COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TRAVELLERS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP, INC.

REPUBLIC O F THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 3007 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10445) Petitioner, Present: - versus - RINGPIS-LIBAN, tl, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES , fl. TRAVELLERS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP, INC., Promulgated: , x - - ------- -- -- ~~~p_o_n~~~~�------- }~~-~ _1_! _'lf}~~(f/-Mt� DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: tot At bar is a Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner/ CIR) pursuant to Section 3(b),2 Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). It seeks Filed on 30 October 2024, rolla, pp. 9-24. SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition.- (b) A party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review withi n fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawfu l fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to fil e the petition for review.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x reverse and set aside the Decision dated 18 April 20243 (assailed Decision) and the Resolution dated 18 September 20244 (assailed Resolution) of this Court's Special Third Division in CTA Case No. 10445, entitled Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the rendition instead of a new judgment denying respondent Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc.'s (respondent's) Petition for Review before the Special Third Division. Both assailed Decision and Resolution granted respondent's prior "Petition for Review"5 (prior petition) before the Special Third Division and cancelled the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) with Details of Discrepancies (DOD) and the Audit Result/Assessment Notices (ANs) attached thereto, all dated 13 December 2017,6 and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated 23 October 2020,1 including the attached ANs. PARTIES OF THE CASE Petitioner is the duly appointed CIR with authority, among others, to collect all national internal revenue taxes and to decide disputed assessments and refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges in relation thereto, as provided by law.8 He or she may be served with all notices, pleadings, resolutions, orders, decisions, and other legal processes of this Court at the 7'h floor, Room 703, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 9 Respondent, on the other hand, is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal office at the w/F Newport Entertainment & Commercial Centre, Newport t Boulevard, Newport Cybertourism Economic Zone, Pasay City, Philippines.10 It may be served with all notices, pleadings, resolutions, Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 926-938. Penned by Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flares with the concurrence of Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Associate Justice Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro. 4 !d., pp. 970-977 !d., Volume I, pp. 6-266 (with annexes), filed on 07 January 2021. Exhibit "R-11", BIR Records, pp. 696-703; Exhibit "P-12", Division Docket Volume II, pp. 690- 697. Exhibit "R-13", id., pp. 806-813; Exhibit "P-14", id .. Volume I, pp. 271-278. See Section 4, National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. 9 Par. 2, Stipulated Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 403-404. 10 Par. I, id., p. 403.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x orders, decisions, and other legal processes of this Court through its counsel with address at Unit 1706-qu, 17'h Floor, Tower One & Exchange Plaza, Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue, Makati City." FACTS OF THE CASE On 09 September 2014, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Assistant Commissioner (ACIR) Nestor S. Valeroso (Valeroso) of the Large Taxpayers Service (LTS) issued Letter of Authority (LOA) No. LOA-125- 2014-oooooo67/eLA2ouooo8671812 authorizing Revenue Officer (RO) Kent Salvador (Salvador) and Group Supervisor (GS) Adora Alberto (Alberto) to examine respondent's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes including Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) for the period of 01 January 2013 to 31 December 2013. On 03 October 2014,13 respondent received the said LOA, together with a Checklist of Requirements14 requested from it. After a supposed non-compliance from petitioner's end, Mitchell L. Yu (Yu), Chief of the Regular Large Taxpayers Audit Division II, issued a First Notice for the Presentation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records dated 04 November 201415 reiterating the BIR's. request for documents. Respondent again failed to submit the requested documents, thus, a Second and Final Notice for the Presentation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records was issued on 04 August 2015.16 Respondent then requested for more time to submit the requested documents and signed a series ofwaivers of the statute oflimitations on 21 December 2015,17 15 June 2016,18 and 03 February 2017,19 ultimately extending the period of limitations prescribed in Sections 203 and 222 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, to 31 December 2017.t II See Manifestation (Notice of Counsel's Change of Address) filed on 12 August 2024, id., Volume ll. pp. 965-966. 12 Exhibit "R-1'', BIR Records, p. 452. 13 !d. 14 Exhibit "R-2" and "R-2-a", id., pp. 450-451. 15 Exhibit "R-3", id., p. 449. 16 Exhibit "R-4", id., p. 448. 17 Exhibit "R-5", id, p. 453. 18 Exhibit "R-6", id., p. 454. 19 Exhibit "R-7", id., p. 455.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x Thereafter, on os September 2017, RO Salvador and GS Alberto recommended the issuance of a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) to respondent through a Memorandum Report for OIC-ACIR Teresita M. Angeles (Angeles) of the LTS. 20 On 24 October 2017, petitioner issued a PAN21 with Details of Discrepancies finding respondent liable for deficiency income tax,� value-added tax (VAT), withholding tax on compensation (WTC), expanded withholding tax (EWT), final withholding tax (FWT), and documentary stamp tax (DST) for taxable year (TY) 2013 amounting to P3,089,517,73L77, inclusive of interests, computed as follows: Tax Type Basic Tax Interest" Total Income Tax !' 