COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1853 REVENUE (CTA Case No . 8597) Petitioner, P re s e n t : -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL Promulgated: PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, ZO Respondent. OCT 14 2~ X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~- �~ - - X . -s~,....., AMENDED DECISION MANAHAN, J .: To be resolved before this Court are petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 9 January 2020) 1 filed on January 3 1, 2020 with respondent's Comment/Opposition filed on June 30, 2020, and respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on January 3 1, 2 0202 without3 petitioner's comment d espite due notice4 . Petitioner is s eeking for the r eversal and setting aside of this Court's Decision dated January 9, 2020 (assailed Decision) 5 and the issuance of a n ew one instead. On the other h and, respondent is seeking for the reduction of the assessm ent for d eficiency taxes, surcharge and interest to the amount of Php2 45 ,039.69. The dispositive portion of the a bovem entioned assailed d ecision is quoted below: 1 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1853, pp. 139-150. 2 /d., pp. 1 17- 12 1. 3 /d., Record Verification dated July 6, 2 0 20, p. 183. 4 /d., Resolution dated February 19, 2020 , pp. 176- 177.a-- s /d., pp. 100- 11 2.

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) ~ "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed October 10, 2017 Amended Decision 6 and April 20, 2018 Resolution 7 are hereby AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION as to the assessments issued by [respondent]B against [petitioner]9 for taxable year 2008 covering deficiency Income Tax, Value- Added Tax, Percentage Tax and Expanded Withholding Tax. [Petitioner]IO is ORDERED TO PAY [respondent] II the amount of SIX MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR PESOS AND FIFTY-SEVEN CENTAVOS (P6,818,294.57) representing basic deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax, Percentage Tax and Expanded Withholding Tax and the twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge, twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest and twenty percent (20%) delinquency interest imposed under Sections 248(A)(3), 249(8) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, respectively, computed until December 31, 2017, as follows: Income Tax VAT Percentage Tax EWT Total p 2 337 509.93 p 315 544.43 p 3 325 152.72 Basic Tax p 249 676.31 p 422 422.05 584 377.48 25% Surcharae 78 886.11 831 288.18 62 419.08 105 605.51 - 20% Deficiencv Interest 182 639.93 182 639.93 Apr. 16, 2009 to Dec. 10, 327 521.75 327 521.75 201~fi249,.6~~.31 X 20% X 1 812 370.71 1335. '365 daV< .. 494 735.32 .. 855.549.31 1 812 370.71 246 902.71 Jan 26, 2009 to Dec. 10, 246 902.71 P6 725 876.00 2012 (f'422,::::/5 X 20% X P4 734,258.12 .. 641333.25 1415/365da p 1 807 247.40 1 807 247.40 243 963.39 (1'2,33~5:!73 X 20% X p 243 963.39 1415/365da - 20 252.40 Jan 13, 2009 to Dec. 10, 20 252.40 2012 (P31~:::J�43 X 20% X 100 918.36 100 918.36 1428/365da 40 504.80 40 504.80 Total Amount Due as of 75 384.86 Dec. 10 2012 75 384.86 - 14(1P17J6i5/5dao::; X 20% 382 504.95 382 504.95 (P315,544;"!s( 20% x 1411/365da 20% Deficiency Interest from Oct. 22 2016 tn Dec. 31 2017 (P249,.676.31-P1f!,:!,f4�22 x 20% x 4361365 da (f'422,42;:;{ X 20% X 4361365da (1'2,33~509.93- 1'2,::::965.74/ 20% X 436. 65 davs . {1'315,544.4~; 20% X 436/365 davs 20% Delinquency Interest from Dec. 11, 2012 to Oct. 21, 2016 (P 494,735/!sr 20% X 1, 411/365 da � Supra, Note 3. 7 Supra, Nate 5. B Should be "petitioner". 9 Should be "respondent". to Should be "respondent". 11 Should be "petitioner". __...

