � �� � � l i>s423173.oo'' i i74:s7o.oo 1.o 17,843.oo �j 77 ~ Per this C~~rt's verification +'------=�:-::����','Ji;'=-o7:,6:=:93::-:8:=2:-:���,_�'i-]-�_.�.-.-.::..:..:.:-:4~:ss7'-::.i-=:6:-:-�������+~-=,...;1:'=6::-'5,.:;:55;:;0.:.:,.9~8i I TOTAL 1'50,743,712.18 i 1'7,206,948.84 I 1'57,950,661.02 I Third requisite: A portion of the income payments upon which the excess CWTs were withheld were included in petitioner's Annual ITR. As regards the third requisite, as provided under the previously quoted Section 2.58.3(8) of RR No. 2-98, petitioner must prove that the income payments from which the substantiated excess CWTs ofP57,950,661.02 were withheld, were declared as part of its gross income in its Annual ITR. In compliance therewith, aside from the CWT certificates for FY 2018, petitioner likewise offered in evidence the following documents: Annual ITRs for FYs 2018,69 2017/0 and 2016,71 Quarterly ITRs for FY 2018,72 Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for FY 2018/3 Schedule ofCWTfor FY 2018/4 Quarterly Summary Alpha List of Withholding Taxes (SAWT) for FY 2018/5 General Ledger (GL) of CWT/6 Revenue- GL for FYs 2018, 2017, and 2016,77 International Sales Ledger for FY 2018,78 GL ofrevenue for Unbilled Work for FY 2018,79 GL of Revenue (528-71-0-114001),80 Schedule of Job Order/Summary of Sales to local and foreign Corporations,81 Schedule of Travel Outside the Philippines,82 Foreign sales allocated to the time of the 66 1'51,759,023.00 less difference between SAWT and CWT per ITR I per schedule 1'11,644.00. \ 67 Sum of!'7,353,556.00 and !'33, 120.00, for FYs 2017 and 2016, respectively. 68 !'854,617.00 less difference between SA WT and CWT per ITR I per schedule 1'11,644.00. 69 Exhibits "P-4" to "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 895 to 914. 70 Exhibit "P-26-11". 71 Exhibit "P-26-1 0". 72 Exhibits "P-6" to "P-8", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 915 to 923. 73 Exhibit "P-27". 74 Exhibit "P-21 ". 75 Exhibits "P-22-1" to "P-22-12". 76 Exhibit "P-23". 77 Exhibits "P-24-1", "P-24-2" and "P-24-3", respectively. 78 Exhibit "P-35". 79 Exhibits "P-36-1'" to "P-36-3". 80 Exhibit "P-37". 81 Exhibit "P-38". 82 Exhibit "P-39".

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 17 of23 employee schedule,83 Foreign sales allocated to the cost of the employee schedule,84 Journal Entry Vouchers for FYs 2018,85 2017,86 and 2016,87 official receipts (ORs) for FYs 2018,88 2017,89 and 2016,90 and billing statements for FYs 201891 and 2017.92 Records show that the Court-commissioned ICPA was able to trace the total revenue in the amount of P557,115,404.00, which was subjected by petitioner's customer to CWTs in the amount ofP59,134,055.00, summarized as follows: 93 Findings Revenue Difference in Revenue CWTs the receipt reported Subjected to per I' 51,759,023 CWT per by petitioner's schedule of 7,353,556 I GL client per BIR Form 33,120 I 2307 and the receipt CWT (a) (c=a+b) p 59,145,699 recorded in the 11,64495 petitioner's ledger94 1'59,134,055 ' (b) Revenue recorded, reported and collected in 1 I I' 18,582,866 1'463,351,281 j 1 20l8subj~<:ted by ~etitioner'scustornerto C\V"f .: ._I' 444,768,415 I ~~;~~~~~~~;~~~e:;~?;r~u~j~~tnt;~~!7 '~~ i i 66.22o.sss 25,887,568 .;i....... 92,108,12..3.. ,1...... I Revenue recorded and reported in FY 2016 ITR ' .. Ll' ii GandiUcoilllelrctieidoiinAFiY.:�2�0�1�8 sub.ject to C...W...T.... I ,656,000 i p 44,470,434 I 1,656,000 ! 512,644,970 : p 557,115,404 ���f ]"-i~Ss: Difference between SAWT CWT per ITR I per schedule .................. i 1'512,644,970 i -i -i . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,! r��-�GiiA'N'il���ToT-Ai~- 1'44,4 70,434 i 1'557,115,404 1 \ 83 Exhibit "P-40". 84 Exhibit "P-41 ". " Exhibits "P-32-1" to "P-32-34". 86 Exhibits "P-33-1" to "P-33-1 0". 87 Exhibit "P-34-1 ". 