CTA Case No. 5466 (Decision)

REP UBLI C OF THE PHI L I PP I NE S COURT OF TAX APPEA LS C~ U EZ ON C l TY LA SUERT E C IGAR A ND CI GARE TTE C.T.A. CASE NO. 546 6 F AC TOR Y , INC . , Pr' OiliU I ga t ed : Pe t i t i onet' , SEP 23 1998 - versus COMM I SS I ONE�R or INTER NAL REV ENUE, nespondent. X- - - - - - DECI S IO N c: (�11 s i de t' at i o n i s a j u cl i c i a I c I a i m f o I' I' ef 1.1nd o f s pe c i f i c t a:-:es t o t a I I i ng P325 , 4 1 0 . 00 Wl1iC il a ilege clly !1ave been er r o neou s ly paid by t ile pe t i tioner on . i ts bu I k pur cl1ases of s temm ed�- I ea f t o b a c c o f r o m f o I' e i g n t o b acco l!lB IIUf ac tu t e 1 s. PetIti o n er i s a co 1 p o rat ion du 1y orga ni ze d and ex i s t in g Ull (l er� Pl1 i I i pp i ne l aws w ith princ i pa l off i ce at I( Ill � 14 1 Wes t se r�v ice rload 1 Pa r� a n a q u e I fv1e t r o Ma n i I a � It is eng ag E'd i 11 t l1 e i mj:.or t a \. ion and l oca l purc h ase of s tellillled I eaf t obacco �vV h i e ll it u ses a s a raw mat er i a l i n tl 1e pr od u c t i o n a nd ma n ufacture o f c igar and ciga r e t tes . T !-: e f a c t ~ a I ' e s i mp I e . p a icl t!; e mo nth of hl arc li 1995, petitioner a l l eged l y u n t1e r pro 1. est the 11ere i n be i ov I i s t ed am o unts of specific ta ;� es 0 11 petitioner's IJ U I k pur c hase s of ste mm ed l ea f t o bacc o f' r o :n f o r' e i g n t o b a c co ma n u f act u r e r s , as f o l l ows:

I 1, - DEC I SION - C.T . A. CASE NO . 5466 - 2- Date Amount ATAPEP Ser i a I No . Amount 03/02/95 69, 01 l'gs. 2044548 52,050.75 03/02/95 r_:-,g, 400 2044545 44 ,550. 00 03/02/95 69,401 l( g s. 20 44543 52,050.75 03/03/95 46,540 Kg s. 2045006 34,905.00 0 3/08/95 8 3,2 81 Kgs. 204 !5021 62 ,460.75 03/08/95 :3 1 ,026 2045019 23 , 269.50 03/10/9t5 39, 1 9 1 1\g s. 204505.<: 29 ,393.25 03/20!95 35 ,640 2045050 26,730.00 1\ g s. T0 TAL f'325,410.00 Kg s . Kgs. On S e fJ t e Ill be I' 2 7 , 199G and October 2, 1996, p e titi o net fil e d written c laims for refund and an amended c o py o f t~ e s ame, t' e s p e c t i v e I y , cover ing t h e p er i od Oc tober 1 994 up to May 1995 in the aggregate su m of P 1 ,95 1,1 51.63 Petiti o ner ar y ues there i n _that t h e co ll ect ion under Sec ti o n 141 (b) of the Tax Code of the P 0 .75/k il o exc i se tax 011 s ales of stemmed l eaf tobacco was erroneous and / o r i I I ega! b ec ause such s~ l es are t:!xempt 1"r om exc i se ta x w h en made by a manuf ac tur e r� ct i 1 e c t I y t o a 11 o t 11 e ,. in accor dance w i th Sect i on �137 o f t l!e Ta x Co de . P e t i t i o n e I' f u r t 11e 1 e i a b o 1� a t e cl in sa id wr i t t e n c l a im t t1at th e adlnin!strative IJ I' nctice o f 1� e s p o nclent 's B u reau since 1939 was no t to sub j ect stemmed leaf tobac co to e xc i se ta;:; U1at t 11e payillen t o�f specific ta x on stemmed I e a f t o to a c c o a Ill o u n t s t o d o u b I e t a x a t i o n lJ e t; a u s e e x c i s e t a x i s a g a i n fJ a i J o n t h e f i n i s 11 e d c i g a I' e t t e p r o d u c t s ; t 11a t S e c t i o n 1 4 1 o-r t l1e Ta x Code is a genera I provi sio n o f B 11 r�e a u o f ---- ---------- me a n s " Au t !HH i t y T iJ p, c c e p t P a y 111 e 11 t " 1i 1t e 1 11 a ! ne,, e 1i u e r o 1 m N::. � 2 3 1-3 i\

DE CiSION - C.T.A. CASE NO . 5466 -- 3 --� o !' tlie i aw and c!oes n ot apply to s temmed l eaf tobacco; that sa l e of par� t i al l y manu f ac tur- ed toba cco , I i l<e ste iTl llled is f , x em p t f i' Oill spe~:if i c ta x under Reve nu e regulations I'Jo. 17 ~ 6 7 ; tliat a ru l i 11~1 of respondent's Bur�ea.u suppor�ts it s p osit i on; t 11at an aut ho ri ty on tobac(:o I aw !.Jy t 1�1 e n a 111 e of lVIr . L ot' en z o S . B a I' I' e do , th e n C!1 i e f of t i: e T o b a c c: o I n s p e c t i o n S e r� v i. c e o f r e s p o n cl e n t ' s Bureau slated in 11 is booh e n t i t I e d , " P 11 i I i p p i n e To IJ a c c o Hevenue Reg11la t ions on 1\l ticl es Sub j ee;t to Specific Ta xes" that sa f e of ste 111med l eaf to b acco in bul l< from one man u f ac:tur e 1 t o a 11 o t 11 e ,., i s e x ~Ill p t f r o m t a x , h e n c e , c a n be -.:1 i t 11 cl r a wn f ron: t lr e p I ace o f produ c t i on or c us to rn s c ustody w i t li 0 u t spec i f i v ta x ; that eve n if it is or iginall y I i ab I e, i t ca n n o I o n g e I' b e 11 e I d I i a b l e f o ,- specific t ,ax because un cler Sect i on 1 27 o f the Tax Code W li i G !1 p I' e s c 1 i be s t 11e p a y 111 e n t of e x c i s e l a x o n t 11 e p e r s o n llavi llg possession o f t 11 e t o IJ a c c o p I' o d u c t s i n c a s e i t 11 a s not been paid f) y t 1�1e Ill a n u f a c t u r� e 1 o r p r (l cl u c e I' be f o r� e t 11 e t� emo va I o i' s u c 11 product s "F r� om t 1�1e p I a o e of p r� o duct i on , i t al l egedly was 11 0 I on ger' t ile ow ner n o r� t 11 e ex i s t i n g p o s s e s so,- of t t1e sa me; a 1: cl las tl y, that even assuming th at tiH;! bas i s -r o ,. assessme nt was cor re ct, t !l e co mputati o n o i' tl 1e ta;. due was nonethe l ess erroneo u s. Pet i t i one ,. a�/er� s , 11ow e ver , t t1 at up to t lr e f i I i n g of t� !i e i n stan t i ; E~ t i t i (; n , r e s p ond e 1t t 1: as not been a b I e to act

DECISiON -- C .T.A . CASE NO. 5 166 -4 Up0 11 sa i d c i aim. Hence, pe-t i L i one r' instituted tile pI' e s e 11 t ct f.,pea I , bV way o�f a petiti o n for 1�ev i ew, in Ol'cler t o s -L c p t 11~ 1 llll n i n g o-r the p er� em p to I' y per i o d of two-- v ea r� s w i t h i n wh i c 11 to f i I e a j udicia l c 1 aim -r o I' I' e. f u n d a s provided ll llder- Section 230 or t llG Ta .< Code, as amended. At tn1 I' , p e t i t i o n e r r� epleacl s its stance a q uo. On t 11e o t 11e r- 11 a n cl , respondent asserts in ~�ris Answer the Fo1 1owi11g s p e c i a I a n cl a f f i !' ma t i v e d ~ f e n s e s , am o n g o t t1 e t' s , to wit: SPEC IAL, NO AFFIRMA TI VE .DEFENSES 6. Under Sect i o n 141 (b) of the National I nterna l R1:1venue Code (NH~C), par' t i a lly prepared t obacco i s s u!J je ct t.d speoi �fic ta x . S i n G e s t e nnn e d I e a f to b a c a o i s c I ass i f i e d as p artially p rep are cl tol)acco under Section 2(111)( 1 ) oF n eve nu e Regulations tJo. 17-6-T, it i s sub j ec t t o spec i f i c t ax . I f t t1 e s t e 111 me d I e a f tobacco i s impor�ted, i t is sub j ect to speci �fic t a;, U IHl e I ~) e c ti 0 I I I 4 1 ( b ) i f 1 r e I at i c !1 t 0 SeCt i 0 n 128 of the NIHC. 7� U n c1 e l' S e c t i o n �1 3 7 o 1' t 11 e N I RC , a s imp lemeiJte cl by Sec ti on 20(a) of Revenue Re g u I a t i o rr s t-J o . V -- 3 9 , s t e nun e d l e a f t o b a c co ma y i:1e su lcJ in bulk as r� aw matei � ial w ith out p r e p a y me 11 t o f til e s p e c i r i c t a x o n I y i f t fl e s a I e tl!e r�eo f is by' Cl i e L -7 per- mi t t ee d il~ec tly to anot h er L-7 per-mitt ee. {Com mi ss i o ner of I n t tl 1- n a I Fl e v e n u e v s . L a S y e r t. e C i g a r� & i F a c t o 1 y , c A -- G . n . c i g a t� e t t e sp . No . 3 8 1o7 , Dece mber 29, 199~; Co mm i ss i o1\er o f I nterna I Revenu12 vs. La Ca mp ana Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc., Cf,�G.FI. Sp. No. 407 73 , ,July 22 , 1 996) Ful~ tllel~ m o re, tile tax exe mpt i on under' Sect i o n 1 37 of tl1e rJ!IlC app l i(:.-s only t o lo ca l sales o t� s t e mm e d I e a I' t o b a c c o a n cl n <) t 1 o i mp o J' t a t i o n s t11ereof. )1��� :<-X X-- X --X .

DE C ISION - C.T.A. CP,Sf. tli. 546 6 - 5- 9. lm posin y s pe cific ta x o n s temmed leaf t()bacco o uld nc.� t amount to cl oub l e axation in t h e pr u 1 1 bit e(j sei t se even j �f specif i c ta x is a 1 so i 111 ~ c ; e c1 on t !1 e f i 11 i s hed pr- o d u c t o �r w11 i c h s t e m1n e c1 a r tobacco i s an i nt e g r a 1 par� t . T 11 i s is so ''� cause th e ta;<. i s imposed on two clifr ere l tl >ulJ j ect matt ers, name l y, ( I ) s temm ecl I ea 1' tob< .:: o wl1en so I cJ i 11 bulk as r� aw mate r ia I a 11 d ( 2 ) i 11 '"' F i n i s i1e d p r o cl u c t , c i gar et t e ; (Comm i ss ic 11e o f lwtcr-nal n eve nu e vs. La Suer� te C ig at' & : i , arelte Fact (ny , CA - G.R. S p . No. 38 1 07, fl E:s 1 1 t i o n elat ed ~.t u n ::: 7 , 19 96) 10, :i�te exe mption fr� om s p ecific taJI. o f pa1t i a l ly' 1na n , -rac;tured to ba cco unde r Sect ion 43(a) o f r- .avet ; ue Re gu I at i o n s No. 1 7-67 app I i es on I }I to ('t1rt a I i y manu �r actur'ecl to l) acco fo r� ex pot l . ! .: o Ill Ill 1 s s i one I' of I 11 t e r 11 a I Revenue v s . La C d 111 pan a ;� a b r i � ~a d e T ab a cos 1 I n c . , _?~~-) 1 1 . T 11 e 6 I r-1 R u I i n g cl a t e c! D e c e Ill be r 1 2 , 1 9 7 2 t 11 a t t tl e ~~ . 1 I e o f p a r � t i a I I y ma 11 u f a c t u r e d t o ba ot::o by an L 6/L�-3R per' mitte e to a n L-� 7 i /2 permitte e may a l so be allowed w ithout p r e p a y me n l o f t 11 .:, s 1J e c i r i c t a x i s e r ,. o n e o u s � B e i n \d a vn o n Q i n : e1 pet at i on o f t !1 e I aw sa id 1 n 1I i n g cl i d 11 o t g i ,, �=J r i s e t o a v e s t e cl 1� i g h t t 11 a t ca n l:;e in vo l<ecl by petition e r. (H i ! ado vs . Co I I ector� or I n t e i' r1a I He ven u e , I 0 0 P11 i I . 2 8 8 , 295 (1 956)) 1 2 . i t i s a l l eiJ GCI tha t the ste mm ed l ea f t o ba cco was i mpor t e d by pet iti o ner from abroad. U 11 d e l' S e c t i o n 1 2 8 o f t h (:\ N I R C , p e t i t i o n e r ; a s t: 11e i tn port e 1 o r own e I' t 11ere o f , ! s I i a b I e fo r the spec i f i c ta~ due t h e r eo n . On tl1e other l1 a 11 d, Secl i o1�1 i27 of t. IJE; NIR C app! ies o nly to domest i c pr oduc t s. x-x-x x�.. x~-x x--x-x ne corcl s s 11en~ t 11a t t r i a I p r o c e e ci i n g s nia i n I y i n v o I v e d the p e t i t i o 11e r� � s p 1' e s e n t a t ! o n and f o !' Ill a I offer� o'i ev id ence. B �) t II p a i t i e s d i d n o t f i I e t 11 e i r respective 111em ora nd um despi tl~ no t i ce , extensio ns and war� nin g .

l)ECiSION -- C.T.A . CASE NO. 5466 - 6 -- T t1 e i s sue co n f r- 0 11 t i n g Us I, C,,� w 11 e t 11 e r or not petiti o n er is l e g a lly a 11d 'fa ct ually e n t itled to its c laim f o r 1 efund. Af tel' a carei'u l S C I' U t i 11 Y 0 f t!1e �facts, r e s p e c t i v e , a I" g u lilt:: 11 t a l i o n o f t !J e parti es , t 11e c i t ed p r� o v i s i o n s \) f 1 a ws , 1 u 1 e s a n cl I' e g u I a t i o n s a n d a p p I i c a !). I e j u I' i s p r u d e n 0 e , t li i s Co u i' t 1 e so i v e s t G per e 111 p to I' i I y r u I e i n f a 11 o I' o f t 11e p e t i t i o 11 e r . Tl1e leg a l l!iili eu of !1er- e in case i s n ot o ne o�f f i r s t i mp1 e:;s i o n . T 11 e C u u 1, t o f /\ p p e a ! s h a s a I I' e ad y s p o I~ e n o n t h e ma t t 8 ,- . So me o f til e per� tin e nt excer�pts o f CA - G.R. SP Nos. 3 621 9 an d 40313 entit l ed, Comm i ss i o ne r o f Int ernal R eve nu e vs. F or� t une T o bacco Corpo:�at i o n, PI' OillU I g a t ed 0 11 Januar-y "0, 1998, w lli c ll i s app l i cab l y s i Ill j l ar i 11 fa cts, i ssues an d t t�1e disqu is i l i ons r a i sed by the pa I' t ies 11 e r� e i n, aie 1\ b I ' e b y r� e pr oduce .:l in answer- to t 11 e co nt d!Jt i ous issues 1 3 i se d by� l!er' e in par� t i es , thu s : Tile g am e r- easo n app I i es to s temmed I ea f' t o b a c c o wh i c t�1 i s i n t e n.d e J s o I e I y a s a r� a w material in the manu-fa c tur e o f c igarettes ancl o t h e r� t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s � A I t e r t 11 e c I y a ,- e t t e s a t e m� nurac:Lulecl, excise ta xes w ill be paid. I 11 e f f e c t , w h a t t 11 e p e t i t i o t t e r 11 a s p r o v i d e d i n tl-,e disputed r e gulati o n i s d ou bl e ta x ation t h e p ay me 11 t o f e x c i s e t ax e s o n t 11 e r a w mat e r i a I and l a t er � , th e payrnen t. ' o�f exc i se taxes o n the Ill a n u f a c t u I' e u p ,- o d u c t . Do u b I e t a x a t i o n 111 u s t be spec i �f i ca lly and c l early P I" Ov icled t'JV l aw. It c a n 11o t b e i 111 p o s e d by a elm i n i s t t' a t i v e r u I e -� ma '' i n g body, If v sp e c i �fi c a I I exc I u de cl unde r- t l1e I ast 1-Jaragrapl ; o r Se(:t i o n 1 �~1, taxes ca nl'l ot be

LJECISION - C.T . A. CAS E NO . 5 466 -- 7 - i nc lud e d u n d e r I-' a 1� a g r�a p h :::'. o f t 11 e s a rn e sect i on by a mere i n t e r r:. I' s t a t i o n o -r lll e petitioner. )(-X-X Til e dl' gument tl1 a t s ten11ned leaf totJacc o u se cl a s 1 a w mate r i a I i s ~"> ;, e n: p t f i' o m tax at i on o 11 I y w118 n i t l s f I' O lll <) n e L -- 7 manu -r act u :~ e I' t o a n o t I1e r L - I' 111 a n u f a c t u 1� e 1 s u �f f e r s f I' o 111 t h e s a me I II f i i' 111 i L y . I t i s b a s e d o n t 11 e B I R ' s own ne v e 11 u e R e g u I a t i o n s V -- 3 9 v. t1 i c h a d cl t o t t1e I a w s o me t 11 i n g til 1 i c il i s n o t t r1e r e . U s i ng i t s pow e I' o f c !a ss iTi ca t i o ll, t h (, pe t i t i o n e r� 11a s ve ntu r- ed int o a n a me n clme11t a nl.l a mpl i f i8a ti on o f the b as i c I a '.'\', X-� X- X x--x--x x-x - x Til e I aw de f i 11es an ci exe ntpts ce i� ta in raw mater i a i s o n ccn diti o n t h a t exc i se ta .(eS w i II ev enluall y u e pa i d 0 11 tl1 e fini s h e d ma n ufa c tur e d p r od uc t . T 11 e B I F1 h a s c I a s s i F i e d t 11 e s e t' a w mat e r i,a I s i n a r e st r i c t i v t~ manner� on I y fr-om o n e L - I t o a r1 o ti1er L -7 w i1 e n a lI that the l a w r e q u i ,- ''' s i s t 11a t t h e e.._ c i s e l ax e s no t co i I e c t e d a t l 11 e s l a r� t w i I I e v e n L u a I 1~- . b e p a i d o n c e t 11 e t o b a c c o p r o d u c t c o 111 e s o u t i 11 f l 11 a I f o r 111 � F o r a w i d e v a r� i e t y o f r a w mat e t' i a I s , t 11 e r e i s do u b I e impo s i t i on l> )' th e BIR of exc i se taxes wt1en the I a VI o b v i o u s I 'i r e 1r1 o v e ~, t a .r; e s a t t h e s t a r t o f t 11e rn a n u r d c l u 1 i 11 y p 1 o ce s s a nd i 1n p o s �~ s t 11 e m o n I y o n c e - w 11 e 11 t 11 e p 1� o c e s s l s e: o Ill p I e t e d � Again, cluubl e t ax at io n i s v alid b u t O t1ly wh e n j t is p r ovid e d by s t a tute . It 0an not b e impo se d t lr r o u g 1�1 a 11 i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u ! e . ><-�X-- 7, X-:: - X We are aw ar�e o f Lll e r u ling i n Co mmissioner� o f I n t e I' n a I R e v e n u e v s . L a S u e t' t e C i g a r a n d Cigar e t t e Fa c-t:o r :v , C/1.-G.n. S P No . 3 8 '107 issued o n 0 e c e mbe r- 2 9 , 1 9 9 5 . 'J e n u t e , 11 0 \v eve r , t !1a t Ll! i s Co u r t i n t II e case of L a Sue rt e C ig a r fai l e d to tah e into a o c o 11 n t t 11 e I i 111 i t a t i o n s i n t i1 e e 1. e t' c i s e of ~ uasl- l ~ gi s l a ti v e pow e rs by administrat i ve a gen c i es. Tr u e , the l~ w In Se c ti o ns 141 and 13 7 o f t 11e T ax Cu d e co 11 t a i n s t 11 e p 1'\ r a s e " u n de 1�� Sl!(; !-1 ,:;.) n ci i t i U !1S as may i:H:') pr esc r� i be �:J i 11 tiH~

I� DECISION - C . T . f;, . C f:1 S E , l 0 . 5 4 6 6 regula , l!l~> of the Departm e nt of� Finance." Howe v e 1 t 11e pow er t o p r e s c r i 1::: e 1� e g u I at i on s i s not <, ca r� t E~ b I an c 1�1e (J i V i I 1g tile B I f-1 f U I I d i s c t' e \ i '-' n a ~' :1 a u t h o r� ! t y t u ad d t o t 11 e I a w� I t i s 11 o 1 tt r o \! i n g c o 111m i s s i o n . I t i s sub j ect t o e s t a b I i 3 11 ~ d a nd bas i c p I' i n c i p I e s of 1\ d Ill i n i s t 1 at i �J e L .:t w e 11 u n c i at e d i n s c o r e s o f sup r�em e Co u ;� l d e c i s i u 11 s . 1 !) e r e is no discr�E! p :11 �.:f l:�etween the princ i p l es en un c i ate d i n t h i .:l e ~,..: i s i on and i n t 11e L. a Suer t e dec i s i o 11 e.xcep t t hat t l1e latt er stoppecl s llOI ' t and did r ot 9' into tl!e powers o f a.dm i nistr� ative agenc i e, If i l llad Q�Jne fu I! y ancl far- e n o ugh into tl quasi-legislativ0 povv e 1 s of Bureau uf Int ernal Jle. ve nu e, i t vvould h ave ar� rived a t co n c iusi �ns 'F ully conso nant wit h our' fincling s." It is 1 . e 1:; o u 11 d t~ n d u t ':/ .:; f t 11 i s C o u r t t o I' e c o g n i z e ancl su l:;se rve t o t 11e w i s d o ni a r� I' i v e d a t by a super i 01 Cui;!',�_ S U�.:: Ii d J t !1 e Cu u 1 t of f\ppea Is. In gist, Cour�t l . �r /'~ ppea Is 11 as art'ivect at tl 1e in est::a p ab le '' COI:CIUSiOI1 lhe.t Section 13/ of the Ta x Code i s the QOV8 1'1'1it1Q t) I ) ! I 8 i U 11 i nsof a 1� as Fol'tu n e Tobacco Corporat i on':: ;ase is co ncer-ned, I'! P n ce , no pr�e-payment o f exc is e ta x i ~; 1 equirecl. Being simi I ar I y situated, peti t i one r i s ,, ntitled to the same interpretat i o n given uf Appeals. Wliat is left thus fo r' this Cout� I. t o c! o i s iH e 1 e I y t o a s o e r� t a i n vd1 e t l1 s r p e t i t i o 11 e r 1\ a s sa ti sf i ed t 11 !?. r-;, \' i de n t i a r' }' 1�equ ire111ents of i t s c I a i 111 f o t' refund. t-. ti �I�JI 'O Ugll and clt?ta i I ed exa mination of petitioner' ' s co n sisting of ci u p I i c a t E! s o �f' A u t h o ,- i t y t o A 0 c e p t Pa~t m ent ( .C>.TAF i co r' respo nding rnacl1ine

DECIS I ON - C. T. /\ . CASE t!O, 5466 -9- va l i dat i on o -r j.,a�:/ lri CiitS (EX I\ l lJ its "A" i. o "H" ) co n vi n ces t 11 i s c o u 1 t t 11 a t p ,-oven t 11 e e n t i I' e a 111 o u n t of i t s c 1 a i m r o r t e f u n ci . WHEFIE FO!lE I i n v ie �� of ti i t:: For�e g o i 119 1 th e in sta nt Pet i t i o n fo1 r.ev i e~v is h et'e t)l/ GRANTED . Accor cl i ng I y I r~ espon d enl i s !i e r e b V 0 A 0 ERE 0 t o REF UN 0 t ll e a Ill o u n t of P3 25,410 . 00 to 1Jet itione r i 111 nt e \ J i ate I y . No pr� o rJ OU11ce me 11 t as t o costs. SO ORDERED . WE Pr_:;' /:("d/ DEY.~~ BAMON 0 . ,A,~_ ,'-:.,. ..�.-.... (.' I. d,� L..t-...,.:.,.:. ~J LI.Cl '1:.1 CEnT. I F C /-\. T I CN 11e r e !J y c e 1- l i f y t 11 a t t hi s decision was l' ea~.;hecl aftet � duG coi\GU I t at i ott wi t il tl1e me mb er� s of tile Court of Ap p ea I s i 11 a c c o i~ d a n c e w i t 11 S e c t i o n 1 3 1 A I' t i c I e V I I I o�f til �:! Const i tulion. G t.2~~ ERNESTO D. ACOS TA P1esiding .Jud ge Co urt of T ax /\ppea l s