COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PPI HOLDINGS, INC.

REPUBLIC OF T H E PH ILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTAEB No. 3193 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10416) Petitio ;m~ Present: - versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, PPI HOLDINGS, INC., MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Respondent. REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JL Promulgated: - d : Sll~.,.,..,.. . x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jr---x DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J.: Before the Court En Bane is a P etition for Review1 filed by petitioner Comtnissioner of In ternal Revenue (CIR) under Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court o f Tax Appeals (RRCTA), seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated 27 Februaty 20252 and Resolution dated 11 July 20253 rendered by the First Division of this Court in CIA Case No. 10476. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review with the Supplement to the Petitionfor Review} flied by petitio ner PPI Holdings, Inc. on Nlarch 4, 2021, and July 27, 2021, respectively, is hereby GRANTED/v'" 1 Rollo, pp. 3-46. 2 /d., pp. 43-70. 3 ld., pp. 72-76.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) i\ccordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand with Final Assessment Notices dated March 19, 2019, \'Varrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 121-2021-022 dated February 01, 2021, and \'l1arrant of Garnishment No. 121-2021-022-01 dated February 16, 2021, arc hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the BIR Large Taxpayer Service - Collection and Enforcement Division are ORDERED to REFUND in favor of petitioner the amount of P25,580,537.87, representing the garnished amount based on a void assessment. SO ORDERED."4 The CIH. filed a 1\Iotion for Reconsideration on 20 March 2025 which was denied by the First Division. The dispositive portion reads: "WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reromideration (Re: DecisioN dated 27 Febmary 2025) filed by respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the BIR Large Taxpayer Services- Collection and Enforcement Division is DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."5 The C:IR received the J\IR Resolution on 18 July 2025. On 30 July 2025, petitioner filed a i\Iotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Rcview,6 which the Court En Bane granted for a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from 02 i\ugust 2025, or until 17 i\ugust 20257 The Petition for Review was filed on 15 "\ugust 2025, within the extended period. THE PARTIES Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) is the duly appointed head of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), vested with authority to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, other charges, and penalties in relation thereto. Petitioner holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon Ciry, and may be served with pleading/ 4 ld., p. 69. 5 /d., p. 75. 6 /d., pp. 1-6. 7 /d., p. 8.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) orders, and processes at the I jtigation Division, Room 703, BIR .1'\ational Office Building, Diliman, Quezon Cit)'. Respondent PPI Holdings, Inc. (PPI) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office at 6th Floor, Cyberpark Tower 1, "\raneta Center, Quezon City. It is primarily engaged in the business of establishing, operating, and maintaining food outlets, restaurants, bakeries, coffee shops, and refreshment parlors. Respondent is represented by .\ngara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRALA\'V), 22nd Floor "\C:CR,\L\W Tower, Second Avenue corner 30th Street, Crescent Park \Vest, Bonifacio Global City, 1635 Taguig, Metro Manila. THE FACTS /hjo1111d b)� tbe Pint Divisio11 a11d as mlledfrom the records. On 7 September 2015, PPI received a Letter of Authority (L01\) No. eL\.201200042088 dated 2 September 2015,8 authorizing Revenue Officer (RO) 1\latias fadri III (RO Fadri) and Group Supervisor (GS) J\.larilyn San Diego (GS San Diego) of Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 125- Regular Lf Division II to examine PPI's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes covering the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013. PPI subsequently executed a series of \Vaivers of the Defense of Prescription,9 extending the period to assess until 31 December 2017, and thereafter executed additional \v'aivers 111 extending the period further until31 l\larch 2019. On 27 November 2017, PPI received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (P;\.N) dated 22 November 2017, 11 together with the Details of Discrepancies. PPI filed its Replv to the PAN on 12 December 2017. On27 l\larch 2019, PPI received the Formal Letter of Demand with Final Assessment Notices (FLD/FAN) dated 25 March 2019, 12 assessing alleged deficiency income tax, value-added tax (VAT), withholding tax on compem;ation (\VTC), expanded withholding tax (EWT), withholding VAT, other percentage tax, documentary stamp tax (DST), registration fee, and compromise penalties for taxable year (fY) 2013, in the aggregate amount of'P25,580,537.87, inclusi/ 8 Docket- Vol. 1, p. 476, Exhibit P�82. 9 /d.� pp. 436�439. Exhibits P�61 to P�64; Exhibits R�4 to R�S. 10 ld.� pp. 440-442, Exhibits P�65 to P�67; Exhibits R�12 to R�14. 11 /d., pp. 566-585, BIR Records, Exhibits R�lO and R�lO�A. 12 !d., pp. 443�446, Exhibit P�68.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) of penalties and interest. On 24 April 2019, PPI filed a Protest13 against the FLD/FAN in the form of a request for reconsideration. On 11 December 2020, PPI filed a Conditional \Vithdrawal Letter14 of its protest, conditioned upon the processing of its application for Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies (T\D) pursuant to Republic "�\ct (RA) No. 11213, otherwise known as the Tax Amnesty c\ct, and the issuance of a Certificate of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities (CTD) in its favor. However, on 21 January 2021, PPI received a Letter of Denial dated 16 December 2020 15 from the CIR, denying PPI's 'L\D application. c\s the condition for the withdrawal was not met, the Conditional \'Vithdrawal Letter is deemed not submitted, and PPI's protest remained subsisting. On 2 February 2021, PPI received a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) No. 121-2021-022 dated 1 February 2021, 16 ordering the distraint and levy of its properties to satisfy the assessed deficiency taxes. On 17 February 2021, PPI was informed lw Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC) that a Warrant of Carnishment (WC) No. 121-2021-022-01 dated 16 February 2021 had been served on its corporate bank account for the same amount. The garnished amount oft'25,580,537.87 was subsequently released to the CIR. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC On 4 March 2021, PPI filed its original Petition for Review17 before the First Division, docketed as CL\ Case No. 10476. The First Division proceeded to trial. On 27 July 2021, PPI filed a Supplement to the Petition for Review,18 which the First Division admitted on 30 i\Iarch 2022. 19 The case was submitted for decision on 5 March 2024 after the parties filed their respective memoranda."'' The First Division rendered its Decision on 27 February 2025, granting PPI's petition and ordering the cancellation of the FLD/E\N, WDL, and WG, and the refund of P25,580,537.87. The CIH. filed a JI.Iotion for Reconsideration on 20 March 2025, which the First Division denied in a Resolution dated 11 July 2025. On 15 .\uo-ust 2025, the CIR filed the instant Petition for Review;.t" / b 13 /d., pp. 465-474, Exhibit P-79. 14 Docket- Vol. II, pp. 643�645, Exhibit P-94. 15 /d., p. 657, Exhibit P-95. 16 /d. at Note 8, pp. 282�283, Exhibit P-1. 17 ld., pp. 8�69. 18 ld. at Note 14, pp. 608-619. "ld., pp. 715-722. 20 /d., pp. 1017-1061 and 1065-1090. 21 Jd. at Note 1.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) In a :\linute Resolution dated 27 October 2025,22 the Court ordered respondent PPI to file its Comment on the Petition for Review within ten (10) days from notice. On 17 November 2025, PPI filed its Comment/Opposition (to the Petition for Review dated 15 August 2025). 23 In a Minute Resolution dated 4 December 2025,"�' the Court submitted the Petition for decision. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS Petitioner Comrnissioner of Internal Revenue claims that the First Division erred in failing to distinguish the separate procedural rules governing refund claims and assessment cases, which have separate jurisdictional and statutory requirements under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue claims that the First Division erred when it misapplied the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDonald's Pbi!ippims Realty C01p., h1edicard Philippines, Im: v. CommiSJionerofinterna! Retmwe, Commissioner of Intemal Revenue v. SOil)! Pbilippims, Im:, and Commissioner of Intema! Revenm IJ. Op11!ent Landownen Inc., which were allegedly based on the outdated Revenue l\Icmorandum Order (H.MO) No. 43-90, an issuance that has supposedly been superseded due to subsequent amendments in tax regulations and applicable laws. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue claims that the First Division erred when it cancelled and declared void ab initio the Formal Letter of Demand with Final A.ssessment Notices, \Varrant of Distraint and/ or Levv, and --Warrant of Garnishment, and ordered petitioner to refund in favor of respondent the amount off'25,580,537.87. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES Petitioner's Arguments On the first assigned error, the CIR argues that refund claims and assessment cases are governed by distinct jurisdictional and statutory requirements under the NIRC. The CIH. maintains that PPI did not file a prior administrative claim for refund with the BIR as required by Section 229 of the NIRC before invoking the Court's jurisdiction, and that the Supplement to the Petition for Review cannot cure this jurisdictional defect. The CIR also argues, ----���� ~ 22 /d., p. 78. 23 /d., pp. 79-104. 24 ld., p. 140.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) for the first time before the En Bane, that the Letter dated 16 December 2020- denying PPI's 'L\D application-constitutes the CIR's final decision on the disputed assessment, and that since PPI received this letter on 21 January 2021, it had only until 20 February 2021 to file its appeal, making the Petition for Review filed on 4 March 2021 out of time. On the second assigned error, the CIR. argues that the cases relied upon by the First Division were decided based on Ri\IO No. 43-90, which predates the 1997 NIRC: and has been superseded by Rl\10 Nos. 8-2006 and 44-2010. The CIH. contends that in the instant case, RO Fadri was dulv authorized under the LO,\ as lead revenue officer; GS Dajao merely reviewed and supervised the work, and her participation does not invalidate the assessment. The CIR also invokes the ruling in C1R v. PGA Sompo Ins11ram�e Coporatiotl5 that a duly issued LOA docs not automatically become invalid simplY because revenue officers'' named therein arc reassigned or transferred. On the third assigned error, the CIH. argues that PPI's Conditional Withdrawal Letter converted the assessment into a final, executory, and delinquent obligation, which the CIR properly collected through the \'(!DL and WG. Even assuming the Court has jurisdiction, the CIR maintains it may only rule on the manner of collection, not on the validity of the final and executory assessment. Respondent's Arguments On the first error, PPI argues that its refund claim is not an independent claim but is incidental to and a natural consequence of the nullification of the void assessment. Citing Commissio11er o[I11ternaf Revwue v. Court ofAppeals, City Tmst Banki1~~ C01poratio11 a11d Co11rt of Tax AppeaLr'6 and this Court's ruling in 1'-&R Pbilippim.r, l11c. l'. CommiJSiomr of Intemaf Revemti'', PPI argues that requiring a separate administrative claim for refund would be a useless and needless ceremony. On timeliness, PPI argues that the \'(!DL-not the 16 December 2020 Letter-constitutes the CIR's final decision, consistent with Commissioner of I11tentaf Revenm 11. Sott!b Ente!1ai!lme!lt Caffery. Inc28, and that its Petition was filed within 30 days from receipt of the \'VDI ,. On the second error, PPI argues that lliv!O No. 43-90 remains effective under the 1997 NIRC:, having been expressly upheld in Commissioner of Internal Reven11e v. McDo11a!d's Pbilippi11es Realty Co1p. 29 PPI further argues that GS Dajao actively participated in the conduct of the audit and co-authored audit reports, making her involvement substantive rather than merely supen,isory. The BIR / 25 CTA EB No. 2203, 17 March 2022. 26 G.R. No. 106611, 21 July 1994. 27 CTA EB Case Nos. 2019 & 2020, 11 March 2021. 28 G.R. No. 225809, 17 March 2021. 29 G.R. No. 242670, 10 May 2021.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) itself, through Operations i\Iemorandum No. 2018-02-03, has recognized that substituting revenue officers without a new LOA is no longer tenable. On the third error, PPI argues that the Conditional \'Vithdrawal Letter was filed on an unfulfilled condition and is therefore deemed not submitted. Under Article 1181 of the Civil Code30, the extinguishment of obligations depends upon the happening of the condition, which never occurred here. Accordingly, PPI's protest remained pending, the assessment never attained finality, and the First Division correctly cancelled the void assessment and ordered the refund. THE RULING OF THE COURT The Petition for Review must be DENIED. The Court has jurisdiction over the Petition for Review filed by PPI before the First Division; the appeal was timely filed. The Court of Tax Appeals (CT1\) is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act (R:\) No. 1125, as amended by R:\ No. 9282, vests the CL\ with exclusive appellate JUrisdiction over decisions of the C:IR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC. 31 Under Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended, in relation to Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the lU\.CL\, any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling, or inaction of the CIR may appeal to the CL\ within thirty (30) days from receipt thereo�.32 The CIR argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because PPI did not first file a separate administrative claim for refund with the BIR. This argument is unpcrsuasive. In Commissioner oJintema! Revenue v. So11th Entertainment Gallery, Im: 33 (SEGI), the Supreme Court held that where the CIR, without categorically deciding a taxpayer's protest, proceeds with distraint and levy, such act constitutes an implied denial, and the taxpayer's remedy is to appeal to the C:T1\ within 30 days from receipt of the warrant. In the present case, PPI received the FLD/F.\N on 27 J\.Iarch 2019 and flied a Protest on 24 April 2019. Without ruling on the Protest, the CIR issued the WDL on 1 Februaty 2021, which PPI received on 2 February 2021. Counting 30 days from 2 Februaty 2021, PPI had,./ �3 Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1181, "In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. (1114)" 31 Section 7(a)(1), Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282. 32 Section 11, Republic Act No. 1125, as amended; Section 3(a), Rule 8, RRCTA. 33 G.R. No. 225809, March 17,2021.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) until4 March 2021 to file its appeal. Since the Petition for Review was ftled on 4 March 2021, the appeal was timely. 1\Ioreover, PPI's refund claim is not a stand-alone refund case; it is incidental to and a natural consequence of the nullification of the void assessment. In CommiJJioner ofInternal Revenm v. Court ofAppeals, City Tmst Banking Co1poratio11 and Com1 of Tax Appeals/" the Supreme Court underscored that resolving the deficiency tax assessment jointly with the refund claim is both legally appropriate and logically necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits. As held in Vela. De San Aptstin v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenm/5 requiring a taxpayer to separately ftle an administrative claim for refund when the assessment is already pending before the CL\ would be a useless and needless ceremony. This Court l \n Bane reaffirmed this principle in Y&R Philippines, Im: v. CommiJJiomr ofInternal Revenm,36 ruling that it is appropriate to resolve an issue of deficiency tax assessment together with a claim for tax refund in a single proceeding. Accordingly, it was futile to require PPI to separately file an administrative claim for refund, because the em. would expectedly deny the same37 The C:IR's argument that the Letter dated 16 December 2020 constitutes the final decision that triggered the appeal period was raised for the first time before this Court En Bane. On the merits, the letter denied only PPI's T,\D application-not PPI's tax protest under Section 228 of the NIRC. Under SEGI, it is the issuance of the WDL-as the CIR's act of proceeding with collection without deciding the protest-that constitutes the implied final decision. The appeal period therefore ran from 2 February 2021, and the Petition ftled on 4 l\larch 2021 was timely. The Group Supervisor who continued PPI's audit lacked a valid LOA, rendering the resulting deficiency tax assessments void ab initio. Section 6(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, explicitly requires a specific authority from the C:IR or his duly authorized representative before a taxpayer may be subjected to examination38 Section 13 of the same Code provides that a Revenue Officer may examine a taxpayer pursuant to a Letter of ,\uthority (LOA) issued by the Revenue Regional Director.39 Consistent wit~ "G.R. No. 106611, July 21, 1994. 35 G.R. No. 138485, September 10, 2001. 36 CTA EB Case Nos. 2019 & 2020 (CTA Case No. 9437), March 11, 2021. 37 /d. at Note 14, pp. 719-721. 38 Section 6(A), NIRC of 1997, as amended. 39 Section 13, NIRC of 1997, as amended.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) these statutory provisions, Rl\IO No. 43-90.10 expressly requires the issuance of a new LOA when a Revenue Officer assigned under a previous LO,\ is replaced or reassigned. In Commissiomr of Internal Revenm v. Sony Philippines, Im:,"' the Supreme Court held that there must be a grant of authority in the form of an LOA before any Revenue Officer can conduct an examination or assessment, and that in the absence of such authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity. In iVIedimrd Pbiltppines, Im: v. Commissioner of Intemal Revenm, 12 the Supreme Court reiterated that unless authorized through an LOA, an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken. In CommiJJioner of Internal Revenue v. ;\1.tDonald's Philippines Realry C01p.:JJ the Supreme Court held that the practice of reassigning Revenue Officers without a new or amended L0/1. violates the taxpayer's right to due process and is void. The Supreme Court also expressly rejected the argument that RMO No. 43-90 is outdated, holding that Section D(S) thereof is not repugnant to Sections 6(c\), 10, and 13 of the NIRC; pursuant to Section 291 of the NIRC:, lZi\10 No. 43-90 remains effective and applicable. In Commissioner of Intemal RetJettJte tJ. Op11!ent Landoumers Int./1 the Supreme Court reiterated that only the Revenue Officers actually named under the LOA are authorized to examine the taxpayer, and that in the absence of a new LOA for officers who recommended the deficiency tax assessments, the resulting assessments arc void. In this case, LO,\ No. eL\201200042088 dated 2 September 2015 authori:ced only RO Fadri and GS San Diego to examine PPI's books of accounts and accounting records for TY 2013. RO Padri confirmed in his Judicial Affidavir15 that the L(),\ named him and GS San Diego as the revenue officers authorized to conduct the investigation. The records show, however, that GS 1\Ia. Daisy C. Dapo (GS Dajao) co-authored the Revenue Officer's Audit Report dated 5 1\Iarch 2019 and co-signed the Report forwarding the docket for approval and issuance of the FLD46 GS Dajao was not named in the LO,\, and no new, amended, or replacement LOA, Memorandum of /1.ssignment, or Referral 1\Icmorandum was ever issued in her name. lJndcr Revenue Administrative Order 0-'o. 02-90,.17 a Group Supervisor not only oversees audit operations but plays an active role in conducting assessments. Evcrv L(),\ issued by the BIR designates a specific Group Supervisor to a particular case. GS Dajao's active participation in the audit- including the preparation and co-signing of the audit report that recommended the issuance of the FLD/L\N-without a valid L01\ rendered her actlons /'�" 40 Amendment of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 37-90 Prescribing Revised Policy Guidelines for Examination of Returns and Issuance of Letters of Authority to Audit, September 20, 1990. 41 G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010. 42 G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017. 43 Supra, Note 29. "G.R. Nos. 249883-84, January 27. 2020. "/d. at Note 14, p. 584, Exhibit R-30, RO Fadri's Judicial Affidavit dated May 17, 2021. 46 BIR Records, pp. 869-894, Exhibit R-15; BIR Records, pp. 910-911. 47 Revenue Administrative Order No. 02-90, March 28, 1990.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) unauthorized. Consequently, the deficiency tax assessments ansmg from the audit are null and void. The CIR's reliance on CIR tJ. PGA Jompo InS!!rante COJporation 18 is misplaced. That case involYed the reassignment or transfer of an officer named in the LO,\. In the present case, the issue is the active participation of a Group Supervisor who was neYer named in the LOc\ and for whom no new or replacement LOA was issued. The cited mling does not detract from the settled principle that only those named in the LQ,\ are authorized to examine the taxpayer. The doctrine of stare decisis compels adherence to the foregoing settled jurisprudence. The petitioner's arguments before this Court En Bane are a mere rehash of the same grounds already thoroughly considered and correctly rejected by the Court in DiYision. The petitioner has not presented any new argument or compelling justification to depart from the uniform line of Supreme Court decisions on the LOc\ requirement. The Conditional Withdrawal Letter is deemed not submitted; the cancellation of the void assessment and the refund of the garnished amount are proper. The C:IR contends that PPI's Conditional Withdrawal Letter dated 11 December 2020.19 effectively withdrew PPI's protest to the FLD /FAN, rendering the assessment final and executory. The Court is not persuaded. The records show that the Conditional \vithdrawal J_etter was filed expressly on the condition that PPI's application for TAD under lD\ No. 1121350 would be processed and a C:TD issued in PPI's favor. However, the CIR denied PPI's T:\D application in a Letter dated 16 December 2020,51 which PPI received on 21 January 2021. The condition upon which the withdrawal was predicated therefore failed. Under 1\rticle 1181 of the Civil C:ode,52 the extinguishment of an obligation depends upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. Since the condition was not met, the Conditional \vithdrawal Letter is deemed not submitted and PPI's protest remained pending. / t.s !d. at Note 25. "ld. at Note 14, pp. 643-645, Exhibit P�94. 50 An Act Enhancing Revenue Administration and Collection by Granting an Amnesty on All Unpaid Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed by the National Government for Taxable Year 2017 and Prior Years with Respect to Estate Tax, Other Internal Revenue Taxes, and Tax on Delinquencies. 51/d. at Note 14, p. 657, Exhibit P-95. 52 /d. at Note 30.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) Given that the assessment was never final and executory, the CIR's argument that the Court may only rule on the manner of collection has no basis. The First Division correctly exercised its jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the assessment and, upon finding it void ab initio for want of a valid LOA covering CS Dajao, correctly cancelled the l~'Ll)/F,\N, WDL, and WG. ,\s the Supreme Court held in CommiJJiomr of Internal Revenue v. Rryes/3 a void assessment bears no valid fruit and docs not create any lawful tax liability. The refund of P25,580,537.87-rcprescnting the amount garnished pursuant to a void assessment-is therefore warranted. In fine, the Court En Bane finds no reversible error in the Decision dated 27 February 2025 and Resolution dated 11 July 2025 of the First Division. The Petition for Review must be DENIED. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed bv petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 27 February 2025 and Resolution dated 11 July 2025 of the Court's First Division in CL\ Case No. 10476 arc hereby AFFIRMED 1n toto. SO ORDERED. ~.~J-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding justice WE CONCUR: \ JEANMARI MARIARO tice ~ ~LAW f.~ �~~{v(k MARIAN IV\OF. REnS-FAJARDO AJJociate Justice 53 G.R. Nos. 159694 & 163581, January 27, 2006.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3193 (CTA Case No. 10476) LAN~U~ Assotiafe }I!Stice AJJotiate Jmtice HENRY !�GELES Asso1iate jmtice 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 En Bane. _l._ ~iJ L MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN PreJiding }ttJtice