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) (P855,549.31 X 20% X 661 468.54 3 660 294.91 661 468.54 1 411/365 days) 204 394.25 3 660 294.91 P'2 148 926.36 495 847.24 (1"4,734_258.12 X 20% X 495 847.24 40 130.27 82 036.32 1411j}65d~ P'1130 660.35 153 217.15 - (1'641,333.25 X 20% X P'10 324 341.56 P'1,609 745.89 40 130.27 1 411/365 days) 204 394.25 p 2,167,965.74 20% Delinquency Interest 541,991.43 82 036.32 from Oct. 22, 2016 to Dec. 31, 153 217.15 2017 5,090,465.73 P'15 213 674.17 P'2 523 918.66 P'1 609 745.89 (I' 494,735.32 -1'164,904.22 p 2 332 869.96 -1"41,226.05-1'120,628.572 583 217.48 X 20% X 436/365 days) 5 479 292.16 (P855,549.31 X 20% X .. 6 818 294.57 436/365 days) (1"4,734_258.12- 1'2,167,965.74 -1'541,991.43 -1'1,680,915.911' x 20%x 436/365 days) (1'641,333.25 X 20% X 436/365 days) Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31 2017 Less: Payments p 164,904.22 P'2 148 926.36 41,226.05 Basic Tax 388,826.43 Surcharge .. 535 703.65 Interest Net Amount Due as of Dec. 31 2017 In addition, [petitioner]14 is ORDERED TO PAY [respondent] 15 delinquency interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) computed from January 1, 2018 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249(C) of the Tax Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10963, also known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) and as implemented by RR No. 21-2018, on the total amount of P2,008,244.09, representing the total amount due as of December 10, 2012 after deducting payments made by petitioner on October 21, 2016, as determined below: Amount Due as of December 10 2012 Income Tax VAT Percentage EWT Total p 494 735.32 p 855 549.32 Tax P641 333.25 p 6 725 876.00 Less: Payments Made on Oct. 21 2016 P4 734 258.12 Basic Tax p 164 904.22 P2 167 965.74 p 2 332 869.96 Surcha'll!' 41 226.05 541 991.43 583 217.48 Deficiency Interest up to Dec. 10, 2012 120 628.57 1 680 915.90 1 801 544.47 p 326 758.84 - P4 390 873.07 - p 4 717 631.91 Net_Amo~nt DL!_e P'16J,976,48 ~855L549.~2 ..~.~5.0~ ~641~33.25 P'2,00~244.09 SO ORDERED." "1'164,904.22 x 20% x 1,335/365 days. 13 1'2,167,965.74 x 20% x 1,415/365 days. 14 Should be "respondent". 1s Should be "petitioner". .,._____

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Petitioner argues that this Court cannot consider evidence that is not on record and must be formally offered citing Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Petitioner also argues that respondent is liable for the following: a. Storage fee amounting Php14,309,779.86 is a revenue not forming part of the Gross Philippine Billings, hence, subject to the regular rate of 35%; b. Deficiency fringe benefit tax, interest and penalty; c. Deficiency withholding tax on compensation, expanded withholding tax, and penalty; d. Under-declaration of respondent's revenue amounting to Php64,316,514.11 for taxable year 2008 for its failure to support its claim of non-revenue passengers; e. Under-declaration of respondent's revenue amounting to Php137,796.00 on rebooking fee which must be included in the computation of gross income tax; f. Under-declared commission paid to brokers amounting to Php4,369,695.63 which must be included in the computation of gross income; and g. Under-declared commission paid to brokers amounting to Php9,796,614.39 which must be included in the computation of gross income tax. Upon perusal of the records of the case, the abovementioned arguments cited in the instant motion are the same arguments he raised in the Petition for Review which were already disposed of in the assailed Decision, hence, the same are mere reiterations or rehash arguments. In Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines 16 , the Supreme Court ruled that 16 G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004. __......