88 Exhibits "P-29-1-1-B" to "P-29-1-99-B", "P-29-2-1-B" to "P-29-2-44-B", "P-29-4-1-B" to "P-29-4-8- B", "P-29-5-1-B" to "P-29-5-57-B", "P-29-6-1-B" to "P-29-6-30-B", "P-29-8-1-B" to "P-29-8-3-B", "P- 29-10-1-B" to "P-29-10-10-B", "P-29-11-1-B" to "P-29-11-2-B", "P-29-12-1-B" to "P-29-12-2-B", "P- 29-13-1-B" to "P-29-13-8-B", "P-29-14-1-B", "P-29-15-1-B" to "P-29-15-7-B", "P-29-16-1-B" to "P- 29-16-5-B", and "P-29-17-1-B". 89 Exhibits "P-30-1-1-B" to "P-30-1-26-B", "P-30-2-1-B" to "P-30-2-5-B", "P-30-3-1-B" to "P-30-3-24- B", "P-30-4-1-B" to "P~30~4~2~B", "P~ 30~5~ 1-B", "P-30~6~ 1~B", "P-30-7-1 ~B" to "P-30~7~2-B", and "P- 30-8-1-B". 90 Exhibit "P-31-1-1-B". 91 Exhibits "P-29-1-1-C" to "P-29-1-125-C", "P-29-4-1-C" to "P-29-4-9-C", "P-29-5-1-C" to "P-29-5-68- C", "P-29-7-1-C" to "P-29-7-13-C", "P-29-8-1-C" to "P-29-8-5-C", "P-29-9-1-C", "P-29-1 0-1-C" to "P- 29-10-9-C", "P-29-11-1-C" to "P-29-11-8-C", "P-29-12-1-C" to "P-29-12-2-C", "P-29-13-1-C" to "P- 29-13-25-C", "P-29-15-1-C" to "P-29-15-9-C", "P-29-16-1-C" to "P-29-16-13-C", "P-29-17-1-C" to "P- 29-17-3-C", and "P-29-18-1-C" to "P-29-18-3-C". 92 Exhibits "P-30-1-1-C" to "P-30-1-39-C", "P-30-3-1-C" to "P-30-3-30-C", "P-30-5-1-C", "P-30-6-1-C" to "P-30-6-3-C", "P-30-7-1-C" to "P-30-7-2-C", "P-30-8-1-C" to "P-30-8-4-C", and "P-30-1 0-1-C" to "P-30-1 0-2-C". 93 Table 7, Exhibit "P-17", ICPA Amended Report, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 619 to 622. 94 Annexes H-1 and H-2, Exhibit "P-17", ICPA Amended Report, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 695 to 698; Annex H-2, Docket- Vol. 2, p. 557. 95 Pertains to CWT issued by Propriedod del Norte, Inc. amounting to 1'71,919.64 but not recorded in the books and recorded CWT from Quezon Power (Philippines) Ltd. Co. amounting to 1'60,275.25 (Sum of 1'26,511.60 and 1'33,763.65) but not reported in the SAWT, Table I, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 614; Annexes H-1 and H-4, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 697 and 702, respectively.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 18 of23 For FY 2018, petitioner reported in its Annual ITR the amount of P873,211,368.00 as Net Sales/Revenues/Receipts/Fees.96 Comparing the same to the total revenues per GLIAFS in the amount ofP914,180,355.00,97 there is a variance of P40,968,987.00,98 reconciled by the Court- commissioned ICPA, as follows: Account Title Subjected to Not Subjected Total Exhibit CWT toCWT No. i R,eyell~~p~r(:ii,.J')'2QI~99 . . . ...................................,,.,,........�..��.�����������������1 1'137,539,579101 ! 1'582,3271993 i "P-37" . ....................... ,...................................... 11_ ������������������������������������������ . GL 528-71-01-114001 .. �--j... 1'444,768,4 woo . .................!! ?,?79!..... �������3����7�����5�����,��2�����3�����2����,���9����7�����9���������!!����� 375.,~.3. International Sales If...... i. "P-35" .... i Less: Unbilled Work "P-36-1" to I' .. . 4},360,617 i 43,360617 j "P-36-3" !..... .l.. P9I4,I80,35~ j i �--~-~y-~-~-~-~ _p_~_,.___G.~!.~I-~. . .. considered income not subject to tax 102 ---- !:......L......e....s....s...:.......S.....e,,..,r._ vices rendered outside PH . i Services rendered to . .... 37,718,055 ! I . ..... foreign cli~.nts.. i 1'37,718,055 Services rendered to .... 1,~99,749 i 1,699,749 ! ...................................... !.... ''P-38" Services rendered outside i PH but unbilled as of FY . 1,551,183 i 1,551,183 j "P-38" ' l'otai2s0~1~8i~~s rendered ---'P'--4"'0'-'-,9-=-68,,~98'-'7--'I i . ._i ! outside PH 1'~73,~11 ,36~ J "P-5" I GL.:: R.e~enue, net of 1'873,211,368 i...... ~-----~~--~-Y-~-~!-~.-.()l:lt~.~-~-~---r" Difference!'-_ _ _ _o_.o_O....;i. ' Revenue- ITR I for FY 2018 I The Court-commissioned ICPA explained that the P40,968,987.00 variance pertains to the revenues generated from international and local clients, of which the services were performed outside the Philippines, thus, considered by petitioner as not subject to tax in the Philippines. 