CTA Case No. 3281 (Decision)

REP UBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE S COURT OF TAX APPEALS UUEZON CITY AMADO A. AMADOR, JR., C.T . A. CASE NO. 3281 Petitioner~ -- versus -� THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, r.:es pcmd e n t.. >: - �- ~�- �- D E C~ I I Assailed i n this p e ti tio n for� n ;?v iew is the decision of res pondent Commiss ion er of Interna l Revenue holding petitioner ?\mado A. (-)mador, Jr-� ., l iable for t~ pi:\yment o �f P 22 , 3 b5.87 repr-esenting deficiency~co me fo r t h e year 1 977 . The f ac t s a re si mpl e. Pet.i t.i.one r i s a lawyer. r.1 s a r� esu l t of the routine vr::~ri �fi cati.o n o �f his incomE"! t: c-\:-: return for the yr,:>ar� .1. 9T7, t h !:: r�� e wa s; f ound du e f r��� om him the amount of P22, 3 65.87 as d e ficien c y income tax arising from disallowed deductions, to witJ OfficE�? rental Law j ournr::~l s 49

DECIBIUN CTA CAGE NO. 3281 ..... 2 -- Repairs and maintenance ~i~50 1.41 Legal consultation fees 1. 7 ~ :.::: oo. oo Employees transportation 1 72.48 Gasoline~ oil and grea se 3,J64. 55 Telephcme bills Off ice supp l .if.~s A notice o'f r. .ssessmen+�. \1-.t �"lS dul y i ssued on October ::::1 ~ 1980. �While peti t.i.one r�- r�pq ues t ed �for.. a re--e>:amina t.ion of the responde nt rei ter�a ted a nd dern <:\ nded the paym ent o'f the aforestated defi ciency tax in a letter dated April 2 ~ 1981. Hence, th present recourse. The only question presented for resolution is whether� or not the disal J.ovJ C"Hlce by t" e s ponc:lent of the claimed deductions of petition er i s proper. \.<Je 1-'li.ll discuss these c 1 aimed deduc t.ions in se riat-im . Pet.i t.ioner� claimed deduction office rentals amounting to P.l.4~400.00 . Upon e:-:aminat..ion, how ever� , the am o unt cd' r:� B ,9~>.9.66 ~-<las disallowed by respondent for lack of supporting papers and the fac:t: that thE? r�pce.i.pts pr�. esented 50

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 (E:�:hs. H--2 and H �-��3 ) per- t.:"in to thr> y t ~ .:\r� 1 (17fJ while the expenses claimed are s uppo s~d to h ave b~en incurred in 1977. Fr-om his 1977 income r- etun1 ,;:~nc~ the evidence pr-esentE?d, i t appf:?.ar-s t.h,':'lt pPt.it . jur t F:> I' did n c't kne p the pr�escr-.ibed hunk ~; n-f account ~::. and r:; ther� rt=:! C::Dt'� ds; or- his r-ecords ar-e� .inadequc:~te. H .i ~'i "acr.:oun t.ing system", i f any, then: for-e tur-n ed on ca sh r �e r.: eirts and disbur�se!ments. r-ec::c.H-ds, petitioner�' s income t--Jas r �epor-ted \I'Jhen r-eceived and hi s deductions claimed when paid. Since P~"~t..i.tiot ' r- is on the calendar y ear- basi s and individual taxpayers must always re port sole ly on this basis hr:? can not cl.':'lirn deduction in 1977 officr.-? r-entals paid in .1.9 7El. The c:~moun t of P8,929.66 paid in .1.978 s h ould ther-efo r-e be disallo\I'H:?.d. Petitioner- claimed Pl1,438.00 as deductible expense under this item but a f t er- r-e �- investiqation the amount Pt.0,893.00 d .i. !='�:.:\ l l O\I'Jed by respondent bl?c:a u se "t.hf:?. r-ec:ed.pt. is '" mer-e sc: r �a p of 51