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) Page 5 of 12 � courts need not tackle those rehash or reiterated arguments because it will be useless to reiterate itself, to wit: "Concerning the first ground abovecited, the Court notes that the motion contains merely a reiteration or rehash of arguments already submitted to the Court and found to be without merit. Petitioner fails to raise any new and substantial arguments, and no cogent reason exists to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's Resolution. It would be a useless ritual for the Court to reiterate itself." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, this Court will not anymore discuss those same arguments raised in the Petition for Review. Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration As to respondent's motion, it argues that there were wrong figures in the assailed Decision and that there were payments not considered in the assailed Decision. As stated in the assailed CTA En Bane Decision, respondent is liable for the amount of 1"6,818,294.57, representing basic deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax (VAT), Percentage Tax and Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) covering taxable year 2008 and the related surcharge, deficiency and delinquency interests as of December 31, 2017. However, respondent submits that the said amount should be reduced to 1"245,039.69 due to the following reasons: "a. Respondent Thai Airways noted wrong figures on honorable CTA en bane Decision (Annex C). b. The payment made by respondent Thai Airways on October 24, 2017 of 1"6,053,621.55 was not reflected (Annex D) The proof for this payment was submitted to the honorable Court's Third Division through a Manifestation filed by respondent Thai Airways on November 10, 2017."-

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) . With regard to the alleged wrong figures, respondent presented a comparative summary17 of the assessment totals per CTA En Bane Decision vis-a-vis its own computation. As shown in the comparison, the amounts of 1'1,130,660.35 and 1'2, 148,926.36 indicated in the dispositive portion of the assailed CTA En Bane Decision as "Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31, 20 17" for Income Tax and VAT, respectively, should have allegedly been 1'937,622.94 and 1'1,822,330.46, respectively. Thus, respondent points out that there was an error or overstatement in the summation of the figures in the respective amounts of 1'193,037.41 and 1'326,595.90 totaling 1'519,633.31, as shown below: Per CTA En Bane Decision Per Respondent Thai Difference Ainways~computaUon VAT Income Tax VAT Income Tax VAT Income Total Tax Basic Tax p 249,676.31 p 422,422.05 p 249,676.31 p 422,422.05 25% Surcharge 62,419.08 105 605.51 62,419.08 105,605.51 20% 182,639.93 327,521.75 182,639.93 327,521.75 Deficiency Interest p 494 735.32 p 855 549.31 P494 735.32 p 855 549.31 . - - Total Amount 20 252.40 100 918.36 20 252.40 100,918.36 �"2...,.:. ~:.nl!i! on �1:'11'11 11:."2"2 . , , Due as of Dec. 10, 382 504.95 661 468.54 382 504.95 661 468.54 2012 40 130.27 204 394.25 40 130.27 204,394.25 20% Deficiency . , 1~n 11:.11:.n "211:. ~ 'lAO 0_,11:. "2JI:. ...,.,.,. .:;._,..., OA . . . Ol'!ot'l "2"2R AJI:: �'I0"2R"2'7A'I Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017 20% Delinquency Interest from Dec. 11, 2012 to Oct. 21, 2016 20% Delinquency Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017 Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31, ..,n1'7 To clarify, in the report previously submitted by the respondent, which was adopted in the CTA En Bane Decision, the amounts of 1'1,130,660.35 and 1'2,148,926.36 represent the sum of the following figures: 17 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1853, Attached as Annex "C" to respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, p. 159. ___-

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) Page 7 of 12 � Basic Tax Income Tax VAT 25% Surcharge p 249 676.31 p 422 422.05 20% Deficiency Interest 62 419.08 105 605.51 Apr. 16, 2009 to Dec. 10, 2012 182 639.93 _(F249,676.31 X 20% X 1335/365 days) 327 521.75 Jan 26, 2009 to Dec. 10,2012 p 494 735.32 p 855 549.31 {F422,422.05 X 20% X 1,415/365 days) p 193 037.41 p 326 595.90 (F2,337,509.93 X 20% X 1 415/365 days) 20 252.40 Jan 13, 2009 to Dec. 10, 2012 100,918.36 (F315,544.43 X 20% X 1 428/365 days) 382 504.95 Total Amount Due as of Dec. 10 2012 20% Deficiency Interest from Dec. 11,2012 to Oct. 21, 661 468.54 2016 40 130.27 _(1'249 676.31 x 20% x 1 411/365 days) 204_,394.25 (1'422 422.05 x 20%x 1 411/365 dausl P1,130,660.35 P2,148,926.36 (F2, 337,509. 93 x 20% 1, 411/365 dausl {F315,544.43 X 20% X 1,411/365 days) 20% Deficiency Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017 (F249,676.31-F164,904.22 x 20% X 436/365 daqs) (F422 422.05 X 20% X 436/365 d"l�il_ (F2,337,509. 93-F2, 167,965.74 X 20% X 436/365 days J (F315,544.43 X 20% X 436/365 days) 20% Delinquency Interest from Dec. 11, 2012 to Oct. 21,2016 _f! 494 735.32 X 20% X 1 411/365 dO]J_Sj (F855,549.31 X 20% X 1,411/365 days) (F4, 734,258.12 x 20% x 1,411/365 dausl j/'641,333.25 x 20% x 1,411/365 days) 20% Delinquency Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Dec. 31,2017 (F 494,735.32 -F164,904.22 -F41,226.05- F120,628.5718 X 20% X 1,411/365 days) (F855 549.31 x 20% x 1,411/365 daysl (F4,734,258.12 -F2,167,965.74 -F541,991.43- F1,680,915.9ol9 x 20%x 1 411/365 dausl ]!641,333.25 x 20% x 1,411/365 days) Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31, 2017 Noticeably, the amounts of P193,037.41 and P326,595.90, allegedly representing 20% deficiency interest due from December 11, 2012 to October 21, 2016 for deficiency Income Tax and VAT, respectively, were not shown in the assailed CTA En Bane Decision, thus, making the "Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31, 2017" of P1, 130,660.35 and P2,148,926.36 for deficiency Income Tax and VAT, 1s 1'164,904.22 x 20% x 1,335/365 days. 19 1'2, 167,965.74 x 20% x 1,415/365 days. ........__

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) respectively, overstated by 1"193,037.41 and 1"326,595.90, respectively, or in the sum ofP519,633.31. After careful deliberation over the additional arguments of respondent, We find no error in the summation of the figures arrived, i.e., P1, 130,660.35 and P2, 148,926.36, representing "Total Amount Due as of Dec. 31, 2017" for respondent's deficiency Income Tax and VAT liabilities, respectively, for taxable year 2008. The alleged overstatement of 1"519,633.31 merely resulted from the inadvertent omission of the amounts ofP193,037.41 and 1"326,595.90, representing 20% deficiency interest due for the period December 11, 2012 to October 21, 2016 for deficiency Income Tax and VAT, respectively. As to the alleged payment made by respondent on October 24, 2017 in the amount of 1"6,053,621.55, respondent attached to its Motion the corresponding Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605)2�, Filing Reference No. 2 !, and eFPS Payment Form and confirmation22, which were marked as "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL" by respondent's General Manager, Polapat Neelabhamorn. In BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue23, the Supreme Court allowed the appreciation of the document attached to the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CTA. In the said case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the law creating the CTA specifically provides that proceedings before it shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of evidence. The Supreme Court added that: "xxx The paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. Verily, the quest for orderly presentation of issues is not an absolute. It should not bar courts from considering undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination of a controversy." Based on the foregoing ruling of the Supreme Court and considering further that petitioner did not controvert the veracity of the said payment forms as he did not file his 2o Rollo, CTA EB No. 1853, Annex "A", p. 164. 21 Id., Annex "B", p. 165. " Id., Annexes "C" and "D", pp. 166 and 167. 23 G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000. ~

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) Comment/Opposition to respondent's Motion, the abovementioned documents are hereby admitted by the Court. Likewise, in its Motion, respondent stated that it had already paid the amount of P245,039.69 on January 29, 2020 attaching thereto the corresponding Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605)24 , Filing Reference No. 25 and eFPS Payment Form and confirmation 26 . Again, based on the abovementioned ruling of the Supreme Court in the BPI-Family Savings Bank case and the failure of petitioner to controvert the veracity of the said payment forms, said documents are admitted by this Court. After taking into account respondent's payment of the amounts of P6,053,621.55 and P245,039.69 on October 24, 2017 and January 29, 2020, respectively, this Court still finds respondent liable to pay the amount of P407,832.64, computed as follows: Income Tax VAT Percentage Tax EWT Total p 315 544.43 p 3 325 152.72 Basic Tax " 249 676.31 p 422 422.05 p 2 337 509.93 62 419.08 78 886.11 831 288.18 25% 5urcharqe 182 639.93 105 605.51 584 377.48 182 639.93 20% Deficiefl9' Interest p 494 735.32 327 521.75 Apr. 16, 2009 to Dec. 327 521.75 10, 2012 " 193 037.41 1 812 370.71 1 812 370.71 (!'249,676.31 X 20% X 1335/365 days) p 855 549.31 p 4 734 258.12 246 902.71 246 902.71 Jan 26, 2009 to Dec. 10, p 641333.25 p 6 725 876.00 2012 p 326 595.90 I (!'422,422.05 X 20% p 1 807 247.40 x 1 415/365 days) p 243,963.39 p 193 037.41 (!'2,337,509.93 X 326 595.90 20% X 1,415/365 days) 1 807 247.40 243.963.39 Jan 13, 2009 to Dec. 10, 2012 (1'315,544.43 X 20% X 1,428/365 days) Total Amount Due as of Dec. 10 2012 20% Deficiency Interest from Dec. 11, 2012 to Oct. 21 2016 (1'249,676.31 X 20% X 1 411/365 dayS) (!'422,422.05 X 20% X 1 411/365 days) (1'2,337,509.93 X 20% 1 411/365 days) (1'315,544.43 X 20% X L411/365 davsJ 24 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1853, Annex "F", p. 168. 2s Jd., Annex "F-2, p. 170. 26 Jd., Annexes "F-1" and "F-3", p. 169 and 17l.llow"'-

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) 20% Delinquency Interest 382 504.95 661 468.54 382 504.95 from Dec. 11, 2012 to Oct. 661 468.54 21 2016 P1 070 277.68 3 660 294.91 3 660 294.91 p 164 904.22 495 847.24 (P 4~;:35.32 ~20% X P1 843 613.75 P10 201 800.43 495 847.24 P14 496 835.74 1 411 '365 davs 41 226.05 p 1 381 143.88 (!'855,549.31 ~ fO% X p 120 628.5727 p 2 332 869.96 1 411/365 daV<. p 2 167,965.74 583 217.48 (!'4,734,258.12 X 20% X 268 197.8629 541 991.43 1 411/365 da:SJ p 388,826.43 p 1 801 544.47 p 594,956.70 p 1 680 915.9028 3 677 747.69 (P641,333.2S.~f0% X p 475,320.98 3 409 549.8330 p 5,479,292.16 1411/365 da p 17 093.77 p 5,090,465.73 p 8,395,379.60 Total Amount Due as of p 7,800,422.90 p 6 101 456.14 Oct. 21. 2016 33.871.42 Less: Payment made on 1'1.843.613.75 p 2.401.377.53 p 1 381,143.88 Oct. 21. 2016 p 17 093.77 Basic Tax p 85 178.80 85 178.80 p 34 187.54 Surcharge p 63 627.59 34 187.54 63 627.59 Interest - Deficiency Interest 172 516.24 33 871.42 Delinquency 172 516.24 Interest Total Interest Total Payment Net Amount Due as of Oct. 21 2016 20% Deficiency Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Oct. 24 2017 (1'249,676.31- 1'164,904.22 X 20% X 368/365 davsJ (1'422,422.05 X 20% X 368//365 days) (1'2,337,509.93- 1'2,::7,965.74: 20% X 368. '365 davs (1'315,544.43 X 20% X 368/365 days) 20% Delinquency Interest from Oct. 22, 2016 to Oct. 24 2017 (P 494,735.32 - 1'164,904.22- 1'41,226.05-1'120,628.57 X 20% X 368/365 daV<) (1'855,549.31 X 20% X 368/365 days) 27 1'164,904.22 x 20% x 1,335/365 days. 1'388,826.43 2s 1'2,167,965.74 x 20% x 1,415/365 days. 120,628.57 29 1'268.197 .86 Total Interest Paid Less: Deficiency Interest on the partial payment of basic tax of1'164,904.22 Delinouencv Interest Paid 30 Total Interest Paid 1'5,090,465. 73 Less: Deficiency Interest on the partial payment of basic tax of 1'2,167,965.74 -- 1,680,915.90 Delinquency Interest Paid 1'3,409,549.83

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 [CTA Case No. 8597) (1'4,734,258.12- 69 241.48 69 241.48 P2,167,965.74- 129 320.90 P541,991.43- p 526,286.17 P2,101,308.79 p 2,504,806.55 129 320.90 p 6 706 493.88 P1,680,915.90) X 20% X p 1,574.,_092.37 368/365 daysj p 84 772.09 p 422 422.05 p 169 544.19 p 31~544.43 p 992 282.76 (1'641,333.25 X 20% X 21 193.02 105 605.51 42 386.04 248 070.67 368/365 days) 520 182.74 250 887.66 1 296 043.65 3 039 915.42 Total Amount Due as of Oct. 24, 2017 Less: Payment made on October 24. 2017 Basic Tax Surcharge 78 886.10 Deficiency Interest 972 801.37 Delinquency 111,931.79 !,_661,420. 91 1 773 352.70 Interest p 468 784.56 p 2 393 533.88 p 6 053 621.55 Total Payment p 1 824 071.21 p 1 367 231.90 Net Amount Due as of Oct. 24 2017 p 57 501.61 p 277 237.58 p 111 272.67 p 206 860.47 p 652 872.33 Less: Payment on January_29, 2020 245 039.69 Net Amount Due as of Ja11. 29, ~020 -- - - - - - - - - �- --�-- __P_ 407,832.64 It is to be noted that the "Net Amount Due as of Oct. 24, 20 17" of !'652,872.33 represents the remaining deficiency interest and delinquency interest due for deficiency income tax, VAT, percentage tax and EWT, as shown below: Basic Tax Surcharl(e Deficiency Delinquency Total Interest Interest p 57 501.61 Income Tax p -p 0.01 p 21 254.88 p 36 246.72 277 237.58 VAT 111 272.67 Percentage Tax - - 277 237.58 206 860.47 EWT p 652,872.33 Total - 0.01 111 272.66 - 0.01 206 860.46 p 520,344.76 p -p 0.03 p 132,527.54 The amount of !'652,872.33 represents the final amount due from respondent and no further interest shall accrue thereon considering that the bases for the computation of the deficiency and delinquency interests were already covered by the payment made by respondent on October 24, 2017. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 9 January 2020) is DENIED for lack of merit, and respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to pay the Bureau of Internal Revenue the remaining amount of P407,832.64 which represents the balance due for deficiency and delinquency interest charges. ......._

AMENDED DECISION CTA EB No. 1853 (CTA Case No. 8597) SO ORDERED. t'~� 'j'. /h.-.....v�.~.&�-- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 9u~-t;-c..~l Q (On Leave) .rifANITO C. CASTANEDA(JR. ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Associate Justice 'k.~ ~ "'- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN JEANM~ Associate Justice Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice