CTA Case No. 3949 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ARMI CORPORATION, Petitioner~ - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 3949 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Res pondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - X DEC I s I 0 N Suit filed by petitioner Armi Corporation for recovery of the amount of P257~ 2 14.99 representing e}:cess~ tel alleged occupancy ta}: payments during the period from the first quarter� of 1983 to the second quarter o �f 1983 under Section 20 5-A of the applicable National Internal Revenue Code. It appears that the e>:cess payments arose on account of the error of petitioner in paying the 10/. hotel occupancy tax under Section 205-A of the applicable '�

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3949 - 2- Ta>: Code, not on 1 y on its gr--~ss r-eceipts fr-om the hotel bLisiness but also on its r-eceipts r-epr-esenting lease r-entals r-eceived by it in connection with its apar-tment leasing business. After- this Cour-t has admitted petitioner-'s evidence in s .. 1por-t of its c 1aim for- r-efund, and this case was set for- hear-ing for- r-espondent to pr-esent his evidence, r-espondent Commissioner- of Inter-nal Revenue, thr-ough counse 1 , simply manifested dur-ing the hear-ing that "he finds petitioner-'s E>:hibit "G", apar-tel licenses issued by the Ministr-y of Tour-ism on Januar-y 3, 1983 and Januar-y 3, 1984, showing that petitioner- was duly r-egister-ed and licensed as an apar-tel and to oper-ate as such, ir-r-efutable; and with the pr-esentation of such exhibit by petitioner-, he (r-espondent) cons-ider-s this case settled. Respondent fur-ther- manifested that he has no objection to the Cou-r-t... gr-anting petitioner-'s claim for- r-efund" . (Minutes of the session held by the .Cour-t, July 5, 1988; p. 106, CTA r-ecor-ds.) With this manifestation of r-espondent, the I facts as alleged in the petition for- r-eview may now

DECISION ... CTA CASE ND. 3949 3 be;? c:onsiden?d as not disputed. {.)s stated in the petition: That the petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic: of the Phi 1 ippines with business address at the Gilarmi Apartments, 52 Ayala Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila; That the petitio~er operates an apartment hotel duly licensed as an apartel by the Department o �f Tourism; That under such license, the petitioner is engag f:?d in t.hf? business of leasing out apartments under duly executed contracts of leases for periods of not les s than 15 days under the pertinent provisions of the "Rules 8~ Regul.3.tions governing the business opf?r�ations of apartment-hotels (apartels), Tourist Inns, Pension Houses, Motor- Hote 1s ( Motf? 1s) , Lodging Houses and other simi 1ar est.ab 1i shmen ts", more specifically under Chapter II, Section 2 thereof, signed by Secretary Jose D. Aspiras of the Mi~istry of Tourism, on May 10, 1977; 60

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3949 - 4 -� As such 1essor- of apar-tments, the petitioner- has paid the f i :-~ed real estate dealer's pr-escribed in Section 192( 3 ) (aa) of the National Int~r-nal Revenue Cod~;~ The peti. tioner- .::>.1 so appr�opr- iates the use of some of its apartments for the occupancy of transient guests, thereby enjoying in the hotel business under the authority of Chapt. II, Section 5 of the "Rules ~~. Regulations governing the business operations of apar-tment hote 1s (a parte 1) tourist Inns , Pension Houses, .Motor- hotels (motels), lodging houses and other similar estab 1 ishmen ts" signed by Secr-etar-y .los e D . As pir-as of the Ministry of Tour-i s m, Republi c of the Philippines, on May 10, 1977. That for the first quarter- of 1983 to the second quarter- of 1983, the petitioner- er-roneous 1y paid the hotel occupancy tax under Section 205-A of the Tax Code not on 1. y on its gross receipts from the hote 1. bus . �1ess, but a 1 so on the 1ease r-en ta 1 s r-eceived by it in connection with its apar-tment leasing business; hence, it had over paid the room �

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3949 - 5- occupancy tax during the said period in the amount P257~214.99. The room occupancy ta:-: payments made by the petitioner� are ev ic:lenced by peti ticmer' s business ta>~ returns, payment c:lr-der�s and Confirmation Receipt Nos. B- 2376683 and B- 2345991. dated April 30, 1.983 and July 22nd, 1983, respectively. By a letter dated April 1.8, 1.985, counsel for petitioner �f i 1 ed a c_l ~im for ref11.nd of taxes paid under Section 205-A of the Tax Code with the Chief~ Appellate Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the amount of P257,21.4.99, which letter was duly received by the Chief~ Appellate Division on even d<::\ te. Petitioner submitted Exhibit K, which is a statement showing the se~;.~r- egation of �the receipts from the hotel business as defined under the Rules and Regulations of the then Ministr-y of Tourism fr�om the lease rentals received during the same period by petitioner under t~p contracts of leases e :�: ec u ted between the long staying guests and 02

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3949 - 6- petitioner as 1 essor s hp wing that it had overpaid the amount of P257,214.99. Thus: Per Quarterly Tax Rentals Fro� Tax Clail long Staying For ~!.\!.!':D~ Guests Refund Apart1ent Tax ~R~.l~b p_~!.~. 1st Quarter 1983 P3,727,339.95 P410,007.40 P1,631,269.01 P163,126.90 2nd Quarter 1983 .}J.ZP.ft,1~~!J~ ~H~-~.~~.!1~ _.__9JQ.&~Q!_~_Q ___9_!,_9lQ..!_Q~ To t a l : P7,496,295.11 P824,592.58 P2,572,149.89 P257,214.99 vvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvvvv As basis of the claim for refund, it appears that during the period under review, petitioner oper��a ted an apar-tment ho tel common 1 y known as the Gi 1 ar mi Apar�tme nt s, which is du 1 y 1 icense d as an " a par-tel" by the Department o �f Tourism. Under suc t1 license, petitioner engaged in the business of leasing out apa r-tments under� duly e:-:ecu te d contr-acts o f leases for� per-iods of not less than fifteen (15) d ays in accordance with the pertinent provis ions of the Rules & Regulations gove r ning the business operations of apartment- hotels (apartels), tourist inns, pension houses, motor- hotels (mote 1s) , lodging houses and other similar establishments, more specifically defined and described under Chapter II, Section 2 thereof, C3

DF:C; I~:; I Cll�l CTA CASE NO . 3949 . . 7 --� signed by th e then Mi.nister J ose D. Aspiras of the ,..,.i. n :i. s t ,.... y 0 "f r n u r� i <;; m , y C) f"l ,.., ,;:, .1. (l ~ l 9 7 7. � ( E ;: h .i b i t .s F t.o r:: ..... .q .. ) As such l essor o"f apartments, the records s how t h i:":\ -1:: pc�? t .it:..ion f? ,,. p,3. i d t hce r� e.::~ l r;,~s; t:. ,:;, tE~ cl f?!,3.l e r� ' :; t o.<.:�: uncle:~,,.. !'3cc t .i. em o"f the applicablE' N;:,, t. ion,;~ 1 Intern a l r:::c,venue Code. (Exhibits H to H-3.) Incl epe ncl e nt of s u c h business, petitioner a l so appro p riated the use of some of its ;:~ p ,,,, ,,.. t .mE�~ n t <::; f n ,,.. t h r:-:> u ~::; c"'! "'' n d CJ c:: c 1.�.1p an c: y o "f t. ,,.. '"' n s .1. e r�, t thE�' ,:0\ut. I�Jol'"".i."l: y of Ch.:":\pt.E!r- I I, f:3c::>ct.ion ~;,~ of thf? Fulc::~r:; C:\ n d F\f:~ q u l ,;:, t ..inn '5 qovf:~ ,,. n .i. n q t r ��,r.-~ hu s .i. r�1c::~<::;<:; u pc::'! l'.. "'' t. i nr�1 s Df "''�p '"' r� t .mf.�? n t. ( c:\par��t(~' 1) , tour� :i.s t pE>n<::; .i. on rno to ,,...... ,..,o t(�? 1 s ( rn ot.E�! l <:;), l odqinq houses and other simi l ar establishments. As stated above, for the first quarter Df 1983 tn t:. hr::.-~ :,;r:.~c:orJd quE\r� tc:.el'- o �f l9f:3::::., pr.-?t.i. t.ionr:.-~ r- paid thE~ hotel oc:c:upancy tax under Sec tion 205-A of the la x Code not only on its gross receipts from its hotel business, but receipts; in co n nf:.'c t .i. on \t�J i t h . .i J: ~:; <::~ p,;�, ,,.. tmen t . 1 f.�:~i:'i !'5 :i. n q bu s :i. n e~><:;, on sc