103 Furthermore, a comparison between the revenues subjected to CWTs per GL for FY 2018 amounting to P444,768,414.00, as shown in the reconciliation above, against the revenues subject to CWTs per SAWT amounting to P557, 115,404.00,104 shows a variance of P112,346,990.00, 105 reconciled by the Court-commissioned ICPA, as follows: 106 \ 96 Line 30, Exhibit "P-5", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 905. 97 Service Fees, Statements of Comprehensive Income. Exhibit "P-27"; Note 17 of AFS, Exhibit "P-27". 98 1'914,180,355.00 less 1'873,211,368.00. 99 Table 5, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, p. 616. 100 Annexes A-1 to A-18, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 631 to 649. 101 Annexes F and G, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 684 to 694. 102 Item 5, Findings and Observations. Exhibit "P-17". Docket- Vol. 2. p. 615. 103 Item 5, Findings and Observations, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, p. 615. 104 Exhibits "P-22-1" to "P-22-12". 105 1'557,115,404.00 less 1'444,768,414.00. 106 Table 6.2, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 616.

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page I9 of23 Description Annex Amount i ~91~ J{evenue.su]Jj~ctedto C::\\'Tsper (}I, .................L.. Annex A . ....j.... 1'..4.<\4.,..7().8_,414. 1 'Add: j A. Revenue recorded and reported in FY 20 I 7 and 20 I 6 ITR i but collected and subjected to withholding tax only in FY i ~~ctiJ1g2Q18 . i , 2017 J{evenue �" 66,pQ,556 .i ����������������-------1 I 656,000 : , ...... ...... Annex E-1 I' 67,876,556 : !�----- 2016 Revenue Annex E-2 PSJ2,()44,970 i Total <:w� ' ..........j .... i 'f;)!~lr~y�~~� ~~iie~~�~ ~"~ �~~j~c!ed ~~ . . . .i..... !�ADidfdf:eren~e inthereceiptrep~rtectby peiiiioner's client per BIR !.. .. j ...... i Form 2307 and the receipt recorded in the petitioner's ledger i (Portion ofGross receipts/revenue reflected in the B!Rform but i ...~.ot..r~.c.or.dedifl.fbeQLJ.o~.f.iscal Yeq~ ~nd_ed_ J.OI8J ... . .j ...... .... 1'18,5~2.~66 : ...... ~5,887,.?.6.8... ! 20 18Revenue Annex H-1 :,--.. I' 44,470,434 ! i������ 2017 Revenue : AnnexH:2 i J'557,ll5,404 . Total ' L~~yen~is~b}eci~!i(;;\Yith.holclingT�.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PSS7,115,404 ' , ... ______ !.. ~eyenue.Su_bject_ecl..t.o...\Y.ithholdi.J1g.Taxper. SA\Y.T... 1' ..... .......................................... 0.ifference .....;:o;:.:.O;.:O_.; . _ i_ _ _ _ Notwithstanding the timing difference, the ICPA found that the revenues amounting to P67,876,556.00, as shown in the table above, was still recorded and reported by petitioner as part of its gross income, albeit during a different taxable period, i.e., FYs 2017 and 2016. In Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc., 107 the Supreme Court elucidated that the delay in the receipt of CWT Certificates is not fatal as what is important is that the income per CWT Certificates were reported in the ITRs, albeit for prior years, viz.: "It must be noted that while the income payments from which the CWTs which were declared in its return covered the years 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was nothing wrong with it as what is important is that the respondent complied with the third requisite, that is, the income which the taxes were withheld was included in the returns of the respondent. The CIA En Bane correctly appreciated the explanation of the independent CPA (!CPA) why the income payments from which the CWT amounting to Pl2,729,617.90 were withheld, were declared in its returns covering the years 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. In gist, the !CPA suggests that there were delays in collection of certain income payments to respondent. For one, certain sales made by respondent to its dealers in 2008 and 2009 were only paid in 2010. In other words, there were certain income payments which, although respondent expected to receive in 2006, 2008 and 2009, were only remitted to it in 2010. As concluded by the CTAEn Bane, the delay in collection of certain income payments of respondent caused the timing difference between the actual reporting of the income by respondent and the actual withholding of the corresponding creditable income tax by respondent's customers. What is important is that the 1�7 G.R. No. 231581, ApriiiO, 2019. \

DECISION CTA Case No. I0374 Page 20 of23 creditable withholding taxes corresponding to the related income in the respondent's books for CY's 2006, 2008 and 2009 were not yet claimed as income tax credits in respondent's annual ITRs corresponding to the said years. Hence, it is just proper that these income payments should form part of respondent's tax credit for 2010." (Emphasis supplied) To prove that the 1"67,876,556.00 revenues formed part of petitioner's declared income per Annual ITR for FYs 2017 and 2016, petitioner offered in evidence its Annual ITR for FYs 2017108 and 2016, 109 GL ofRevenue for FYs 2017 110 and 2016, 111 Journal Entry Vouchers for FYs 2017 112 and 2016, 113 ORs for FYs 2017 114 and 2016, 115 billing statements for FY 2017, 116 and !CPA Report for FYs 2017 and 2016. 117 While it is true that the delay in the receipt of CWT Certificates is not fatal as what is important is that the income per CWT Certificates were reported in the ITRs, albeit for prior years, 118 the amount of revenues reported in petitioner's GL for FYs 2017 and 2016 did not tally with the amount of revenues declared in the Annual ITR for FYs 2017 and 2016, as follows: FY ! Revenues per ITR i Revenues per GL Difference P460,015,101.21 120 I I 2017 !'536,581,845 ! 119 i p 76,566,743.79 357,904,884.29122 1 i 101,896,461.71 f....... t !�� ................ ,.....................................,,., ..,____ ...... 2016 459,801,346121 i Petitioner, however, did not provide a reconciliation ofthe revenues per GL against the reported revenues per ITR. Thus, the Court cannot ascertain whether the 1"67,876,556.00 revenue was included in petitioner's Annual ITR for FYs 2017 and 2016. As such, it is appropriate for the Court to disallow the related CWT Certificates amounting to 1"7,386,676.00. 123 II\ 108 Exhibit "P-26-11 ". 109 Exhibit "P-26-10". 110 Exhibit "P-24-2". 111 Exhibit "P-24-3". 112 Exhibits "P-33-l" to "P-33-1 on. 113 Exhibit "P-34-1 ". 114 Exhibits "P-30-1-1-B" to "P-30-1-26-B", "P-30-2-1-B" to "P-30-2-5-B", "P-30-3-1-B" to "P-30-3-24-B", "P-30-4-1-B" to "P-30-4-2-B", "P-30-5-1-B", "P-30-6-1-B", "P-30-7-1-B" to "P-30-7-2-B", "P-30-8-1- B". 115 Exhibit "P-31-1-1-B". 116 Exhibit "P-30-1-1-C" to "P-30-1-39-C", "P-30-3-1-C" to "P-30-3-30-C", "P-30-5-1-C", "P-30-6-1-C" to "P-30-6-3-C", "P-30-7-1-C" to "P-30-7-2-C", "P-30-8-1-C" to "P-30-8-4-C", and "P-30-10-1-C" to "P- 30-1 0-2-C". 117 Exhibits "P-42-1" and "P-42-2", respectively. 118 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 231581, April 10, 2019. 119 Line 6. Schedule 1 -Soles/Revenues/Receipts/Fees. Exhibit "P-26-11 ". p. 3 of 8. 120 Exhibit "P-24-2". 121 Line 6, Schedule 1- Sales/Revenues/Receipts/Fees, Exhibit "P-26-10", p. 3. 122 Exhibit "P-24-3". 123 Sum ofl'7,353,556.00 and 1'33, 120.00, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 621 to 622.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 21 of23 With regard to the f'44,470,434.00 difference in the revenue/receipt reported by petitioner's clients per BIR Form No. 2307 and the revenue/receipt recorded in the petitioner's ledger, the ICPA verified that such difference is mainly attributable to (1) foreign exchange difference, and (2) erroneous application of withholding tax rate by petitioner's customer from revenue that originates from FYs 2018 and 2017, amounting to f'18,582,865.00 and f'25,887 ,569.00, respectively, and collected in 2018, as follows: 124 Foreign Erroneous Total exchange application of ' difference per withholding Petitioner's tax rate by the books and petitioner's CWT customer126 Certificate 125 Difference in the receipt reported by petitioner's client per BIR Form i 23 07 and the receipt recorded in the i petitioner's ledger 1 From FY Ending 2018 Revenue127 i l" 1,613,695 !"16,969,170 I !"18,582,865 ... ~~<>Ill ~):' ~nding 2017 J3:ey~11\le128 !.__.�_��-=���=.-��-=-���-=-23':::8:-',6'::800:8:--j.f.------:::-=2::,5.:.:,6c::-4C:'8'::-8::C81::-+j--='2::.:5~,8=-:8:-::7.:.:.,5:::6-:-19 ! TOTAL P 1,852,383; P42,618,051 i P44,470,434 As ascertained by the ICPA, the net foreign exchange discrepancy of f'1,852,383.00 between petitioner's books and CWT Certificates was due to petitioner's practice of converting its foreign currency billings to its customers to Philippine Peso using the prevailing foreign exchange rate at the time the transactions are recorded in its books. On the other hand, the foreign exchange rate used by petitioner's customers in the CWT Certificates are different. Hence, causing a discrepancy in the net amount off'1,852,383.00 between gross sales subject to withholding tax per SAWT and sales per GL. 129 Moreover, the discrepancy in the net amount of f'42,618,051.00 pertains to certain transactions where there were differences in the withholding tax base between the amount reported in the BIR Form No. 2307/SAWT and the amount reported in the billing statements/GL. Petitioner claims that the revenue reported in the said BIR Form No. 2307 was the grossed-up value. As verified by the Court-commissioned !CPA, the related ORs issued show that the amount of revenues actually collected was different from the amount reported in BIR Form No. 2307, but bearing the same amount ofCWT. Hence, the different tax rates used in the BIR Form No. 2307, and the actual rate used per ORs resulted in an over/under statement of the tax 124 Table 6.2.I, Item b., Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 617 to 618. \ 125 Annex H-3. Exhihit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2. pp. 699 to 701. 126 Annex H-4, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 702. 127 Annex H-1, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 695 to 697. 128 Annex H-2, Exhibit "P-17", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 698; See also Docket- Vol. 2, p. 557. 129 Item 7.b.l., Findings and Observations, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 617 to 618.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 22 of23 base/income payment as reported in the BIR Form No. 2307. Thus, the net difference was added to the revenue reported in the GL to arrive at the revenue subjected to withholding tax per SAWT. 130 Considering the foregoing, petitioner was able to prove that the income payments related to the CWTs ofP50,743,712.18, formed part ofthe income declared in its FY 2018 Annual ITR; thus, the third requisite was complied with. In sum, petltwner has sufficiently proven that it is entitled to a refund/TCC in the amount of P50,743,712.18, representing its excess and unutilized CWTs for FY 2018, computed as follows: Amount of claim Amount of CWT Less disallowances: P59.134,055.00 CWT related to revenues not traced in FY 2017 ITR (7,353,556.00) CWT related to revenues not traced in FY 2016 ITR (33,120.00) CWT not valid per ICPA's verification CWT not valid per this Court's verification (842,973.00) TOTAL (160,693.82) P50,743,712.18 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent 1s ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner, the amount of P50,743,712.18, representing its excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWTs) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ~. ~ 7\.-.- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 130 Item 7.b.2., Findings and Observations, Exhibit "P-17'', Docket- Vol. 2, p. 618.

DECISION CTA Case No. 10374 Page 23 of23 Justice 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. ~. ~ ..,..._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the write of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice