REGUS SERVICE CENTRE PHILIPPINES B.V. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No. 8 (For DCC) 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111 22-0001 29-0064 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10813 REGUS SERVICE CENTRE PHILIPPINES B.V., Petitioner, -versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. AYESHA BANIA B. GUlLING-MATANOG ATTY. CLARISSA J. VIRTUDES-BABARAN Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City CABRERA & COMPANY 29th Floor, AlA Tower (formerly Philamlife Tower) 8767 Paseo de Roxas, 1226 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 11, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 13, 2026. J~. Atty. Maria .. Executive ~ourtChIaIIn-Te

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION REGUS S~RVICE CTA CASE NO. 10813 CENTRE, PHILIPPINES B.V., Members: Petitioner, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, :c:-s:- ---------- Respondent. MAR 11 2026:J:/6P1'1-X X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For the resolution of the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 June 2025) filed on July 18, 2025, with respondent's Opposition (re: Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 30 June 2025), filed on September 19, 2025. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court's Decision dated June 30, 2025, which denied its Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner contends that the official receipts (OR), when read together with the Services Agreement and other pieces of evidence, substantially comply with the invoicing requirements. Petitioner points to the

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 108 13 Regus Service Centre, Philippines B.V. v. Commissioner of Interna l Revenue x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Krista V. Bambao, the Court- commissioned independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), which was supplemented by the Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Rowena Angela C. Salanga, petitioner's Senior Tax Manager. Petitioner notes that the ICPA appreciated the VAT ORs, the Services Agreement, and other "equally valid pieces of evidence." Thus, petitioner maintains that the services it rendered to Franchise International S.A.R.L. qualify for zero- rating. After careful consideration, the Court resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The invoicing requirements under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and the pertinent regulations are clear: the ORs and invoices must contain a description of the merchandise or the nature of the services rendered. Section 237(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides: SEC. 237 . Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - (A) Issua n ce. -All pers ons subject to an internal revenue tax sh all, at the point of each sa le a nd transfer of merch a ndise or for services rendered valued at One hundred pesos (PlOO) or more, issu e du ly register ed receip ts or sale or commercial invoices, showing the da te of tra nsaction, quantity, unit cost and des cription of m ercha ndis e or nature of service [. ) (Empha sis supplied) A re-evaluation of the records points to the same conclusion reached in the assailed Decision: the submitted ORs are non-compliant with the invoicing requirements set forth in the quoted provision because they failed to indicate the nature of the services rendered by petitioner. As emphasized in the assailed Decision: Compliance with all th e VAT substantiation and invoicing requirements provided by tax laws a nd regulations is mandatory. The invoicing a nd substantiation requirements s hould be followed because it is th e only way to determine the veracity of the taxpayer 's cla ims . (Citations omitted) Petitioner calls for this Court to treat the submission of the Services Agreem ent as constituting substantial compliance. The Court is not persuaded.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 108 13 Regus Service Centre, Philippines B.V. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x--------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ----- -------- -- ---x The invoicing requirements under the NIRC are not prescribed as mere formalities. They were set to properly document the nature of the transaction and to determine the propriety of the claimed zero-rating. The transaction must be readily understandable and classifiable on the face of the 0 R or invoice itself, without any external references to testimonies or other documents. Petitioner insists that the ICPA has already determined that its transactions satisfy the requirements for zero-rating. It bears stressing that the findings of a court-commissioned ICPA do not bind this Court. The ICPA Report is but a tool or guide to aid the Court in the r esolution of the case. 1 It is only persuasive in nature and not conclusive upon the Court. 2 Accordingly, the Court retains full authority to independently assess the evidence on record in the exercise of its mandate to determine the validity of p etitioner's claim. In fine , the Motion f or Reconsideration raises no n ew m atter that would warrant the m odification , much less the reversal, of the assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, p remises considered , p etitioner's Motion for Reconsid eration (Re: Decision dated 3 0 June 2 025) is DENIED for lack of m erit. SO ORDERED. ~i LANEE S. CUI-'i>'AVID Associate Justice ! CONCUR: ' Tulle// Prebon (Philippines). Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 2572 19 (Formerly UDK No. 1694 1), July 15, 2024 [Per 1. Dimaampao,Third Division]. Foundever Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, CTA EB Case No. 2799 (CTA Case No. 10 136), November 25, 2025.