EMERSON ELECTRIC (ASIA) LIMITED - ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION *********** EMERSON ELECTRIC (ASIA) CTA CASE NO. 8532 LIMITED- ROHQ, Members: Petitioner, -versus- CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson, CASANOVA, and COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J1. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, AUG 1 0 2016 _ Respondent. / ~ X-- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / -, - ~- - - - - - -- -- -X (.>: 'fS < �� AMENDED DECISION CASANOVA,L.: Submitted before this Court are respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on November 4, 2015, with petitioner's Comment [on the Motion for Reconsideration of Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue] filed on November 23, 2015; and, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision dated October 19, 2015) filed on November 4, 2015, without respondent's comment as per Records Verification dated December 7, 2015. In the Resolution1 dated January 26, 2016, this Court ordered the setting of the case for hearing on March 9, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. for the presentation of petitioner's additional evidence in support of its Motion for Reconsideration and, at the same time, held the resolution of parties' respective Motions for Reconsideration. During the scheduled hearing, petitioner presented its Tax and Compliance Specialist, Ms. Jeszica Clarisse Alinghawa, to prove, among~' 1 Docket (Vol. III), pp. 1116-1119

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 2 of24 others, that petitioner's sales to its non-resident foreign corporation clients are duly supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s Negative Certifications. As such, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits (In Support of Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated November 9, 2015) 2 on April1, 2016. On May 6, 2016, this Court promulgated a Resolution3 admitting petitioner's exhibits and, thereafter, giving the parties a period of thirty (30) days within which to file their Memoranda. In addition, upon receipt thereof or lapse of the period given, the parties' respective Motions for Reconsideration shall be deemed submitted for resolution. Thus, in compliance thereon, respondent filed his Memorandum4 on June 10, 2016, while petitioner filed its Memorandum (In Support of Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) s on June 13, 2016. Accordingly, the instant Motions for Reconsideration were then deemed submitted for resolution. This Court shall first address petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner claims that it was able to prove that the recipients of its services are non-resident foreign corporations and the sales thereto were duly substantiated as zero- rated transactions. Petitioner points out that this Court erred in disallowing its input value-added tax (VAT) claim to the extent of P9,805,481.98, considering that it was already found, examined and verified by the court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) as duly substantiated. All told, petitioner prays that judgment be rendered granting its entire claim for refund of excess input VAT as originally prayed for, or at the very least, an additional amount of P1,841,197.21, for a total refundable amount of P3,585,995.156. More so, in its supplemental evidence, petitioner presented the following documents to prove that the recipients of its services are non- resident foreign corporations, to wit:d&-- z Ibid., pp. 1156-1161 3 /d., pp. 1195-1196 4 /d., pp.1197-1205 5 /d., pp. 1206-1222 6 P1,841,197.21 + P1,744,797.94 (as per Decision dated October 19, 2015)

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 3 of24 Recipient Sales Articles of SEC Incorl!_oration Certificates AIR COMFORT PRODUCTS p 253,065.63 CIM-INDUSTRIAL MOTORS DIVISION "LL-1" "MM-1" DANIEL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL 53,326,950.53 "LL-7" "MM-13" [CA) "LL-12" "MM-19" DANIEL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL 5,066,722.55 [TX) "LL-13" "MM-20" EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES 21,325,290.02 [HK) "LL-16" "MM-25" EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES 2,440,981.00 [USA) "LL-17" "MM-26" EMERSON NETWORK POWER- 125,463,853.99 EMBEDDED POWER "LL-22" "MM-36" EMERSON NETWORK POWER 2,813,509.87 (THAILAND) CO. LTD. -VIETNAM "LL-27" "MM-44" REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE 22,913.46 EMERSON NETWORK POWER "LL-30" "MM-47" ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY SERVICES 4,416,187.46 EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT "LL-37" "MM-54" [FRANCE) 141,461.19 EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT "LL-39" "MM-58" GMBH & CO. OHG ARGELSRI 4,675,588.70 EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT "LL-40" "MM-60" NV/SA 152,690.12 "LL-47" "MM-71" FUSITE 2,793,903.49 "LL-51" "MM-76" INTERMETRO 19,436,505.67 "LL-58" "MM-87" REGULATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 23,406,458.4 7 "LL-35" EMERSON POWER TRANSMISSION 41,035,643.96 "LL-5" "0" ASCO POWER TECHNOLOGIES, LP 28,643,072.83 "LL-33" "U-5" EMERSON NETWORK POWER UK LTD. 11,128,906.68 "U-6" P346,543,705.61 TOTAL AMOUNT Hence, petitioner posits that the amount of P346,543,705.61 should be added to its duly-substantiated zero-rated sales. After due consideration of the arguments advanced by petitioner, this Court finds no merit in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In the assailed Decision dated October 19, 2015, it was held that to be considered as a non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported, at the very least, by both SEC Certificate of Non-Registration and proof of incorporation or registration in a foreign country (e.g. Certificate of Incorporation, Memorandum and Articles of Association and Certificate ot.._

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 4 of24 Registration). After careful scrutiny of the supplemental evidence presented by petitioner, this Court arrived at the following observations, viz: 1. Petitioner failed to prove that two (2) of its clients, AIR COMFORT PRODUCTS and FUSITE, were indeed registered in a foreign country during the period subject for refund, i.e., FY 2010. The Registrations of Fictitious Name supported by Exhibits LL-1.5 and LL-47.5, which purportedly support the registration of the aforementioned clients, were filed only on June 8, 2012 and October 23, 2012, respectively. 2. Certain names of petitioner's clients differ from that which are indicated in their respective Articles of Incorporation/Certificate of Registration/Association. Having such difference, this Court cannot verify whether they are one and the same entity, to wit: CIM-INDUSTRIAL MOTORS DIVISION. Based on the Registration of Fictitious Name (Exhibit LL-7.5), the entity under registration is ~~Emerson Industrial Motors and Systems"; EMERSON NETWORK POWER (THAILAND) CO. LTD. - VIETNAM REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-27.3 is CONG TY TNHH Emerson Network Power (Vietnam); and EMERSON NETWORK POWER ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY SERVICES. The Certificate of Full Registry Record and Articles of Association (Exhibits LL-30.22 to LL- 30.2 7) only reflects the incorporation of Emerson Japan. Ltd. 3. There are clients whose names are virtually identical to another; it must be stressed that even a slight difference in name can sometimes refer to another entity. E.g. DANIEL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL (CA) and DANIEL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL (TX). While the two seemed the same, it appears, however, to be two different entities based on the list of petitioner's clients. Likewise, a perusal of Exhibits LL-12.4 and LL- 13.3 shows that the registered name of a corporation therein is ~

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 5 of24 DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL~ INC., which is alsol apparently~ different from the names of the other companies petitioner asserts to be validly registered in a foreign country. Simply put1 this Court cannot acquiesce to the allegation that Daniel Measurement & Control (CA)~ Daniel Measurement & Control (TX) and Daniel Measurement and Controt Inc. are one and the same entity. The same observation goes with the following entities: a) EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (HK) - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-16.2 is Emerson Climate Technologies; b) EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (USA) - the registered name indicated in Exhibits LL-17.3 to 17.4 is Emerson Climate Technologies. Inc.; c) EMERSON NETWORK POWER- EMBEDDED POWER- the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-22.4 is Emerson Network Power - Embedded Computing and Power (Hong Kong) Limited; d) EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT (FRANCE) - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-37.2 is Emerson Process Management; e) EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. OHG ARGELSRI - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-39.2 is Emerson Process Management GmbH & Co. OHG Argelsrieder Feld 3; f) EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT NV/SA - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-40.3 is Emerson Process Management GmbH & Co. OHG; g) INTERMETRO - the registered name indicated in Exhibits LL-51.3 and LL-51.8 is lntermetro Industries Corporation; h) REGULATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - the registered name indicated in Exhibits LL-58.3 and LL-58.10 is Emerson Process Management Regulator Technologies. Inc.;_.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 6 of24 i) EMERSON POWER TRANSMISSION - the registered name indicated in Exhibit LL-35.4 is Emerson Power Transmission Corporation; and j) EMERSON NETWORK POWER UK LTD - the registered name indicated in Exhibits LL-33.2 and LL-33.9 is Emerson Network Power Limited. As such, due to the above-stated reasons, the preceding entities' Certification or Articles of Incorporation/Association/Registration cannot be given weight. Obviously, the said entities cannot be considered as non-resident foreign corporations and petitioner's sales therefrom cannot qualify as zero-rated sales. However, with regard to ASCO POWER TECHNOLOGIES, LP, it should be clarified that this Court had already considered it as a non-resident foreign corporation in the Decision dated October 19, 2015. Thus, petitioner's sales thereto, which were properly supported by invoices, official receipts and proof of inward remittances, were rightfully subjected to zero-rating. Continuing thereon, petitioner asserts that the disallowances of the following input VAT made by this Court, and that of the ICPA, lack factual and legal bases, to wit: Finding/s by: Description Amount ICPA Services supported with original ORs but p 438,571.94 Court noATP Input tax on purchases of goods supported 7,143.75 Court by invoices not duly registered with the BIR 12,000.00 Input tax on purchases of services p 457,715.69 supported by invoices not duly registered with the BIR Total In support, petitioner cites the case of Intel Technology Philippines~ Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue7 ("Intel case") and BIR Ruling No. 341-20118 to bolster its claim, viz:4111 7 G.R. No. 166732, April27, 2007 8 Dated September 8, 2011

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 7 of24 "It is clear from the foregoing that while entities engaged in business are required to secure from the BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and to issue duly registered receipts or invoices, it is not required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Only the following items are required to be indicated in the receipts or invoices: (1) a statement that the seller is a VAT-registered entity followed by its TIN-V; (2) the total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax; (3) date of the transaction; (4) quantity of merchandise; (5) unit cost; (6) description of merchandise or nature of service; (7) the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser, customer or client in the case of sales, receipt or transfers in the amount of P100.00 or more, or regardless of the amount, where the sale or transfer is made by a person liable to VAT to another person also liable to VAT, or where the receipt is issued to cover payment made as rentals, commissions, compensations or fees; and (8) the TIN of the purchaser where the purchaser is a VAT-registered person."9 While in BIR Ruling No. 341-2011: "It has been settled in Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts because there is no law or regulation requiring it. Thus, in the absence of such law or regulation, failure to print the ATP on the invoices or receipts should not result in the outright denial of a claim or the invalidation of the invoices or receipts for purposes of claiming a refund. But while there is no law requiring the ATP to be printed on the invoices or receipts, Section 238 of the NIRC expressly requires persons engaged in business to secure an ATP from the BIR prior to printing invoices or receipts. Failure to do so makes the person liable under Section 264 of the NIRC."to Nonetheless, reliance on the Intel case is misplaced,_ 9 Paragraph 21 of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, Docket (Vol. II), pp.1055-1056 10 Par. 22, ibid., p. 1056

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 8 of24 Verily, this Court's disallowance of petitioner's invoices and official receipts covering input VAT in the amount of P457,715.69 finds support in Section 238 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which reads as follows: "SEC. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Bureau of Internal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices before a printer can print the same. No authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall be granted unless the receipts or invoices to be printed are serially numbered and shall show, among other things, the name, business style, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and business address of the person or entity to use the same, and such other information that may be required by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner. All persons who print receipt or sales or commercial invoices shall maintain a logbook/register of taxpayers who availed of their printing services. The logbook/register shall contain the following information: (1) Names, Taxpayer Identification Numbers of the persons or entities for whom the receipts or sales or commercial invoices were printed; and (2) Number of booklets, number of sets per booklet, number of copies per set and the serial numbers of the receipts or invoices in each booklet." (Emphasis Ours] While it is true that in the Intel case, it was held that the BIR authority to print need not be specifically indicated in the invoices or receipts per se, the Supreme Court, however, further clarified that business entities are required to secure from the BIR an authority to print receipts or invoices and that the corresponding receipts or invoices issued are duly registered, thus: "It bears reiterating that while the pertinent provisions of the Tax Code and the rules and regulations implementing them require entities engaged in business to secure a BIR authority to print invoices or receipts and to issue duly~

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 9 of24 registered invoices or receipts, it is not specifically required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Indeed, what is important with respect to the BIR authority to print is that it has been secured or obtained by the taxpayer, and that invoices or receipts are duly registered." (Emphasis Ours) The above pronouncement was further elucidated in the case of Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue11, wherein the Supreme Court ruled as follows: "Printing the ATP on the invoices or receipts is not required It has been settled in Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts because there is no law or regulation requiring it. Thus, in the absence of such law or regulation, failure to print the ATP on the invoices or receipts should not result in the outright denial of a claim or the invalidation of the invoices or receipts for purposes of claiming a refund. ATP must be secured from the BIR But while there is no law requiring the ATP to be printed on the invoices or receipts, Section 238 of the NIRC expressly requires persons engaged in business to secure an ATP from the BIR prior to printing invoices or receipts. Failure to do so makes the person liable under Section 264 of the NIRC. This brings us to the question of whether a claimant for unutilized input VAT on zero-rated sales is required to present proof that it has secured an ATP from the BIR prior to the printing of its invoices or receipts. We rule in the affirmative. Under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC, a claimant must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. To prove this, duly registered invoices or receipts evidencing zero-rated sales must be presented. However, since the ATP is,.. u G.R. No. 172378, January 17, 2011

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 10 of24 not indicated in the invoices or receipts, the only way to verify whether the invoices or receipts are duly registered is by requiring the claimant to present its ATP from the BIR. Without this proof, the invoices or receipts would have no probative value for the purpose of refund. In the case of Intel, we emphasized that: It bears reiterating that while the pertinent provisions of the Tax Code and the rules and regulations implementing them require entities engaged in business to secure a BIR authority to print invoices or receipts and to issue duly registered invoices or receipts, it is not specifically required that the BIR authority to print be reflected or indicated therein. Indeed, what is important with respect to the BIR authority to print is that it has been secured or obtained by the taxpayer, and that invoices or receipts are duly registered." (Citations Omitted) Accordingly, considering that petitioner failed to show that its suppliers had properly secured a BIR authority to print, or that the said invoices and official receipts were duly registered with the BIR, then the invoices and official receipts covering the input VAT of P457,715.69 shall still remain as disallowed. As to other reasons for the denial of its claimed input VAT, petitioner insists that this Court erroneously disregarded the findings of the ICPA who, after having meticulously examined and verified each of the voluminous documents submitted, attested to the facts in his ICPA Report. This Court is not swayed. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the Court is not bound by the findings of the ICPA. The report submitted by the ICPA is but a tool or guide to aid the Court in the resolution of the case. The determination of the merit or the probative value of such report is still within the province of the Court. The Court is free to adopt or disregard, completely or partially, the findings of the ICPA. It can even make its own audit and evaluation of the documents pertinent to the case presented during the trial in order to intelligently resolve the conflict brought before it.l~ 12 First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation vs. CIR, CTA En Bane Case No. 563, March 1, 2011

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 11 of24 As held in the case, Davao City Water District vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenuel3, thus: "In any event, let it be stressed that the Court is not bound by the finding of the ICPA. The ICPA is commissioned merely to assist the Court in the determination of merit of taxpayer's claim for refund/tax credit. The Court may adopt totally or partially the ICPA's Report depending on its own appreciation of the documents upon which the ICPA report is based. In other words, the Court will examine and verify the documents audited or examined by the ICPA. Precisely, the requirements to present to the Court and formally offer each and every document in support of taxpayer's claim for refund/tax credit. In fact, on the basis of its own finding, the Court may render judgment without considering the ICPA Report. The ICPA Report is only persuasive in nature and not conclusive upon the Court. On the matter, Section 3, Rule 13 of the RRCTA, relevantly provides, thus: SEC. 3. Findings of independent CPA. - The submission by the independent CPA of pre-marked documentary exhibits shall be subject to verification and comparison with the original documents. the availability of which shall be the primary responsibility of the party possessing such documents and, secondarily, by the independent CPA. The findings and conclusions of the independent CPA may be challenged by the parties and shall not be conclusive upon the Court, which may, in whole or in part, adopt such findings and conclusions subject to verification. (Underscoring and boldfacing supplied) Evidently, the availment of the services of an ICPA pursuant to Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of the CTA does not relieve petitioner of the mandatory requisites of premarking photocopies of documentary exhibits and submitting them all to the Court after the ICPA shall have examined and compared them with the originals. Without presentation and formal offer of these premarked documents - from which the alleged summary and schedules were based - the Court cannot.._ 13 CTA Case Nos. 8505 & 8575, April27, 2016

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 12 of24 verify the authenticity and veracity of the ICPA's conclusions.14" With that having been settled, this Court shall now proceed with respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent mainly argues that petitioner's claim for refund should have been denied in its entirety. He asserts that petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing requirements mandated under Sections 110(A)(1) and 113, and as implemented by Section 4.110-8 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005, as amended, in relation to Section 237, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Respondent argues that the use of the word "shall" in said Sections is imperative, and commonly operates to impose an obligation or duty which should be enforced, particularly on the stating of information in the VAT invoices or official receipts. Thus, respondent concludes that there is a need to verify whether the offered VAT invoices and official receipts in support of petitioner's claim for refund included, not only the name of the issuer, but also the issuer's tax identification number (TIN), registered address, and business style, if any. After due consideration of respondent's arguments, this Court finds partial merit in the same. A second look at the VAT invoices and official receipts presented by petitioner unveils that, in addition to the previous disallowances made by this Court in the assailed Decision, the input VAT in the total amount ofP6,623,985.30, should likewise be disallowed for the reasons stated hereafter, to wit: Exhibit Supplier Disallowed Input VAT 1. Input VAT on purchases ofgoods supported by p 222.86 invoices without petitioner's TIN W-16 CITY STATIONERY 1,095.64 W-170 AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION W-229 SOLDER INDUSTRIAL SALES 879.14 W-291 TANTEKO STATIONERY 1,740.52 14 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157264, January 31, 2008; citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31,2005

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 13 of24 Exhibit Supplier Disallowed Input VAT W-434 ATD ENTERPRISES W-435 ATD ENTERPRISES 728.57 W-577 TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. W-627 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,080.00 W-628 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-629 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 87,642.86 W-630 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 3,410.76 W-631 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,705.15 W-632 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 3,410.76 W-633 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 770.47 W-634 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-635 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 31,258.51 W-636 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,668.81 W-637 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,705.15 W-638 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,705.15 W-639 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,540.94 W-640 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,668.81 W-641 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 535.88 W-642 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-795 GB DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 42,289.79 W-796 GB DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 146,247.01 W-845 PHILIPPINE VENDING CORPORATION W-846 PHILIPPINE VENDING CORPORATION 3,410.76 W-864 YNZAL MARKETING CORPORATION 683.53 W-865 YNZAL MARKETING CORPORATION W-924 MAGIC-AIRE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1,705.15 W-925 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 10,285.71 W-926 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 10,285.71 W-927 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-928 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 874.29 W-929 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 19,138.86 W-930 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-931 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 2,785.71 W-932 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 5,357.14 W-933 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. W-934 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 321.43 W-935 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 688.60 W-936 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 5,170.06 W-937 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,544.49 W-1104 COLUMBIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. W-1105 COLUMBIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2,727.06 W-1106 COLUMBIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. W-1107 COLUMBIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 688.60 W-1108 COLUMBIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,724.74 761.35 55,346.61 688.60 1,376.74 1,681.19 1,681.19 5,043.56 1,650.00 2,250.00 503.57 5,946.43 2,844.11

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 14 of24 Exhibit Supplier Disallowed ln_I!_Ut VAT W-1157 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 7,024.82 W-1158 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 670.58 W-1159 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 1,672.83 2,587.00 X-35 DHL EXPRESSS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. 1,078.00 2,463.00 X-37 DHL EXPRESSS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. 1,398.00 X-38 DHL EXPRESSS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. 503.06 X-39 DHL EXPRESSS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. , 384.00 501,253.26 X-48 DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING (PHILIPPINES), INC. p 579.11 Y-1 ACE MILLENNIUM GRAPHIC PRINTER 566.79 Subtotal 2. Input VAT on purchases ofgoods supported by 665.36 invoices without petitioner's address 640.72 W-611 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 579.11 W-612 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. W-613 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 517.50 W-808 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 702.32 W-809 J CUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 591.43 W-810 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. W-811 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 566.79 W-812 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. W-813 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 677.68 W-814 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. W-815 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 532.29 W-816 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 529.82 W-817 J CUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 603.75 W-818 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. W-906 J CUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 468.21 W-907 JCUBE UNLIMITED RESOURCES INC. 517.50 Subtotal 3. Input VAT on purchases ofservices supported by , 246.43 8,984.81 ORs without petitioner's TIN p 579.78 Y-223 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 432,084.78 Y-224 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 5,907.38 Y-225 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 3,049.61 Y-249 DIRECTORIES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION 420.00 Y-250 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 35,850.00 Y-251 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 420.00 Y-252 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 420.00 Y-253 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 93,252.00 Y-287 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN 3,049.61 Y-397 DIRECTORIES PHILIPPINES CORPORATION 161.43 Y-798 DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING (PHILIPPINES), INC. Y-799 DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING (PHILIPPINES), INC. 188.87 Y-807 EINSTEE REALTY INC. - 420.00

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 15 of24 Exhibit Supplier Disallowed Input VAT Y-808 EINSTEE REALTY INC. Y-809 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 420.00 Y-1552 ROBIN SONS LAND CORPORATION 420.00 Y-1562 ROBINSON$ LAND CORPORATION 432,084.78 Y-1577 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 432,084.78 Y-1586 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 432,084.78 Y-1588 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 466,651.56 Y-1591 ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION 466,651.56 Y-1647 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 466,651.56 Y-1649 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 10,392.00 Y-1653 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 2,976.00 Y-1655 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 1,560.00 288.00 Subtotal 4. Input VAT on purchases ofservices supported by ,. 3,288,068.48 ORs without petitioner's address p 3,600.00 Y-8 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,200.00 Y-9 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-10 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 22,790.88 Y-11 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-12 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 6,056.03 Y-13 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-14 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,680.00 Y-78 MICASA REALTY HOLDINGS, INC. Y-87 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,200.00 Y-88 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-89 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 4,800.00 Y-90 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-91 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 40,628.67 Y-92 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-117 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 6,056.03 Y-127 MICASA REALTY HOLDINGS, INC. Y-219 MICASA REALTY HOLDINGS, INC. 2,400.00 Y-221 RIZADEL REALTY CORPORATION Y-222 RIZADEL REALTY CORPORATION 1,200.00 Y-241 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-242 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,200.00 Y-243 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-244 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,680.00 Y-245 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-285 RIZADEL REALTY CORPORATION 22,790.88 Y-331 DATAONE ASIA (PHILIPPINES),INC. Y-486 RIZADEL REALTY CORPORATION 1,524.60 Y-692 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN Y-737 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 40,628.67 40,628.67 210,825.48 210,825.48 8,397.34 22,790.88 1,680.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 210,825.48 7,748.08 210,825.48 93,252.00 360.00 ,.,..

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 16 of24 Exhibit Supplier Disallowed Input VAT Y-738 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES Y-739 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 26,376.00 Y-740 BUAN AND TEMPROSA LAW OFFICES 6,000.00 Y-743 DATAONE ASIA (PHILIPPINES),INC. 240.00 Y-851 RIZADEL REALTY CORPORATION 7,740.43 Y-854 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-855 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 210,825.48 Y-856 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,200.00 Y-857 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1,680.00 Y-858 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 6,661.64 Y-879 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN Y-1031 JOBSTREET.COM PHILIPPINES INC. 22,790.88 Y-1126 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 1,200.00 Y-1127 EINSTEE REALTY INC. Y-1128 EINSTEE REALTY INC. 99,456.24 Y-1344 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 240.00 Y-1345 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 420.00 Y-1346 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 420.00 Y-1347 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 420.00 Y-1348 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Y-1351 DATAONE ASIA (PHILIPPINES),INC. 6,661.64 Y-1352 DATAONE ASIA (PHILIPPINES),INC. 1,200.00 Y-1554 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 22,790.88 Y-1555 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 1,680.00 Y-1556 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 1,200.00 Y-1557 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 7,775.67 Y-1558 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 7,674.12 Y-1559 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1560 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1561 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 43,500.00 Y-1563 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 47,232.00 Y-1564 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 43,500.00 Y-1565 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1566 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1573 DAIICHI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 47,232.00 Y-1582 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1583 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 90,732.00 Y-1584 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 43,500.00 Y-1585 SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES,INC. 47,232.00 Y-1590 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN 22,790.88 90,732.00 Subtotal 90,732.00 47,232.00 GRAND TOTAL 43,500.00 99,456.24 p 2,825,678.75 P6,623,985.30

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 17 of24 Furthermore, this Court equally finds that the following input VAT accumulated from prior year's purchases of capital goods exceeding PlMillion should correspondingly be further deducted from petitioner's claim for refund since its TIN was not indicated in the supporting VAT invoices, thus: Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT 2007 EMERSON NETWORK POWER DD-4 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-S p 17,753.62 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-6 2,048.37 October GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. DD-16 4,096.29 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-19 6,800.62 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-20 9,615.72 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-21 9,215.64 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-22 1,989.90 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-23 5,968.38 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-24 3,979.36 November TOYOTACUBAOINCORPORATED DD-26 1,989.90 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-39 November MICROTECHNICS COMPUTER DD-40 149,249.91 December TOYOTACUBAOINCORPORATED DD-41 3,906.03 December 1,919.83 December AVCP TRADING SYSTEMS DD-44 7,553.45 2008 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-48 11,785.59 1,791.42 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-50 219.82 January 1,527.89 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-51 January 12,222.73 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-52 12,490.64 February February FEDERAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS DD-58 5,970.71 February 14,927.58 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-62 February 1,493.08 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-63 5,970.71 March 1,493.08 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-64 4,285.66 March March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-65 3,000.00 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-66 23,451.51 March 32,785.66 March 3G CABLENET AND CONSULTANCY DD-71 March 1,832.52 April AVCP TRADING SYSTEMS DD-73 April 1,971.07 April AVCP TRADING SYSTEMS DD-74 2,316.22 AVCP TRADING SYSTEMS DD-75 5,302.77 111,353.73 FEDERAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS DD-78 - 167,625.06 GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. DD-80 3,942.57 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-82 SPECTRAMIND SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY DD-83 FEMAC MARKETING INC. DD-86 FEMAC MARKETING INC. DD-87 GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. DD-89

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 18 of24 Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT April MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-90 April MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-91 3,456.51 April MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-92 343.32 April MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-93 April MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-94 1,202.25 June ABENSON,INC. DD-95 2,232.63 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-98 15,438.20 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-99 4,446.27 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-100 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-101 268.45 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-102 1,208.46 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-103 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-104 402.68 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-105 939.58 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-106 134.23 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-107 1,879.59 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-108 939.58 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-109 268.45 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-110 134.23 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-111 309.45 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-112 1,030.64 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-113 171.77 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-114 171.77 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-115 171.77 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-116 306,288.32 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-117 240,168.33 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-118 374,211.07 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-119 1,585.24 June NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-120 22,187.31 June NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-121 3,170.48 July FEMAC MARKETING INC. DD-129 11,732.84 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-130 1,585.24 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-131 10,427.28 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-132 7,261.98 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-133 174,107.03 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-134 3,235.24 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-135 3,297.36 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-136 4,854.18 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-137 4,853.30 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-138 45,968.72 MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-139 14,559.03 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-140 3,233.92 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-141 5,232.60 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-142 3,993.83 July 16,175.77 1,912.78 324,937.86 172,191.62 ....

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 19 of24 Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-143 DD-144 8,056.39 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-145 9,225.99 DD-146 8,088.55 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-147 6,471.37 DD-148 4,853.30 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-149 1,864.32 DD-150 2,753.74 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-155 DD-156 985.90 July NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-157 6,707.21 DD-158 2,565.68 July NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-159 DD-160 134.45 July TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-161 1,073.86 DD-162 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-163 671.38 DD-164 536.93 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-165 402.92 DD-166 134.45 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-167 268.47 DD-168 134.45 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-169 402.92 DD-170 671.38 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-171 4,871.74 DD-172 4,894.74 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-173 7,611.23 DD-174 1,288.81 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-175 4,009.73 DD-176 12,030.08 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-183 22,053.96 DD-186 4,694.38 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-189 1,624.50 DD-192 148,960.64 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-193 1,585.73 DD-199 2,635.57 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-200 3,666.21 DD-201 657.06 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-202 23,839.51 DD-203 3,165.52 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-204 2,346.59 DD-205 1,877.00 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-206 234.57 DD-207 234.57 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 469.14 234.57 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 6,884.77 3,358.94 August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. September 3G CABLENET AND CONSULTANCY September ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. September FEDERAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS September GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. September GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 20 of24 Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-208 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-209 8,288.07 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-210 5,037.49 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-211 3,358.02 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-212 25,180.16 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-213 1,679.47 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-214 25,548.24 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-215 1,967.54 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-216 14,949.70 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-217 107,016.47 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-218 45,246.46 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-219 12,588.94 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-220 1,679.47 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-221 1,810.70 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-222 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-223 679.01 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-224 905.35 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-225 4,753.09 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-226 121,995.89 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-227 452.67 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-228 4,526.75 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-229 1,131.69 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-230 2,489.71 September NEXUS TECHNOLOGIES INC. DD-231 905.35 September TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. DD-236 1,358.02 September TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. DD-237 452.67 DD-248 364.43 October GREAT YEAR INDUSTRIES CORP. DD-251 857.34 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-252 143,035.48 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-253 4,884.11 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-254 6,433.30 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-255 3,474.93 October MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-256 10,856.67 October MICRODATA SYSTEMS DD-264 1,737.46 October TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. DD-271 26,785.71 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-272 149,035.48 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-273 7,102.01 November MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-280 1,775.38 December ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DD-282 8,877.39 December HEWLETT-PACKARD PHILIPPINES DD-283 23,357.32 December MAIN HARDWARE, INC. DD-284 11,889.55 December MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-286 257,142.92 December MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-287 2,178.41 December MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. 134,275.86 1,852.57 2009 -

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 21 of24 Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT January ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. DD-291 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-298 8,252.69 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-299 427,957.06 January MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-300 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-306 1,731.43 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-307 55,989.26 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-308 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-309 8,759.92 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-310 10,429.11 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-311 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-312 3,504.25 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-313 26,279.77 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-314 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-315 5,256.14 February MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-316 4,338.85 February TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-317 3,921.08 February TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-318 1,751.89 February TOYOTACUBAOINCORPORATED DD-319 171,956.52 3G CABLENET AND CONSULTANCY DD-328 12,263.71 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-337 1,751.89 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-338 126,000.00 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-339 5,142.72 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-340 140,142.72 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-341 2,137.48 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-342 March MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-343 384.95 March TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-344 14,415.82 March TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-345 March AVCP TRADING SYSTEMS DD-348 4,428.85 TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-352 1,788.23 May MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-355 19,165.46 May MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-356 3,576.46 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-357 4,428.85 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-358 5,142.79 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-359 58,114.33 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-360 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-361 877.40 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-362 1,028.37 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-363 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-364 234.43 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-365 234.43 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-366 938.68 June YNZAL MARKETING CORPORATION DD-369 938.68 June MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-376 6,994.81 June 31,476.41 July 26,230.19 15,738.21 5,246.23 1,748.58 1,748.58 1,748.58 1,926.42 250,731.89

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 22 of24 Date Supplier Exhibit Disallowed Input VAT July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-377 1,790.82 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-378 26,863.77 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-379 118,202.42 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-380 1,790.82 July MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. August ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. DD-381 17,909.66 August ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. August ALL VISUAL AND LIGHTS SYSTEMS DD-382 3,581.64 September ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. September ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. DD-383 5,372.46 September ACCENT SYSTEMS, INC. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-384 5,391.30 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-394 56,881.82 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-395 11,571.29 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-396 5,978.47 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-418 3,414.01 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-419 11,843.96 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. DD-420 1,200.00 September MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. September TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-432 192.27 September TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING September TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING DD-433 192.27 September TECHNICOM ELECTRONICS TRADING September TOYOTA MAKATI, INC. DD-434 192.27 December ACCENT MICRO December MAIN HARDWARE, INC. DD-435 192.27 December MANNASOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP. TOTAL DD-436 385.02 Divided by life of capital goods Multiply by number of months amortized DD-437 385.02 (January to September 2010) Input VAT amortization on purchases of DD-438 27,681.16 capital goods from prior years DD-439 3,581.64 DD-440 3,581.64 DD-441 1,790.82 DD-442 3,581.64 DD-443 8,952.17 DD-444 35,481.16 DD-445 2,214.49 DD-456 9,428.50 DD-457 11,237.20 DD-458 1,285.51 DD-459 12,857.01 DD-460 181,928.51 DD-463 2,458.93 DD-465 39,275.65 DD-466 40,031.46 P6,090,871.84 60 months 9 months - p 913,630.78

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 23 of24 As a result thereof, petitioner's substantiated excess input VAT for the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal year (FY) 2010 should have only amounted to P3,485,983.58, computed as follows: Claimed inp_ut VAT f!Jet of Output VAT) P16,130,710.85 p 36,959,792.49 Less: Disallowances per assailed Decision 9,805,481.98 25,936,192.83 ICPA Report p 6,623,985.30 7,537,616.08 Court's Further Verification 913,630.78 p 3,485,983.58 Additional Disallowances per this MR Input VAT on purchases of goods and services (other than capital goods) Input VAT amortization on purchases of capital g_oods Substantiated Excess Input VAT In view of the foregoing, petitioner's duly substantiated excess input VAT attributable to its valid zero-rated sales for the FY 2010 will be further reduced to P676,196.57, as shown below: Substantiated zero-rated sales/receipts p 362,595,648.52 Divided by total reported zero-rated sales/receipts 1,869,282,602.11 Multiply by substantiated excess input VAT Excess Input VAT Attributable to the 3,485,983.58 Valid Zero-Rated Sales/Receipts p 676,196.57 WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision dated October 19, 2015) is hereby DENIED. Conversely, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 19, 2015 is hereby amended to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED in the reduced amount of P676,196.57 representing the petitioner's unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the second to fourth quarters ofFY 2010. SO ORDERED.'~

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8532 Page 24 of24 SO ORDERED. CAESA~SANOVA Associate Justice We Concur: ~~~~/?- ~"'c.~~ .!1 AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS JtfANITO C. CASTANEDA;'CjR.. Associate Justice Associate 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. �~i4 c.. ~-oe,. ~ jUANITO C. CASTANEDA, fR.. Associate Justice Chairperson, Second Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Presiding Justice