DEC IS I CJN ��� - 4 ,._ CTA CASE NO . 3281 date . pl acf>. and paper without ha s a record of t h.i.s e>:pm1s e alt l 1ouctt1 i t 1-'laE nnt allegedly properly substa nt iated as t.l 1~ t-er.::e.i. pt:. ~-<Jas not numbere d and dated a nd place of pur�c:hase not i.nd.ic:at.ed. Where a taxpayer c laimed deduction s for certain expenses but n o records were ava ilable, the same having been de~troyed after the lapse of five years, the d e d 1ction may b e allowed consi dering the testimony o �f t.hr.~ accountant as t.n the natun? of those which testi.mnny not contrc"'dic:t e d by t .he Gover..nmf?rlt. (B~si l an Estate vs. o �f In tern al Revenue .� Sept. 5, 1967, 2 1 SCRA 16. ) Record of t hi s: i t.em was avai 1 .::~ bl e ~ c:IS the receipt Wc:IS pre sent e d b y peti t ..icm<?r, c:lnd the testimony of pet.i ti.r::mer� c:IS to t.h e n 0t. ure of the expense wa s not contradicted by respondent. It has been establi s hed thP item pu r� cha~;e~c:l hy petitioner was a second hand set of Phi l ippine Reports , Volumes 1 to 75. I t wa ~; not pure h."::sed from a regular bookstore but from a pri v ate indiv i dual by the name of Mr� s. Df E> l i a C<~ s,::;;:.. ian of Luc:ena Cjt.y 52

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 5 -~� con s ider- ing th a t. Ph.i l.i. ppin e nepo r- t.s ~ '�Jo 1 ume r:; 1 to 75 were no long e r availabl e from rPgul ar hnok stor-es. F'et:..i. tiorH:?r- had th�~ b o ok <::~ �.in h is off ice ~n d offered to show the sa me t o the exa m ir ~r . (t . s.n . ~ pp. 13- 16, hearing of May 8, 1 98~.) The amount. of f ' l 0,89 3 . 00 s hou l d th er-efcH-e be allowed as deductibl e e x p e n se. The amount c la i med as c:lf..?dur.t::i. bl P P :�:p p n sr:? ~!>las P6~348.76 but only the amo un t of allowed. The bala11c:e of F' 5 ~ 50 1 .I.J� l pai d t o t h e master carpenter whn under took is by a r e c ei p t. s i qned b y th e carpenter- ~ whic: h n;:~ ::: P..i p t. h D~oJ f?VP. r � .is not pr �in t.P rl . numbered and reg .i. s te r ed wi t.h t h e B u n?ii'~U of In t enli'\ l Revenue~ wa s di s allo,,�i e d . tha t pet.i. t ..iorH? r h as pr-es e n te d documentary proof of this f.'!>:p e n sr:> ; h is te s tim o ny that the item was lE-gitimate ly p aid �for the r e p ai r and maintenanr.:P his law o �f f ice wa s nnt contradicted re s pc.mden t; and car-pent e rs who undertake minor� r �e p.:l i r s do not i ss ue o f f i ci al receipt s prepared in accord ance w i t.h t he requirements of th e Burea u o f In te rn a l R ev en u e ~ the 53

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 32 81 - 6 �-� balan ce of P5,501.41 s h ould b e allowe d. If a ta:�: pay er.. ' s c 1 aimed decluc: t. .i.on s for" c: ~:- r t: a .i n e :-: p et 1''":?S but no ,;~vai l a bl e r �ecor d s a v-"' ilabl. P. allowed considering th e testimon y of 1.he a cccJL.m t ,:mt as to th e nature of these e :.:p E? n ses~ \!J i d.r: h b~s t imn ny was not co n trad ic tEn:l by th e l'3 n vP nHIH?n t (B as i I an Estates v s . co,mi ~�s i oner of Internal Reven ue� with rnorP st�,nu J d t he c 1 i'' i.med of his l aw office be al l DWI?d cn n si d r;.-r.. .i ng th ;:d� h j s records of tho se e :.: pense s . . W�? 1'" e c? Vc::\i l ab l e a nd petition er ' s t esti mo ny as to th e nat ur e crf th es. e expen ses was not contradicted by r es p o ndent. Re s pond ent ' s E~> : a rn iner� s dis ,:~llOI"' e d the amo unt of P17,300 as _\ l l e g e d legal and ccm s ult.:'ltion �f e es for the reason t h .:1t the receipts presented by petition er ar-e mer-e bond pap e r p t.tr.. p o r.. ted l y s iqn e d by the persons receiving the a mount. As explained by petitioner during the h eari ng of this case on March 18, 1983 : 0. l-Jho issur::>d this E:�:h.ibit "K -- 1" to you ? A. Thi s rl'?ceipt was i s sued b y Atty . Ren a tcJ Callanta who .i s now the Pr e ~ i dent of the Qu ezon City Chapter of the I ntegr a ted Bar of the Philippines. 54

DECISION ���- CTA CASE NO. 3281 -�- l _, I had to ask �f ot~ the help o �f rltty. Callanta in a certain case whi ch i s ~it h the Bur.. ei3U o'f Cus t.oms. (.)I thoU<] h I h"''ve been rwactic:.i.ng for" a lCHlfJ time. I rl Pver� appeared in any pnJCeed .i.ng with the Bureau of Custom<;; and ll'l h e r �e a c: lien t:. <Tf mine was involved with a leg a l action It'd. th the Cu st oms. I rPnuestf�~d (H ty. Callc"'\nt.a, who i s kn o\�JlG�c1q PiC~blP jn t h e Bureau of Customs; ~;o I sh.:~ '~ !:�:~ c:l 1�1.'i. tt1 h.i 111 a certain p ~ rcent of the fee~ I received in th ."\ t c a�s.:1. I p.:dd Atty. Ca 11 an ta Two Thousand Three Hun dred Pesos . (:1. Whose ~;i<; Jnatur" e appp .;.~t�� r,~ .~hove t: he r1 .~ me Renato Ma. Ca ll a nt ~? A� T h .i. s i s h i. <::; ~; i q n a t.1 .1r �e � D. Hc)vl d .i.d you know? D. In connection with E >:hjb:i.t "1<. --::~~~~ t e l l this Honorable Court whose s ignature appear� s in said e>:hibit ? A. This is the signature of Attv. A. Galang. Q. How did you know that is the signature of A t t '1 G c3 1 <~ n g ? A. This was also signed in my presence. Q. Please e>:plain to th.is Hc ,nora ble Cour� t . why you. paid CCHl!sul tat:i.on fe e to Atty. Galang? A. In 1977, I I'Jas r �equested by my client Vicar Music to negotiate a joint venture in Japan. The first. time I went to Japan I had a lot of difficulty. The Japanese lawyer of Bony kept on b:~l l .i.ng me that certain proposal of mine could not be agreed to by them because i t wa s against ,Japanese l c=~I'I S. On thP othp r� hand they had with them Atty. Feliciano of the 55

DECISION CTA CASE NO . 328 1 - B- prest .igiou !; Syc: .i.p F e licia n o in t1 a l ~a t.i w ho is V " ~'Y kno 11d e c:lgeahl e t h at. at t e disadvantage so I I f e 1 t: I 111a s services of Atty. Galang Thousand PPsos . retain E?d the for Fifteen He was n o t only kn ow l erlqea h le i n Jap~ncse la111s but he s pok e ,Japc'"'H1ese 111e l l . Thi~; P15.000 .00 was of course p art of t h e f ees I rece ived �f r �om Vi c or Music. I shared part o �f my fee to Atty . c;,~ J. ,~ ng. Thi s r�� ec:eipt w as s ign e d i n lnkyo~ i f I r� emembE-~r-� co r��r-E'C 1:1 y. (t.. s. n., pp � .1. ~:�� to 1 5~ hear� .ir1g o f t1 <:~.r--c h l.fJ, .19B :=r,) Aga in, co n!:;.i.de r�- .i.nq t. h e< t:. consultation pr�� npPI'.. l y S l tbs t .�::,ntiat.Pd, pet i. t ionE?r ' s r ec:onJ s n �f t:.t �H?. ~=;E? c 1. ;,, i rm :' cl d ed u c: t .inns vJen?. ava.i.lablf? and pr esE>nt. r.?. cl i n Cm..1r�t �'15 E:�: h ibits "K", "1<�- .1" and "~<-�-2 " !' c:~ nd p et i. t .ioner' s t".est.:i. mon y as to the nature t h ese no t con trover-ted or� co n t:r--ad ic: t .ed by t��e:~spo nd ent , tlte a mount of P17,300 a!;; l e~q al a nd c:ons t <lta t ion f 2P.s should be all ot.--1ec.l. (Basil an Estate vs. Co��issione r o f Internal Revenue~ ~upr~.J In this item o �f gasoline, oil a nd grea se , petitioner claimed a total dedu cti.cm o�f P5~46 2 . ;)~) , but respondent's e :-:.:lmin e t�� aJlcH,IPC:I on l y P :? ~ 297.no which is the am ou nt su ppor ted b y thE! D 'f f .i.C l a} 5'6

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 �-- r:r �-� receipts submitted by petiti oner. Th e-> sum I:J"f F'3,1.64.55 1-'Jas di sa J. :tovJE~cl �for beinq u r1 -- 11ppcwtecl. Petitioner is not t: n clc:l.ifll dedu c t.ion �for hi s e;.; penses in c cmn ec t ion with the use o"f his ca r- fr�nm h.i . ~- hom e t:.o h.i <=; of �f:i.ce '"'nd t1 ;1C:: k b ecause such expenses are pe rsona l . f.lnc1 i �f t:llr> r:-: a r- wa s u sed fc1r pur�pnsf.? S ot.hE�'r t.h.::\n bl\ S il"l ess n t,.. .i.n the P>:erc i SF! hi r..; pr-ofession, t.l1e '" r��e persona J. e~-: pen ses, c"":\ nd thet�-e for��r~, 111: 1 t:. ci Pd UC: t.i. b l P.. pr��o �fe ss.i.on. As s uming that pr?t. .i l�..irmr-"r� 11serl ld s r::<H .. two - thinJ s of t:.ht:? tim e for�� bu sinf�;>s s �'�llld one -- th j . r�� d for per�sona l purpo sc.es, and a s c 1 ''Lim ed by him he s pent F'5,462.35 :i. n t.a >:able year�� co ns.i.d .:~ration fot,.. q,::\soli.nP , o i l 0\ nd q r~ e ,::\s e, o nly Collector o"f Intern ::~l Revenue, L - .165-'52. Har<.: h .30~ 1962, 4 SCRA 718 . ) Wh i l e a taxpayer is not relie ve d from the burden of substantiating hi s claimed deduction s , care should be t c"":\ ken to per�� rn.i. -t:�. 57

DECISION -��� CTA CASE NO. 3281 10 ���- deter�mina tirJn o �f the .::1mn un t I'Jh i c:: h fll i':I Y h e c 1 .~..i.mP. d c"\s deduction, provided th at thRre i s p r op~ r b asis for some a 11 owance. D.i sal J.owJ.n q o"' rn r.::u rl t .<=; c lc3i mr'>d fnF� deduction merely ber: ;::; u s P. thf~re i s no s u f f ic i e n t nF� available doc:ument <"H "'rl r.:~v id e n ce wh i c h ~�Jil l e �;:; t:.ahl :i��;; h the pr�ec:ise amount b e yond I'" f:' i �\ �:; r�) I 'l c~ b 1 f:~ d m r.h t:. ignores commonly r.. ecogn .i zed busin e s s p r� a c t .i.t::Ps '"'~:; well a s t:.hr-:� fa c: t. 1-:. h ;~ t- pF�oof m ;;~y b r? e ;:; l... r.~bl .i.s h Pc1 hy cF�ed.ible oral te s timony. that the t:.a>:pay e F h i:\ S ac: tu.a l l y .:1 rl c t.wn:~ d f'.? ::pe n s ,:n ::. . appro:�:imation as he ca n, be .:\r� i .nq h~ 'Div il y i f h e chooses upon t.hf.~ t a :�: p c'':I Y��?r� 1-1ho se :i. n P. :: a r: ti. t.u d e .i s o f hi s own makinq. ( Co 11 a rr v s .. Co �.,. i s s i on I? r , .3 �:J F � 2 ,j � .540, cit�:-~d in Visay ,;m Cebu Terainal ~� s .. Collect o r of Internal Revenue , 1_ ..- 1 27') 8., Na y .JO , 1960T .108 Ph.i.l. .320; G;;mcayco vs .. Co lle ct o r of Internal Revenue , l_ ..�- 1.J.j , .5' , Apr.i.l 2(J .� .l 96 1 .� .1 SCRA 98 0; Zaaora vs .. Collector of Internal Revenue, L - 15 2 80 & L - 15289-90T H ay 31, 196.3, 8 S CRA .16.:3' . ) Th e sa mt:? c:ou 1 r.l be Sc:\id o f th e employee s transportation expen 3 e s of P172 .48 an d t e l e pho ne 58

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 -� :1. .1 bills in a mount oi' WP.re disallowed by r�es pnnclent's P.:�:arn.inf!r�� for.. l ac k of supporting papers . allowance as petitioner is admit.t.ec:IJ.y engaged in the practi se of his p rofession as a lawyer. He has a law office :�nd i t .is h ard to cnnc::P.ive of a law office without a telephone. As a matter of fact~ i t has b�::>e n este:1b l ished t:tv'l.t. thr:~ lPlF.:�phcHlP ~-<Jas lisb?d in the telephorH? d.i.n::>c:t.o i'" Y iP the n e:\me of peti t.ioner� and rer:;pnndent.' s e:-:.:.'\mint-~r.. h E.I d been u s ing it. at the t.i. me !::\he was r,?:-: a mining pet. i t ionl?r� ' s income tax return. (t. s. n.~ pp. 3!5 ..-:::!.7 ~ hearinn cl �f May f.3~ .1.9F.l4.) And with l'' f'!!:> pf.::>c t:. to tl �le P.mpJoyPes transpor�t:atinn e:-:pr.-?rt<:3e o'f' P.1/2.'lB. tllP .::~mottnt: is too insign.i. �fl.cant: t : h at it. ce�m h a r �dJ.y be s;;:~..i.d Uv:"~t ther�e i s no pr� oper� h .::~~; .i.s fn r .its aJlowanc:P. As stated ;:~.hove~ c laimed deduction~ espPcially when th e n:-? i s. h.? s .is for� t .h ei. r� allowance~ mer.. ely bt2C<H.tS!? thE!r�~ j ~:; no ,:,.v<'\ .il e":\ hle documentary evidence \1-lhir.:h establish the precise amount beyond a reason e":\ b 1 e doubt. ignores common 1 y n ?co gn i ze d business prac t :i.c:es as t-�Je 11 C:l.s the fact that proo �f may be est<:':l.blis-he�:i by r.red.ible 59

... ~- DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 1 ,.., /. oral t esti mony. As test .if.i.P.d by (t.s.n., p. 18, h ea ring of Ma~ch 18, 1 9 83 .) "I h ad i::\t:. that tim e a sr.:?cr�e t,::\ r� y '"' ho held the p etty cash and I h .:~d two (2) messengers . Everyda y~ the me ss e n gers would mail registered l etters in the post office and file! ple.::~din ~:;1s in Courts and someti mes br.i n q dor.::umc?nts t.o and fr�nm c: l.i.en ts and ot h er� mat. ten:; whir.:: h J a s ked th e m to d .,. " On t hi s item o f office supplies i. n t:hf'? amr�t.mt cJ �f F'5, :3 4.1.4 2 , r�� espond ent's e:-:aminer� t. <?.s t.i.f ie d that the expenses were disallowed because they were unsuppor- ted. 1984. ) Wh e r �e a ta}:payer c: J. aimed d Pd ur.:: tinn s for� certain e>:pPn ses but. no r�� ec::or�ds were ,,va i l ab J. e, the d e ducti on may bP ,::~ ll clwPcl con s.i. der�� inq tl1e t est.i mnn y of the acr.:oun t:.c":\n t. ,::~s tn those e:-: pen ses , whi c:: h tf?s.;t .i.mony w as not. c:on �~�.r-- acl ic t f.:> d by the Gov e r-runen t � (Basilan Estate s vs. Co ~� issioner of Internal Revenue, ~~Pr~�) G; ,�- ant i r1q t .hat no records a r�� e ava.ilablr2 , no te st.i mpn �/ 1-':h a t soeve r regarding the n atur-e these e?:-: penses W i:\ S pr�esen ted by petit ione r� , a l though p etitioner himself t: estified, a s shown above, on the natu J�-� r:.>, amoLmt and/or ba sis o�f t h e allov1an c: e of hiB oth r:? r claimed deductions. The rule hi:\ :F ~:' E?ert es t:. C~ bl.i shP. d 60

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3281 that the b a r�� e s t a t e mP n t o �f <'1 ta:-: r'�" V er� t l 1a t-. .,. n i l em of e:�:pf.~n s e is nr-�din a.--y a nd n e?r::esf-:. a r-�v. t ll lar:companied by adequat e e vid e n ce ~ n o ''�lf?'i.q~lt t l lP CcHnnl.i.ssion>-:! r- or- wi t.h th e cc:n..l r-ts. (De Ve r a vs. Co 11 ector o 1' In tern al Revenu e � < 'I .r1 r:. i � �' ' i '"' .. 1 r . / . nar c h 23. 1959 , Basilan Estat es v s. Cn~~i s si on er of' Internal Revenue ~ ~~Pr~. ) Dis a llowing amount s c l <:\i m ~::- rl �fnr- de du ct..inn. ;v::; we have s a id abo v e, me rel y b ecause t h ere is n o available documenta r y ev id e n ce wh icl1 wj 11 establis h the pr� f.~c::.i. s e .::\mount dcttlht. ignor-es common 1 y r �e c og n .i z eel b us.i. n es<=;, fH"�'"C: t ices b u t s hould by c r �e d.i.b l e testimony~ which was n ot cl o n e in th i s i t e m . An ei 11 . pet.i t.icm e r- i s f.?. n qa (JP.d .i n t:he p1��;:.\ c t� ice o f , , i <;. pr-off.?ss.i.cm a~; a 1 �!:\ W Y I?!'" a nd .i. n va 1.. 1Flb l y h e c <:I I'" I ir~ d supplie s but t.a :-: p 2 y e r�s cc:~r.. r.. y.i n q rn F�1 t:e r� .i. a I s and supplies on hand s h o uld in c lud E� .i. n c::1 p enses t h e char-ges for mat.eri 2 l s and s uppli es o nly to t h e amount that they ar-e actuall y con s umed and u s ed in the oper-ation dur-ing the year for- whi c h th e r- e turn is made~ and pnJv ided t h e C: OS t t'J'f suc h mater-ials and supplies had not been deducted in deter.. m.i.ning the net income fo r a n y p n �?v .i o u s y ear- . 61

DECISION --� CTA CASE NO. :~28.1 _, 14 -�- (Se c. 67, Rev. Rf?gs. No . 2 . ) No whatsoever�~ oral or� doc:umentar" y~ to t h i s e�ffec::t IIJC:\S presented by p eti ticmer. As aptly st.;:;~. ted by r� esponc:lent~ dedu ctio n s ar� e matters of l eqisla tjve grace and t hf.?r. e f D Y"!'? SPP k .i . nl.l c:l e duc:t.i o n mu s t bE? a bl!? to p t�� nve lh ;:1t t �,~,, is P.t1'1:.il... l r:.? d to the dedu ct i o n s which t h e law a llow~ . Th e item o'f office suppli t>s :i n the amou rd cd P5~341.4 2 ca nnot ther efo re b e a l l owed. tax for the year .1977 i ,... co mput ed es �f 0 J. 1 fWJ �::; : - ---:l' Net. inc::c.-nE~ pe!r.. r et.urn Pll,.1.l5. J. tl Add: LJ1allc)\lo.l,':lblf:? de~::luct..icn~:;: Off.ic:P n?.nt.al .1. ~ IT.-:'0. 79 Net. .income p e r� dec: i. sic:n F?7, ~� 17. 01 Less: E:�:empt..icr1s p :::-::~~206.00 Net ta:�:able incc:xne P ... ?I:~::1!~X} Income ta:�: due then::.>on Less: ?Yr1o..Jnt. paid

DECISION ��-� CTA CASE NO. 3281 - 1 3 -- Ba 1ance of ta>: due f? , '} .?6 � (X) Pdd: I n ter-est "fr-c:m 4 -��16-�-7B t.n 10 --3.1�-80 Total amount due and collectible WHEREFORE~ petitioner- Am ."'clo ~) . f:-'lm a dcw, ~Jr- .~ .i.$ Inter-nal F..:evenue the amo1.1nt o f f :�::~. ' cy 6 7 � (J l t:\ s def i.e .ien c y .income t.a}: for- th e Y P <'11 � l9 T7 . fl) us sur-e har-g es and .in tf:? r �es t. .in c�td e n t. tn del inqiiPncy pL1r-suant. to t h e pr-ovisions o �f Flection 5.1 ( e) ( 2 ) <::r.) o �f the applicable N<:\ti.onal InterTtal F<evenue Code , as amended. SO ORDERE'I). Que zon City, Metr-o Manil a, Febr-uar-y 28, 1989. Af'1AN1E F'resich g ,Judge WE CDNCLJH: Associate ,JudgE'

DEC IS I UN ���� CTA CASE NO. 328 1 �- 16 - CERT I F I CAT I 0 N I hereby certify that this dP.cision Wi'=\5 reached after due consul tati on amcmq the membet-� ~ <Tf the Cour-t () �f T a:-: .i.n ar:c o rda n ce ttJ .i. th Section 13~ Arti c l e VIII of the Constitut ion. .a~ ~ fE ;:�~_:::/ ' AMAN Pr� E>s .i d .�i nq ,.JLtdq P Co tll"� t nf r.;.n: Af"lr' '~=>. l s 64