DEC I~;:; I ON CTA CASE NO. 3949 which it had already paid f i :-:ed business tax as a real estate dealer. Thf?. paytnl�?. n ts of the hot P l occupancy tax made by petitioner dur�.i.nq thr':.' p �.~r�ioc:l ar� E~ evic:IF:~nc:ed by t.hE~:i.r� I'"E�~~:; pPc::tivE~ c: on �f i nni:~ t .ion paymE:�'nt:. and percentage t ax returns for the period under review. (E:-:h.i.bits I, I -�- 1., I -~.2, I-���~:;, J, ,J�����l, ,J -- ~;;~ and ,J -:3 .) (~nc:l a~:; ~::;t.<~tr:-:-~d ealr liE�~r��, pf?t:itionF!I'" c:ll~:;o subm.i.tt.l7?d E:-:hii:Jit ,.,.. which "'' s t.c:\ tE'tnPn t s howincJ thP r .. , seg regation of the rPceipts from the hotel bus iness as de �f .i. nE~d undf21'. t. hE~ F\u 1 E�'S ~~ F\E~qu l at:. ions n �f t h�-? Ministry of Tourism from the lease rentals received during the sa me period I:Jy petitioner und er th e t:. h E1 lonq that it had overpaid the amount o f P257,2 14. 99. In i:':\ I'" UJ.inl;} .o o�f thl�:�~n Co rnrn i ~:; ~�; ion E' r� Ancheta, marked 0s Exhibit C appearing on pp. 63-65 of the BIR r eco rds, it was held that - 11 tl s r�e p r�t-~s;r.?. n ted , the Ar. rn i CoJ'�por� <'It. ion i.~; author.. .izf.�~d by thP Ministi'"Y of Tour� i~;m to enqage in the businPss of renting apartments and in hotel operation pursuant t.o t. hl':~ r�uJ.0?f:; f?, r�� ei]Ul,:~t.i.on<::; govf:~r-n.i.nq thE7.> business, operations of apartment-hotels ((ip,31'" tE~J.s), yoU!'" client is s-.t-~pal'"o"'tPly 05

DE:C I HI Ul \1 CTA CAHE NU . 3949 ..... 9 ..... !:;I.J.b..iE'ct:. to thE' I"'E'i.:l. l <�?!stat:.f? c:ler.".lt:~ lr�'s CJ I'"a dU c'=ltF.:>d a nnU c':\l 'f.i >:f:>c:l ta:�: �imposed by Section 192(3)(aa) 6f the T ax Code on its apa r t me nt rentals and to the 10% (now 1 2% ) hote l s room occupancy tax� on gross r eceipts from hote l oper~tio n, under Section 205-A of the Tax Code, as cHTlf.~ndE?d"" (.~ �f t .f.? I'" pE�? t .:i. t:i.onf.�?l'" h ;;u:l instant pf:? t .i. t. .i. on �for- r- E~v .i. E.~W, t hf.~ Commi ~:;s:; io n er- o �f In t.F.-?r-n a 1 Revenue ad ministrative l y made a decision dated J un e 30, 1987, Exhibit D appearing on pp. 103-104 of t he BIR r e cord s, that: ".1 . 1 t .h.i. s c::onrH-?c:tion, i t :i.~=.; bel.i..<''�~V<'�? d t h r.' t t �. h<:-~ Ru 1 �'~c::; 8.~ F\ E�~<J U l .::-~ t. :i. on!::; pr.. omu 1 q .::~ tf.�?d by thE�~ Dr:~ par.. tment:. o �f Tnur.. .i.c:; m may not. hE? invoked to s upport the a bove cla im on the ground that your c li ent was r egis tered and q l'.. <:\nl:.Pc:l a l.i. c:E-~ n!::;~-:1 '"'"" <::\n (~pc:l. l'" i:. E! l on l y o n ,J Dn 1...1a ,,. Y 4, :.l. 98 4. In o t h<-:�:' r.. ~~~ol�- c:l c:; !' cl u r:- ,j.f) q :t t1 q ... PE'I'~j, qc:l .. .. .. c:qv<'::~x:: f.:�ct . I:Jy .... . '\:,hq . c; l~:~j. m . �fo~::. I''J''J' .\. .11:1 <J.' ... YQ I,I f.:..... ,bt,l_~::; ,i. l.:l.f?_c:;s .. .0 pP r.-0 t ,,:i...o.n.c,; \�,IE? I'"(�? n C} t . yp t . s �. 1bj f.-?C :t: ....... j :. CJ ......... thE�?. . .....sa .i. d .......... 1::...1,1:tp�:o ..c!:\ n cJ. r~ c-~qt.1). ;:~t. i _p r)5~.� '' ( Un c::l E' I'" c::; c or- in q ~:,,up p 1 .i. c?c:l ) Petiti o ner's c l aim for refund was thus den:i.Pcl. PE~tit.:i.ont:�? l'" su hrn.i.t.tf'~ d i n E~v:i.dr-::> n c:E�~ E::�:hib.its G January 3, 1984~ res pe c t i ve ly, in f avor o f the Arm.i Corpnr-<:~tinn ~ kno ~rJ n the "C3.i. l a nni Ap a r- t.mE~ nt s ''~ to e~;ta bli~=.; h that. p P t..i.t.ion E~ I"� \.'Jas a cs

DE:C I!:; I Ul\1 ..... CTA CASE I\IU. 3949 -- 10 -�- duly 1 i.Cf?.nSC�? d ch.tr ing the p~::? r .i od under n;>v.i.ew. under the df.~c::is.i.on of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated June 30, 1.9H7, F:-:h:i.b.i.t. D, all its busine~.s operations we1"e subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Touri s m, which segregates the apartment leasing business from the business of o p~::? I'" at :i.nq a hotE~l, with c: o I'" r-� f7!~5 pcJn ding obliqation to pc:IY the on its businf?.~,;ses in <::lccord<:\nc::e with how thE~ r-�f?.SpE?cti.vE� bu s i nf?.f.-5Sl7?S arE�~ c::J..::~ssi �fiecl a nd ta:-:F.?d undf.~r- the National Internal Revenue Code. And as defined in the rulinq of . then Commissioner Ruben Ancheta, t.hf.�? I'" E�1C f?. :i. p t: S 0 f pr?t.i t:..i.onPI'- in , E~�:hibit (...,, c: on n E~c t .i. on with i t s Y"!en t. :i. n ct "�� Ot.l. t o'f .::~PC:'=' I'" tme n t s cover�f.�?d by pe1r�iods e:-:c:eeding 'fifteen (1.5) days are subject to the real estate dealer's annual graduated 'fi:-:ed ta:-: imposed undf.�?r� Sec:: t.icm .1. 9:.? ( :::;; ) ( r.:la) o�f the r .:~:-: Codf?. .:md its gross receipts 'from the hotel business 'from guests oc::cupy:i.ng its premisf?.s 'for a pf:?riod of less than fifteen (.1.5) clays subj ec::t .to the hotel 'C ~� -�

.. DE:C I f3 I UN ����� CTA CASE NO. 39 49 _.. 1. .1. -- occupancy tax of .1.0% (now .1. 2 %) und er the provi sio n s of Section 2 0 5- A of the Tax Code~ as amended. F:;:f::~~"; pondent, t.hr.. ou~~h c: oun se l , 'filed a Mani �fe st ation d.:;~.ted May 4~ 1.988 to the e�f~fect that: after a "close examination of petitioner' s documentary evidence pre s centc'?d in the above~;- E?. nt.itled case .:md cont. .:d .ned in i t s "For-mal O�f �fer of .i. t.s Documen t a 1~ y Evidence" dated April 18, 1.988, r- c;~s pondf.?.n t �finds the same .i.rn?. fut:.abl e, and, ther- ~?f ol'.. e, int.erposc:?.s no objection to their admission as well as to the individual purpose for which they are being offered in ev.i.denc::e. (p. 72, CTA records.) lJ.J.i t .h this ma n.i. f f.�~~; t.c3. t. ion and <:~ dm.i.. s~;,.i.on by Y"f.?.sponc:lr::?nt, and C.'\~3 .:~de qu Dte l . y E�)St.c':'lb l i. s hc�? d by the f:?Vic:lc~ncE', th r::? re s ~:~ E~ m s to hr::? no mo r.. e di sp u tE?. that pc:�:�t.ition E" r.. w ;:~f.'i .:�~ hnldE~ I'" of a n C:\p c':'l r.. t:.��?1 lic: c:?. n sE~ duly i ss u e d by thP then 1'1in.i. st:. r-y n �f Touri s m dur-i ng the pc:?. r .inc::l Y"eV:.i.f.?W and that the n..tl e~s and regulation s of the Ministry of Touri s m relating to the treatment of � 1 ic:ensed A parte l s are app 1 icab 1e to petitinner herein. Ac:cor.. d .i.ng 1 y, _a_? a duly licensed apartel, pE�? t.i.t.i.oner� vJ as ce nt it lF.~ d to p a y .it s t.a:-: s eparately C8

DLC J i:) I Uhl ��� CTA CASE NO. 3949 on .it~::. h o tel bu<.:;;.i.n�2S '5 undel'" t:iE~c:tio n 20~.3 - A D f the T a:~ Cuch~, f r. c:>m it�~:; I'' E~ntal p <:l.yme nt. s n'2ce.:i.vE~cl fi'" DITl 3partment l essees~ which are subject to the payment Section 192(3)(aa) Gf the Tax Code . The n f:? :�: t 1 ine o f .in qu i xy :1. s whet he~- pe t..i t ..i m1e t�� r'E~a l l y DVf?~--- paid thl: hot r:,, l. oc:cu.pa.n cy 'l:c"l.:< dur- .i.ng th e PE'r...i.c>d under It un disp Lt tE!d presc ribed und0r Section 192(3) ( aa). of the Tax '--" r-r. nn E!UI...t <:; 1 y i:J.:t .i cl t:. h e~� hot.(?. J. oc c:1.1. p a n c y t.a :-: undt=:r�� tl�lE' <:>E:\fT1F! T a.:-: C::udr:.� ovr.:-:,.... .i.. t <".; q ,... u ~:;�:=i ,....E'C:. E.i. p t.s; , r�1ol: only ft-�nrn .i.ts; r�-r::-�c~:;�.i..pt <:; i.r1 opE'r"at.i. ng c\ ho t.e l~ but .~ l ~;;o on .;;1.r~:c:ou nt of 'thE' l E�~.::'\'::;Fo I'"E:' ntaJ. c.:; .it had received as a rea l estate or apa rtment l essor. The tut.c.' l ta:-: p i:.\y mE?nt<.::; o 'f the p~;~titionPt�- for� a l l th0? SC:I.tc:l r-Pc:Pi. pts ev i .d e ncE!d con 'f i nna tio n p ;:,1y� men t ~::; or �ders a. nd per� cen tage ta:-: rf~~ tu ,.... n s for.. :-1e pf.~r� io d u nde r n:~ view s u b mi t t e d .in .,

DEC I f.:) I Cll\l ����� CTA CASE NO. 39 49 -�- .13 ��- ev.idE-?nce c\f.-5 E :: h:i.bits I, I -�.t , I --2 , I --:::;., ,J, .J--1, ,J -2 C:\rld J -��::::;" Mr. Ce~5c:'\r B. Enriquez, Treasur-er.. of the ?~rmi Corporation, <:\ 1 SC:l test..i. f ied and submit tE~ d in evic!E�nce E>:hii:Ji t K, which is a statement sho~-<l.i.ng the s egregation of the receipts from the lease r-entals r.. eceived by petitioner as a lesso1~, �f,.�om thr�? rE~ceipts <:5 ubjec:t to the hotel occupancy ta:-: under Section 2 05- A of the Tax Code. is duty bound to correctly pa y the hotel occupancy tax only on i t s .hotel bu s in ess , p E~ t.i. tioner- i s undoubtedly entitled to a refund of P257 , 2 14. 9 9 during the period under revi e w. �:. As Cln(:? h is <:"'nd c~ �f �f i r.. ma t. :i. ve defen s es, however , respondent alleges i n hi s a n swer that petitioner all e gedly paid the tax soug ht to be refunded on April 3 0, .1.9H :::;. and Jun<:?. 198~:;. while the pe tition for review was filed on June 2 8, 1985. Obviously, the 2-year period prescribed for filing the jud.i.cic::\1 action �for refund has lapsed; hence, the r-ight tc> claim the refund is bar-red by p r- e s c l '- i p t i . o n . ( G i b b s v s � Co 1 1e c: tor- ,. G � r~ . NCl � L - � 13453, February 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 223.) 1

DEC I ElI Ui'J ..... CTA CASE NU. 3949 �-- .1. 1.1...... As averred in the petition fpr review~ the r� oom . occupancy tax payments by petitioner are evidenced by petitioner's business tax returns~ payment orders and Confirmation Receipt Nos. B- 2376683 and B- 2345991 dated April 30~ 1983 and July 22, 1983~ respectively. And the evidence presented by petitioner clearly and adequately show that the ta:�~ s~ouqht t< be re'func:led �for thE! �f.i.F�"=', t quar. te1�� of 1.983 in thE:> amount of F'.1.6~T.,.126.90 ~t-Ja s pe:\.i.d on 0..P.r:.!.J . :?..(>.,..........t!.?.n.:;;. t:\n d the t.a :�~ fo1r� the-:'? sec: on d qua I"' t:r:?l'" of 19f33 in the surn of P9�4, OBH .. f39 W e::\~:;; paid on ,}_t}J.Y.... Z.~~. , -......:1:?� ~~- (E:�~h.i.bits I~ J-�- .1., I -�- 2~ I -~:;.~ J, ,J �--.1., ,J--�2 and J --3.) The petition f or review for refund or tax credi t of the aforementioned tax payments was filed with this Cour"t on ,JunE! 2H~ .1.9!:3~'� Clf.�?<':\r- ly, thE?r. e for.. e, the two- year per i od prescribed 'for 'filing the judi c ial s uit for refund/credit of the amount of P.163,1 2 6.90 paid on April 20~ .1.983 has lapsed pursuant to (now. Section 243) of the National Internal Revenue Code. It is not necessary for the taxpayer to wait for the decision 11

m:::c I HI C:ll\1 ... . CTA CAHE NO. 3949 -�- .1. ;:i - of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue if he believes that such decision is not forthcoming before expiration of the two-year period. In �fact, he should not wait for such decision because Section 292 (now Section 243) of the Revenue Code requires that court action for recovery of an internal revenue tax erroneously or illegally paid must be instituted within two years after payment. (Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Sweeney, 106 Phil. 59; Gibbs vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, Convention of Phil . Baptist Churches , L- 11807, Jan. 7.:~B, .19B1, .1 SCF~A .1..1.4; Commissj.oner.. of Intr.~ r.. nc:~l Revenue vs. Victoria s Milling, L-2 4.1.08; Jan. �....=.!�' ~ Accordingly, only the amount of P94,088.0B pa id on July 2 2 , 1983 is refundable. WHEREFORE, respondent Commi s sioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to grant a tax credit in favor of petitioner Armi Corporation of the amount of P94,088.0B representing ~xcess occupancy tax payment made under Section 205-A of the applicable

DECif:>IUN ..... CTA CASE NU. 3949 -- :l.b ..... ~ational Int er nal Revenue Code. FlO Clf:WEJ~E D. Qu ezon City, Metro Ma nil a, Septem b er 21, 1 988. ,Judge WE CONCUR: z. ~ An::;oc:: :i. a t.P ,Judqe CE RT I F I CAT I 0 N I that th.i:; dE~c:i s.io n was rPac::h Pd after due consultation a monq thP membe r s of the Cour-t of Tax AppPa l s in ac::cordancP with Section 1 3~ Article VIII of the Con s t i t uti o n. AMANTE FILLER Pr�es.id .nq ,Judqe Court of Tax Appeals