1,738,913,081.27 !' 1,215,809,913.26 !' 2,954.722,994�53 VAT 8,7o8,635�o9 6,518.353�72 15,226,988.81 WTC 2,64s,8o4.o6 1,980,]66.22 4,626,J70.28 EWT 57,639� 75!.07 43,142,958.88 100,782, 709�95 FWT 2,144,208.13 DST 2,871,005.01 5�015,213.14 Total 3�930.543�38 9,143,655�06 5,213,m.68 I' I,27J,s26,J43�59 I' J,o8g,s�7,7JI.77 I' I,815,991,J88.I8 Respondent agreed with petitioner's findings of deficiency VAT, WTC, EWT, FWT, and DST, and paid the same on 30 October 2017.23� However, respondent protested petitioner's finding of deficiency income tax in its Reply to the PAN dated 03 November 2017/4 which was filed on o8 November 2017.2 5 On 04 December 2017, RO Salvador and GS Fe F. Caling (Caling) recommended the issuance of a Final Assessment Notice with Formal Letter of Demand and Details of Discrepancies (FLD/FAN) through a Memorandum for OIC-ACIRAngeles of the BIR LTS dated 04 December 2017.26 Thereafter, the FLO, with attached DOD and ANs, was issued . on 13 December 2017.27 In the said FLO, petitioner cancelled thet 00 Exhibit "R-8", id., pp. 568-580. Exhibit "P-4", Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 596-605; Exhibit "R-9", BIR Records, pp. 586-595. 22 Computed up to I3 October 20 I7. 23 See Payment Forms (BIR Form No. 0605) and Payment Confirmations, Exhibits "P-5", "P-5-a", "P-6", "P-6-a", "P-7", "P-7-a", "P-8", "P-8-a", "P-9", "P-9-a", "P-10", and "P-10-a", Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 606-622. Exhibit "P-I I", id., pp. 623-630. See Case Profile and Antecedents, Memorandum dated 04 December 2017, Exhibit "R-1 0", BIR Records, p. 693. 26 Exhibit "R-10", id., pp. 687-693. 27 Supra at note 6.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x assessments for VAT, WTC, EWT, FWT, and DST, in view of respondent's payment thereof. However, petitioner retained the finding ofdeficiency income tax with a recalculation ofinterests and an addition of compromise penalty, as follows: Tax Type Basic Tax Interest'' Total Income Tax l' 1,738,913,08!.27 Compromise l' 1,3o6,n6,936.6o l' 3,045,030,017.87 so,ooo.oo Penalty - so,ooo.oo Total Pt,738,963,o81.27 Pt,Jo6,u6,936.6o P3,o4s,o8o,ot7.87 On o8 January 2018, maintammg its disagreement with petitioner's position, respondent filed its Reply to the FL0.29 Acting on respondent's Reply to the FLO, on 12 January 2018, Chief Edralin M. Silario (Silario) of the Large Taxpayers Regular Audit Division 2 referred respondent's case back to RO Salvador and GS Caling.30 Thereafter, RO Salvador and GS Mariesol G. Girang (Girang) issued a Memorandum for CIR Caesar R. Dulay dated 07 February 201931 recommending the issuance of the FDDA. On 09 December 202o,32 respondent received the FDDA dated 23 October 202033 with a modified finding of deficiency income tax and� compromise penalty forTY 2013, as follows: Tax Type Basic Tax lnterest34 Total Income Tax l' 1,732,oo7,188.s9 l' 1,56I,S58,700.33 l'3,293,s6s,888.92 Compromise so,ooo.oo - so,ooo.oo Penalty Total p I,732,o57,t88. 59 p 1,56I,S58,700.33 P3,293,61 5,sss. 92 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT IN DIVISION t Unsatisfied with petitioner's findings in the FDDA, respondent . filed a "Petition for Review"3s with this Court on 07 January 2021. The 28 Computed up to 28 December 2017. Exhibit "P-13", Division Docket, Volume 11, pp. 698-707. 30 See Memorandum of Assignment dated 12 January 2018, BIR Records, p. 755. 31 Exhibit "R-12", id., pp. 797-800. Supra at note 7. !d. 34 Computed up to 30 April 2019. 35 Supra at note 5.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X case was docketed as CTA Case No. 10445 and was raffled to the Third Division. In its petition before the Third Division, respondent argued that: (I) as a Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) licensee, its revenues from gaming operations is exempt from income tax; (2) the FLD petitioner issued failed to properly state the legal basis for the deficiency income tax assessment against it because' (a) petitioner relied merely on Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 8-201236 and RMC No. 33-201337 and (b) the FLD failed to make a clear and categorical demand for payment of income tax liability; (3) the alleged tax liability was erroneously and improperly computed; and (4) it is not liable to pay the compromise penalty on the alleged deficiency income tax. The Third Division issued "Summons"38 dated 28 May 2021 ordering petitioner to file an Answer to the Petition for Review. Following petitioner's receipt of the Summons on 15 June 2021, he or she filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer"39 (Motion for Extension) on 14 July 2021. In a Resolution dated 28 July 2021,40 the Third Division granted petitioner's Motion for Extension and gave petitioner a non-extendible period of thirty (3o) days from 15 July 2021, or until14 August 2021, to file his or her Answer. Petitioner was likewise ordered to certify and elevate to the Court, within ten (w) days from filing his or her Answer, the BIR Records of the present case.4' On 27 October 2021, petitioner filed his or her Answer+' essentially interposing the following defenses: (I) respondent is not exempt from . income tax on revenues from gaming operations; (2) the assessmentst 36 Circularization of the relevant excerpts from the En Bane Supreme Court Decision in the case of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) vs. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, represented herein by Han. Jose Mario Bui1ag, in his official capacity as Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, public respondent, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, who are persons actingfbr, in behalf, or under the authority of Respondent, public and private respondents, G.R. No. 172087 dated March 15,2011, on excluding PAGCOR from exemption from corporate Income Tax and the declaration of nullity of the pertinent provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005 relative to the imposition of I 0% VAT on PAGCOR; and subsequently, the En Bane Court Resolution dated May 31, 20 II denying with finality the relevant motions for partial reconsideration thereto. 37 Income Tax and Franchise Tax Due from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), its Contractees and Licensees. 38 Division Docket, Volume I, p. 281. 39 Id., pp. 283-285. 40 !d., p. 288. 41 !d. !d., pp. 289-300.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x against respondent for deficiency income tax forTY 2013 has bases both in fact and in law; (3) respondent was never denied due process as it was accorded every opportunity allowed by law and the rules; and (4) respondent has the duty to prove the alleged impropriety of the assessment since tax assessments are presumed correct. In compliance with the Third Division's previous directive, petitioner forwarded the entire BIR Records for TY 2013 consisting of one (1) folder with 841 pages on o8 November 2021.43 The Pre-Trial Conference was then held on 22 March 202244 following the parties' submission of their respective Pre-Trial Briefs on 17 March 2022.4s At the Pre-Trial Conference, the Third Division granted the parties a 30-day period, or until 21 April 2022, to file their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI).46 The parties then filed their JSFI47 on 20 April 2022 which the Third Division admitted and approved in a Resolution dated 28 April 2022,48 effectively terminating the pre-trial. A Pre-Trial Order49 was subsequently issued on 07 July 2022. In the trial that ensued subsequently, respondent presented its first witness, Atty. Walter L. Mactal (Mactal), who testified via his Judicial Affidavit.sa In his testimony, Mactal stated that he has been respondent's Chief Legal Officer since 01 January 2019Y He also declared that PAGCOR authorized respondent to establish and operate casinos, thus, it is exempt from income tax pursuant to Presidential t . Decree (PD) No. 1869Y Mactal likewise testified that respondent remitted license fees, inclusive of franchise tax, forTY 2013, and that the . . same shall be in lieu of all taxes with respect to the income component 4J See Compliance filed by petitioner on 08 November 2021, id., pp. 302-303. " See Order dated 22 March 2022, id., pp. 400-402. 45 Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief., id., pp. 308-320; Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief, id., pp. 321-325. 4b See Order dated 22 March 2022, supra at note 44. 47 Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 403-415. " !d., p. 417. 49 !d., pp. 435-443. 50 Sworn Statement of Atty. Walter L. Mactal to Questions Propounded by Atty. Anna Maria Cindy~ D. Perez dated 05 January 2021, Exhibit "P-18", id., pp. 39-46. 51 !d. " !d.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x of respondent's gross gaming revenues.53 Mactal also identified the documents in support of his statements.54 No cross-examination was conducted.55 Respondent also presented Dexter R. Moya (Moya) who testified that he has been respondent's Assistant Director for Financial Accounting since September 2013.56 He stated that respondent is. registered with BIR ROO No. 126- LTS. Moya also narrated the events that transpired from respondent's issuance of the PAN up to the issuance of the FDDA, particularly, respondent's payment of the deficiency VAT, WTC, EWT, FWT, and DST after its receipt of the PAN and respondent's filing of a Protest to the PAN and the FLO/FAN maintaining its objection to the income tax assessment on its revenues from gaming operations,57 He likewise identified the documents in support of his statements, including the PAN dated 24 October 2017,58 respondent's Protest to the PAN dated 03 November 2017,59 the FLO/FAN dated 13 December 2017,60 and respondent's Protest to the FLO/FAN dated o8 January 2018,6' among others. 62 During cross-examination, Moya clarified that he was one of the researchers who prepared respondent's protest letter against the FLD.63 No redirect examination followed. 64 t On 31 August 2022, respondent filed its "Formal Offer of . Evidence"65 (FOE) consisting of Exhibits "P-1" to "P-19-a",66 with sJ Id. 54 !d. 55 TSN dated I 6 August 2022, p. 4. 56 Sworn Statement of Mr. Dexter R. Maya to Questions Propounded by Atty. Anna Maria Cindy D. Perez dated 05 January 2021, Exhibit "P-I 9", Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 47-56. 57 !d. 58 Supra at note 21. 59 Supra at note 24. 60 Supra at note 6. 61 Supra at note 29. Supra at note 56. 63 TSN dated \6 August 2022, p. 6. 64 !d. 65 Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 448-456. 66 Exhibit Description "P-I" [Respondent's] Amended Articles of Incorporation with SEC Certificate of Filing dated March 12.2014 "P-2" BIR Certificate of Registration (BIR Form No. 2303) dated October II. 2019

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x sub-markings. On 02 September 2022, pet1t1oner filed his or her Comment on respondent's FOE,67 thus, the same was submitted for resolution on o6 September 2022.68 In the Resolution dated 15 September 2022,69 the Third Division admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. On 17 November 2022, petitioner presented its lone witness, RO Salvador, who testified via his Judicial Affidavit.7� RO Salvador stated t that he was tasked to conduct the audit and investigation of, respondent's books of accounts for TY 2013 by virtue of a LOA dated 09 September 2014.?' He also narrated the events that transpired during "P-3" Provisional License dated June 2, 2008 between rResoondentl and PAGCOR �'P-4'' [Respondent's] copy ofthe Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). with attached Details of Discrepancies. for total deficiency ta'< liability of Php3.089.817. 731.77 for the "P-5" calendar vear (CY) 2013 �'P-5-a'' "P-6'' Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) for payment of value-added tax (VAT) \Vith Filing Reference No. 291700022138692 in the amount ofPho 15.226,988.81 "P-6-a.. eFPS Pavment Confirmation for pavment of VAT �'P-T "P-7-a.. Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) for payment of withholding tax on compensation (WTC) with Filing Reference No. 291700022138853 in the amount ofPho4.626,170.28 "P-8" eFPS Pavment Confirmation for pavment of \VTC "P-8-a" Payment form (81R Form No. 0605) for payment of expanded withholding tax (EWT) "P-9'' with Filing Reference No. 291700022186753 in the amount ofPhp1 00.782.709.95 eFPS Pavment Confirmation for oavment ofEWT "P-9-a" Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) for payment of final withholding ta'< (FWT) with "P-10'' Filing Reference No. 291700022138909 in the amount of Pho5,015,213.14 eFPS Pavment Confirmation for navment of FWT "P-I 0-a" Pay�ment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) for payment of documentary stamp tax (DST) \\"ith "P-11" Filin2 Reference No. 291700022139041 in the amount of Phn9, 143,665.06 �'P-12" eFPS Pavment Conlirmation for oavment ofDST "P-13" Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) for payment of compromise penalty v... ith Filing ' "P-14" Reference No. 291700022139218 in the amount of Pho250,000.00 eFPS Pavment Confirmation foroaYment of compromise penalty "P-15" Reolv to PAN dated November 8, 2017 [Respondent's] copy of the Formal Letter of Demand (FLO) dated December 13,2017. "P-16" with attached Details of Discrenancies I'Res;:;-ondenfSf Protest Letter to the FLO filed with the BIR-LTS on Januarv 10. 2018 �'P-17" [Respondent's] copy of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated "P-18'' October 23, 2020 with attached Details of Discrepancies w�hich was received by r-resoondent'sl on December 9, 2020 �'P-18-a" "P-19" PAGCOR Certification relative to the License Fees remitted by [respondent] to PAGCOR durin a CY 2013 "P-19-a'� [Respondent's] Annual income Tax Return (BIR Form No. 1702-MX) Mixed Income for CY 2013 stamoed received bv BIR-LTS on March 19.2014 -[Rew~ondent'~s( Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for CY 20 13 Sworn Statement of Any. \\.'alter L. Mactal to Questions propounded by Atty. Anna Maria Cindv D. Perez dated Januarv 5. 2021 Signature ofAttv. Walter L. Mactal Sworn Statement oL\1r. Dexter R. Moya to Questions propounded by Atty. Anna Maria Cindv D. Perez Signature of Mr. Dexter R. Mova 67 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 853-855. 68 See Notice dated 06 September 2022, id., p. 858. 69 !d., p. 860. 70 Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer Kent G. Salvador dated 16 March 2022, Exhibit "R-15", id.,, Volume I, pp. 331-338. 71 !d.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X the assessment of respondent's books of accounts, from the issuance of the LOA up to petitioner's issuance of the FDDA, and identified the pieces of evidence in support thereof.72 RO Salvador particularly recounted his request for relevant documents from respondent, respondent's execution of three (3) Waivers of the Defense of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitation of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, his recommendation for the issuance of a PAN against respondent as a result of his examination and the subsequent issuance thereof, respondent's filing of a Protest to the PAN, his recommendation for the issuance of a FLD/FAN and the subsequent issuance thereof, respondent's filing of a Protest to the FLD/FAN, and the issuance of the FDDA on respondent's case. During cross-examination, RO Salvador confirmed that the three (3) waivers of prescription that respondent executed pertain to internal revenue tax liabilities with no specified tax types_73 Petitioner did not conduct any redirect examination.74 On 02 December 2022, petitioner filed his or her FOE?s consisting of Exhibits "R-1" to "R-1s-a",76 with sub-markings, to which respondent filed its "Comment/Opposition (Re: [Petitioner's FOE] dated Decembert 72 ld. 73 TSN dated 17 November 2022, pp. 3-5. 74 ld .� p. 6. 75 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 867-873. 76 Exhibit Description "R-1" Entitled Letter of Authority 1\'o. LOA-125-2014�00000067 I SN: eLA20 II 00086718 ��R-2 and R-2-a'� "R-3" dated 9 September 2014 "R-4" Checklist of Reauirements "R-5" First Notice for Presentation of Book of Accounts and Other Accounting Records dated "R-6'' 4 November 2014 "R-7" Second and Final Notice for Presentation of Book of Accounts and Other Accounting "R-8" Records dated 4 Aueust 20 15 "R-9" "R-IO" Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitation of the "\lational "R-11" Internal Revenue Code dated 21 December 20 15 "R-12" "R-13" Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitation of the National "R-14" Internal Revenue Code dated 15 June 2016 .. "R-15and R-15-a Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitation of the National Internal Revenue Code dated 3 Februarv 2017 Memorandum dated 5 Sentember 2017 Preliminarv Assessment Notice \Vith Details of Discreoancies dated 24 October 2017 Memorandum dated 4 December 2017 Formal Letter of Demand with Details of Discrepancies and assessment notices dated 13 December 2017 Memorandum dated 7 Februarv 2019 Final Decision on Disnuted Assessment dated 23 October 2020 BlR Investi>mtion Records consistin2 of one (I) folder Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer (RO) Kent G. Salvador I Signature afRO Kent G. Salvador '

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X 2, 2022)"77 on 15 December 2022. In the Resolution dated 02 February 2023,78 the Third Division admitted petitioner's offered exhibits. Both parties were then directed to file their respective Memoranda within 30 days from their receipt of the Third Division's Resolution on petitioner's F0�.79 Prior to this, petitioner manifested that he or she will adopt the arguments stated in the Answer filed on 27 October 2021 as his or her Memorandum.80 Respondent, on the other hand, filed its Memorandum81 on o6 March 2023. The case was subsequently submitted for decision on 18 April2023.82 In the now assailed Decision ofiS April 2024,83 the Special Third Division84 granted respondent's Petition for Review. The dispositive portion thereof reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the FLD and Audit Result/Assessment Notices attached thereto, all dated December 13, 2017, are hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Furthermore, the FDDA dated October 23, 2020, including the Audit Result/Assessment Notices attached thereto, assessing [respondent] for deficiency income tax, inclusive of interests, in the amount oH'3,293,s6s,888.92 and compromise penalty in the amount of Pso,ooo.oo, for taxable year 2013, are hereby REVERSED and SET t ASIDE. SO ORDERED8 S 77 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 876-880. 78 Id., p. 890. 79 I d. 80 See Manifestation dated 20 January 2023, id., pp. 884-886. 81 ld., pp. 891-921. See Minute Resolution dated 18 April 2023, id., p. 923. 83 Supra at note 3. 84 Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01-2022 dated 21 June 2022 issued following the retirement of Associate Justice Juanita C. Castaneda, Jr., and Administrative Circular No. 01-2023 dated 23 May 2023 issued following the retirement of Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, the Court underwent reorganizations. The instant case stayed with the Special Third Division, which was composed of the same members of the prior Third Division with the addition of Associate Justice Corazon G. Ferrer-Flares. 85 Emphasis and italics in the original text.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x The Special Third Division, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness by Design, Inc. 86 (Fitness by Design), held that the indefiniteness of respondent's income tax liability and the absence of due dates on the subject FLD, and the ANs attached thereto, rendered the subject tax assessment void. In addition, the Special Third Division declared that respondent cannot be held liable for compromise penalty without its consent. On w May 2024, petitioner filed its "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 April 2024)"87 (MR) arguing that: (1) the doctrine laid down in Fitness by Design must be revisited since it misapplied the' ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Dominador Menguito88 (Menguito), which involved a very dissimilar issue; (2) the FLD has fixed and definitely set the deficiency tax liabilities of respondent since the interest was set until 28 December 2017; and (3) the Court cannot rule on an issue not raised by the parties in the administrative level. On 05 June 2024, respondent filed its Comment, 89 arguing that (1) petitioner's motion is a mere reiteration of the arguments raised in his or her Answer which the Court already passed upon; and (2) the Court has the authority to rule on matters relevant to the case even if the same have not been directly raised at the administrative level. Thereafter, on 18 September 2024,9� the Special Third Division denied petitioner's MR, to wit: In view of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modifY the Decision promulgated on April18, 2024. WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioner's] Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 April2024) is DENIED for t lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 86 G.R. No. 215957. 09 November 2016. 87 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 939-951. 88 G.R. No. 167560,17 September2008. 89 Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 954-963. 90 Supra at note 4.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC Undeterred, pettttoner filed the present Petition for Review9' before the Court En Bane on 30 October 2024, following a 15-day extension granted to it through the Resolution dated 21 October 2024.92 On 03 March 2025, the Court En Bane directed respondent to file its comment within 10 days from its receipt of notice thereof.93 Accordingly, respondent filed its Comment on 17 March 2025.94 In a Resolution dated 10 April2025,9s the Court En Bane referred the instant case to the Philippine Mediation Center- Court of Tax Appeals (PMC-� CTA) for mediation pursuant to Section II of the Interim Guidelines for Implementing Mediation in the Court of Tax Appeals. However, the parties decided not to have their case mediated before the PMC-CTA.96 Hence, the present petition was submitted for decision on 13 June 2025.97 ISSUE Petitioner raised only one issue for the Court En Bane's resolution:98 WHETHER THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ASSESSMENT NOTICES AGAINST RESPONDENT TRAVELLERS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP, INC. IS A NULLITY FOR ALLEGEDLY NOT INDICATING A DEFINITE DUE DATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX LIABILITIES AND PENALTIES. ARGUMENTS bet � Before the Court En Bane, petitioner contends that the ruling in Menguito was misapplied in the Supreme Court's decision in Fitness by _ . � Design, thus, the doctrine laid down in Fitness by Design should 91 Supra at note I. Rollo, p. 8. 93 See En Bane Resolution dated 03 March 2025, id., p. 85. " Id., pp. 86-98. 95 Jd., p. 100. 96 See PMC-CTA Form 6- No Agreement to Mediate dated 13 May 2025, id., p. 101. 97 See En Bane Resolution dated I 3 June 2025, id., p. I02. 98 See Assignment of Error, Petition for Review, supra at note l, p. 12.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X revisited. According to petitioner, Menguito pertains to post reporting notice and PAN while Fitness by Design pertains to an FAN. Moreover, petitioner argues that respondent's tax liabilities were stated categorically and fixed definitely in the FLD, and the ANs attached thereto, since the basic tax deficiency, the surcharge, and interest set until 28 December 2017, were all indicated therein. Finally, petitioner asserts that the issue of the absence of a definite due date on the FLD and the ANs is an undisputed issue as it was not raised at the administrative level. Thus, it cannot be raised for the first� time on appeal before this Court. Respondent counters that a careful reading of Fitness by Design reveals that Menguito was applied to establish the importance of issuing an FAN and to reiterate that an assessment must not only include a computation of tax liabilities but must also provide a demand for payment within the period prescribed. Respondent also claims that the FLD that petitioner issued merely requested the payment of the assessed income tax, thus, it does not constitute a categorical and unconditional demand for payment within a definite period. Lastly, respondent argues that the Special Third Division ruled validly on the issue of the absence of a definite due date on the FLO and the attached ANs even though it was not raised directly in the administrative level because the said issue is directly and inextricably tied with the issue of the validity of the subject assessment and the resolution of such issue may be resolved by an examination of the records without requiring the presentation of additional proof. RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Before going into the merits of the case, the Court En Bane shall first determine whether the instant Petition for Review was timely filed.t

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS TIMELY FILED. Section 18 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125,99 as amended by RA 9282,100 provides that a party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a Petition for Review with the CTA En Bane. Section 3(b), 10 Rule 8 of the RRCTA states that the party affected ' should file the Petition for Review within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. This is without prejudice to the authority of the Court to grant an additional Is-day� period from the expiration of the original period, within which to file the Petition for Review. In the present case, petitioner received the assailed Resolution on 30 September 2024.102 Counting 15 days therefrom, petitioner had until15 October 2024 to file the present Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. On 15 October 2024, petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review"'o3 which the Court En Bane granted on 21 October 2024.'04 Petitioner was given a non- extendible period of 15 days from 15 October 2024, or until 30 October 2024, to file his or her Petition for Review.10s On 30 October 2024,'06 petitiOner filed the instant Petition for Review, within the extended 15-day reglementary period. Therefore, the Court En Bane acquired jurisdiction over the instant case. We now, therefore, proce~d to discuss petitioner's arguments in support of this instant petition.t 99 AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. 100 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA). ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP. AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. I 125, AS AMENDED. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I OJ Supra at note 2. 102 See BIR Litigation Division's "Received" Stamp on Notice dated 20 September 2024, Division Docket, Volume II, p. 969. I 03 Rollo, pp. I-4. I 04 Supra at note 92. I 05 !d. 106 Supra at note I.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION HAS JURISDICTION TO RULE ON AN ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE COURT AND NOT RAISED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. Petitioner maintains that the Special Third Division's jurisdiction over his or her decision on disputed assessment is by nature exclusive and appellate. As such, it has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue of whether the FLD and the ANs issued to respondent are null and void for petitioner's failure to indicate a definite due date thereon smce respondent failed to raise such issue in the administrative level. We disagree. The Supreme Court, in the case of Prime Steel Mill, Incorporated v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,107 clarified that the CTA may rule on issues raised for the first time before it, even though the same issue had not been raised in the proceedings in the administrative level, provided that (1) the arguments are related to the principal issue to be resolved by the court and is necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case; and (2) the resolution of these new arguments would not require the presentation of additional evidence, viz: For tax cases before the CTA, the Court pronounced in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. that "[t]he appellate court may, in the interest of justice, properly take into consideration in deciding the case matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or the lower court ignored, although they have not been specifically raised as issues by the pleadings. This is in consonance with the liberal spirit that pervades the Rules of Court, and the modern trend of procedure which accord the courts broad discretionary power, consistent with the orderly administration of justice, in the decision of cases brought before them." Conspicuously, it is this same spirit of liberality which impelled the Court to recognize that the CTA may even consider issues not . specifically raised by the parties at all in the disposition of tax cases s o t I 07 G.R. No. 249153, 12 September 2022; Citations omitted, italics and emphasis in the original text and supplied.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x long as the same is related to the principal issue for its resolution and is necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the matter at hand. From the foregoing, the Court so holds that the CTA En Bane, or even a Division thereof, may consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration, respectively, only if two conditions concur: one, these arguments are related to the principal issue to be resolved by the court and is necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case; and two, the resolution of these new arguments would not require the presentation of additional evidence, and must rely solely on factual bases that are already matters of record in the case. One of the principal issues that the Special Third Division was tasked to resolve is whether respondent is liable to pay the amount of P3,293,56s,888.92 representing the alleged deficiency income tax and compromise penalty, inclusive of increments.108 Certainly, the validity of the FLO and the ANs attached thereto is crucial in determining whether respondent is liable to pay the alleged deficiency income tax, compromise penalty, and its increments, in view of the well-settled doctrine that a void assessment bears no valid fruit. 109 Moreover, no additional evidence is necessary for the resolution of the aforementioned issue as it may be resolved by a mere scrutiny of the subject FLO and the ANs attached thereto, which were already formally offered by the parties110 and form part of the records of the case. Guided by the foregoing, We find that the Special Third Division' t ruled correctly on tpe issue of whether the ANs issued against respondent are valid. I 08 See II. Statement of facts and Issues, Pre-Trial Order dated 07 July 2022, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 437-438. 109 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc., G.R. No. 223767, 24 April 2023; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. Nos. 197945 & 204119-20, 09 July 2018; Commissioner of internal Revenue v. Liquigaz Philippines Corporation, G.R. Nos. 215534 & 215557, 18 April 20 16; Commissioner of internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama. inc., G.R. No. 185371, 08 December 2010. 110 See Exhibit "R-11" and Exhibit "P-12", supra at note 6.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X THE FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND (FLD) ISSUED TO RESPONDENT AND THE ASSESSMENT NOTICES (ANs) ATTACHED THERETO ARE VOID AS THEY DO NOT CONTAIN A DEFINITE AND UNEQUIVOCAL DEMAND FOR PAYMENT. In the assailed Decision and Resolution, the Special Third Division cited the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Fitness by Design in holding that the FLD and ANs attached thereto issued to respondent are void as these did not bear a specific due date. In his or her bid to have the Special Third Division's Decision' reversed, petitioner insists that the doctrine laid down in Fitness by Design should be revisited since the Supreme Court allegedly misapplied Menguito in Fitness by Design's ratio. According to petitioner, the portion lifted by Fitness by Design from Menguito involved the resolution of a very dissimilar issue pertaining to a post- reporting notice and PAN (and not to FAN). In addition, respondent's tax liabilities were made clear and definite in the FLD and the ANs since the basic tax deficiency, the surcharge, and interest set until 28 December 2017 were all shown therein. Petitioner's contentions fail to convince. At the outset, We disagree with petitioner's argument that Menguito was misapplied in Fitness by Design. In resolving the issue of whether the lack of post-reporting notice and PAN is prejudicial to the' taxpayer, the Supreme Court in Menguito compared the said notices to a formal assessment notice (FAN) as to their purpose and importance. Thus, it was necessary for the High Court to define a FAN and discuss its function and contents, which includes a demand for payment within a prescribed period. While Menguito did not involve the resolution of whether a FAN with no definite due date is void (unlike Fitness by Design), the Supreme Court's discussion of the purpose and contents of a formal assessment notice therein is instructive in stressing the importance of a demand for _ payment within a specific period in the FAN and in subsequentlyt

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x arriving at the conclusion that the absence of due dates in the FAN renders the same void. Consequently, We do not see any misapplication of Menguito's discussion of a FAN's purpose and contents in Fitness by Design. Besides, even granting that Menguito was indeed misapplied in Fitness by Design, unless and until the Supreme Court En Bancm modifies the doctrine laid down therein, We are constrained to apply the same once We ascertain that the facts in Fitness by Design are substantially the same with that of the present case. This is in accordance with the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, as elucidated in Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali v. The judicial and Bar Council, 112 VIZ: As stated in the beginning ofthis ponencia, stare decisis et non quieta movere is a doctrine which means to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established. This is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides, thus: ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. The same is grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions, thus, time and again, the court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. It simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though U the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of~ justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like Ill Section 4(3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en bane or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en bane. 112 G.R. No. 228628,25 July 2017; Citation omitted, italics in the original and emphasis in the original text and supplied, and underscoring supplied.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. The doctrine has assumed such value in our judicial system that the Court has ruled that "[a]bandonment thereof must be based only on strong and compelling reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of predictability which is expected from this Court would be immeasurably affected and the public's confidence in the stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished." Verily, only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the courts be justified in setting aside the same. Pertinently, Fitness by Design is still a binding judicial pronouncement that has been cited and reiterated in recent Supreme Court decisions. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. T Shuttle Services, Inc.,113 the Supreme Court, citing Fitness by Design, held that even granting that service of the PAN and the FAN was proper, the assessment remains void if the FAN and the ANs attached to it fail to demand payment within a specific period, reiterating that a final assessment must be both a notice of tax due and a demand for payment within a definite timeframe. Further, in Republic of the Philippines v. First Gas Power Corporation, 114 the Supreme Court, echoing Fitness by Design, expressly agreed with Our ruling that the subject FAN and FLD are not valid as it. failed to indicate a definite due date for payment by the taxpayer. More recently, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Telstar Manufacturing Corporation 11s (Telstar) the High Court, finding basis on Fitness by Design, invalidated a FLD/FAN that does not contain a categorical demand for payment of assessed !ax despite a subsequent demand for payment contained in the FDDA.t 113 G.R. No. 240729, 24 August 2020. '" G.R. No.2 !4933, I 5 February 2022. 115 G.R. Nos. 249239 and 250286 & 249241-41, 10 February 2025.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION X-------------------------------------------------X With the foregoing in mind, We now determine whether the doctrine laid down in Fitness by Design - that an assessment with no demand for payment within a period prescribed is void, finds application in the case at bar. A scrutiny of the subject FLD"6 and the ANs attached thereto reveals that they do not only lack due dates but also a categorical demand for payment: Pursuant to the provision of Section 228 of the aforesaid Code and its implementing revenue regulations, you are hereby given the opportunity to present in writing your side of the case within thirty (3o) days from receipt hereof. However, if you are amenable, you may pay the above assessment using the BIR Payment Form (BIR Form o6o5) through eFPS. Afterwards, submit proof of payment thereof to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner located at 3'd Floor, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City for updating of the records and cancellation of the herein FLO, if warranted."? Conspicuously, the above FLD is similarly worded with the FLO/FAN invalidated by the Supreme Court in Telstar"8 for its lack of a categorical demand for payment, viz: In the case at bench, a plain reading of the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice readily reveals that no demand for payment of the assessed taxes was made: Pursuant to the provision of Section 228 of the aforesaid Code and its Implementing revenue regulations, you are hereby given the opportunity to present in writing your side of the case within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof. However, if you are amenable, you may pay the above assessment through the Electronic Filing and Payment Section (EFPS). Afterwards, submit proof of payment thereof to the Regular Large Taxpayers . Audit Division 1 located at Rm 216, National Officet 116 Supra at note 6. 117 Emphasis supplied. 118 Supra at note 115; Citation omitted, emphasis in the original text and supplied.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x Building, Diliman, Quezon City for updating of your records. Ifwe fail to hear from you within the said period, you shall be considered in default, in which case, a formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be issued by this Office calling for payment of your aforesaid deficiency taxes, inclusive of civil penalty and interest. To recapitulate, the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice must contain a categorical demand for payment of assessed tax with factual and legal bases. This is because an obligation to pay the tax is being imposed upon the taxpayer. Such obligation must be stated in a clear and plain language to properly apprise the taxpayer. Moreover, based on the document title itself, the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice is a demand for payment of taxes. Perceptibly, it must contain a demand for payment of assessed taxes. Absent such demand, it is rendered defective. Clearly, the FLO, and the ANs attached thereto, issued to respondent does not appear to be a demand for payment of tax due within a specified period, which a final assessment notice should supposedly be. Petitioner's subsequent issuance of the FDDA"9 which contains an express demand for payment within a definite due date will not cure the invalidity of the FLO and ANs issued to respondent, as enunciated in Telstar:'20 A subsequent demand contained in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment does not cure the defective Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice. The law, rules and regulations require the demand for payment of assessed tax to be made in the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice and not in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment. The Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment have divergent functions. The first one calls for the t payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax while the second one informs the taxpayer of respondent's final decision on any protest filed. Surely, _ a subsequent demand contained in the Final Decision on Disputed 119 Supra at note 7. 1:20 Supra at note 115.

CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION x-------------------------------------------------x Assessment does not cure the lack of any demand in the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice. All told, pursuant to the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Fitness by Design and Telstar, the subject FLD and ANs in the case ar bar could only be rendered void and without any legal effect. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on 30 October 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 18 April 2024 and the assailed Resolution dated 18 September 2024 of the Court's Special Third Division in CTA Case No. 10445, entitled Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue or any person duly acting on his or her behalf is hereby ENJOINED from pursuing any action against respondent relative to the above-mentioned void assessments. SO ORDERED. r ~~0-VILLENA JEAN MA.~.. ;:te Justice WE CONCUR: ')!vi. ~ h" ~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice

.- --------------- 0 ,71-; - -_-L CTA EB NO. 3007 (CTA Case No. 10445) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. DECISION MARIA Rg ' ESTO-SAN PEDRO Justice 1 ~ ~ff~�~ck MARIAN IVY{)_ REYEtFAJAR:DO Associate Justice LANEhEusM. CU(;I{-;nDXfl~m Associate Justice HENRYf.~GELES 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 writer of the opinion of the Court. lfl'.A. ~ h" '- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice