GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY CTA CASE NO. 10501 CORPORATION, Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID,J1. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, 'f: tJ t_�~. - Respondent. - - - - - - - - - )C )C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, ]. : At bar is a Petition for Review1 filed by petitioner Global Energy {J� Supply Corporation (petitioner) against respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent/CIR) pursuant to Section 3(a)2 , Rule Filed on 17 May 2021 , Division Docket, pp. 7-25 . SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner oflnternal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments . In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes .

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x in relation to Section 3(a)(1)3, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). It prays that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to refund to petitioner the amount of P53,371,744-24, representing the latter's excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWTs) for taxable year (TY) 2018.4 PARTIES OF THE CASE Petitioner Global Energy Supply Corporation is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines.s It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 234-621-27o-ooo.6 It holds its principal office at 15/F Metrobank Plaza Bldg., Osmefia Blvd., Santa Cruz, Cebu City 6ooo.7 It is primarily engaged in the supply and delivery of electricity, and the development, construction, operation, maintenance, and management of facilities used in connection therewith, as well as provide facilities or services as may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the supply and delivery of electricity.8 Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed CIR tasked to perform the duties of his or her office, including, inter alia, the power to decide claims for tax refund or tax credit subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Section 49 of the , National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, antJ� SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. - The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (I) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue[ .] Prayer, Petition for Review, Division Docket, p. 23. Exhibit "P-1 ", id. , pp. 342-351 . Exhibit "P-2", id. , p. 352. Id. Supra at note 5, p. 343 . SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. -The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- --- ---- -- -- - - - -- - - - --- - --- - -- - -- ----------------- x Section 710 of Republic Act (RA) No. 112511, as amended by RA 9282.12 He or she holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. FACTS OF THE CASE On 12 April 2019, petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax Return13 (ITR) for TY 2018 which reflected an overpayment of P82,720,276.oo, computed as follows : Total Income Tax Due p 42, 582,759 p 13,234,227 Less: Total tax credits/payments 53�371.?44 95.954�503 Prior year's excess tax credits (I! 82,720,276) other than MCIT CWT forTY 2018 Total Amount Payable (Overpayment) Before the BIR, petitioner manifested its option to refund the said amount by checking the appropriate box in its Annual ITR forTY 2018.14 Out of the amount of P42,582,759�oo from the prior year's unutilized excess tax credits, only P29,348,532.oo remained after applying against the same the income tax (IT) due of P13,234,227.oo for TY 2018. Petitioner also carried over the same amount of P29.348,532.oo 8 from the prior TY 2018's unutilized excess tax credits in its Annual ITR t forTY 2019.'' 10 Sec. 7. Jurisdiction . - The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appell ate j urisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provi ded. ( 1) Decisions of the Collector of Intern al Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments , refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under th e National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau ofl nternal Revenue[.] II AN ACT CREATING THE COU RT OF TAX APPEALS: 12 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISD ICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JU RI SDICTION AND ENLA RGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMEN DING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO . 11 25, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 13 Exhibit "P-4", Division Docket, pp. 356-363. 14 Line 2 1, Exhibit "P-4", id ., p. 356. 15 Line I, Schedule 7, Exhibit "P-7", id ., p. 423.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x Later, petitioner exercised its option to refund the CWTs that it withheld from its customers during TY 2018. Thus, on 14 and 16 December 2020, petitioner filed its letter dated 09 December 202016, and Application for Tax Credits/Refund (BIR Form No. 1914)17, with the BIR. It applied for a refund or issuance of tax credit certificate (TCC) covering excess and unutilized CWTs forTY 2018, in the aggregate amount of P53,371, 744.00. The BIR, however, did not act on petitioner's claim. Due to the BIR's inaction, it filed the present petition on 17 May 2021.18 The case was initially raffled to this Court's Third Division. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT On 14 June 2021, the Court issued Summons19 on respondent. Respondent filed a "Motion to Admit Attached Answer" on 26 July 202120, which the Court deemed granted through its Resolution dated n October 2021.21 In the Answer2\ respondent interposed that petitioner is not entitled to the claimed refund as the petition failed to show it complied with the requirements of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 53-9823 and Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-2oo6.24 Particularly, it failed to submit the complete documentary requirements as provided for in RMO No. 53-98 as well as RR No. 2-2oo6. According to respondent, although petitioner submitted documents to support its claim, the latter failed to faithfully substantiate its claim when it failed to comply with the .. aforementioned issuances, a lapse supposedly fatal to its judicial claimJ'. 16 Exhibit "P-8", id., p. 477. 17 Exhibit "P-8-1 ", BIR Records, p. 918 . 18 Supra at note I . 19 Division Docket, p. 214. 20 !d., pp. 216-219. 21 Id. , p. 227 . 22 Id ., pp. 221-225 . 23 Checklist of Documents to be Submitted by a Taxpayer upon Audit of his Tax Liabilities as well as Of the Mandatory Reporting Requirements to be Prepared by a Revenue Officer, all of which Comprise a Complete Tax Docket. 24 Mandatory Attachments of the Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents oflncome Payments Subjected to Tax Withheld at Source (SA WT) to Tax Returns with Claimed Tax Credits due to Creditable Tax Withheld At Source and of the Monthly Alphalist of Payees (MAP) Whose Income Received Have Been Subjected to Withholding Tax to the Withholding Tax Remittance Return Filed by the Withholding Agent/Payor of Income Payments .

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X------------- - --- - -- - -----------------------------X Thereafter, on 12 November 2021, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief.2s The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on 18 November 2o2126, but was reset to and held on 29 March 2022.27 Prior thereto, on 01 March 2022, respondent submitted his or her Pre-Trial Brief.28 On 10 March 2022, respondent then transmitted to the Court the BIR Records of this case. 29 On 29 March 2020, the Pre-Trial Conference proceeded as scheduled.3o On 27 April 2022, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues31 (JSFI), which was admitted and approved by the Court in its Resolution dated os May 202232, marking the termination of the Pre-Trial. A Pre-Trial Order dated 25 May 202233 was then issued. Upon petitioner's motion34, the Court commissioned Atty. Walter L. Abela, Jr., (Abela) as Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) on 22 June 2022.3s On 29 June 2022, the case was transferred to this Court's Second Division, pursuant to CTA Administrative Circular No. 01-2022 dated 21 June 2022, which reorganized the CTA's Second and Third Divisions.36 Thereafter, trial ensued with petitioner offering the testimonies of the following witnesses, namely: (1) Reymonda Aida B. Obrero (Obrero)37, its Vice-President/Controller; and (2) ~CPA Abela.38 Both testified through their respective Judicial Affidavit~ 25 Division Docket, pp. 228-237 . 26 See Resolution dated II October 2021 , id., p. 227. 27 See Resolution dated 24 November 2021 , id., p. 243. 28 Id. , pp. 244-246. 29 See Respondent's Compliance dated I 0 March 2022, id., pp. 249-251. 30 See Minutes of the Hearing and Order, both dated 29 March 2022, id., pp. 254, and 256-257, respectively . 31 Id. , pp. 258-265 . 32 Id. , p. 267. 33 Id. , pp. 269-275. 34 Petitioner's Motion to Avail of the Provisions of Section 5, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, id., pp. 276-279. 35 See Order dated 22 June 2022, id., pp. 309-310 . 36 See Order dated 29 June 2022, id., p. 3 I I . 37 See Minutes of the Hearing and Order, both dated 22 June 2022, id., pp. 307, and 309-3 I0, respectively. 38 Id.; Oath of Commission dated 23 June 2022, id. , p. 308 .

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x On the witness stand, Obrero identified exhibits she referred to in her Judicial Affidavit. She testified as to petitioner's filing of its Annual ITR forTY 2018, the resulting overpayment of ITs, and the carry-over of tax credits to TY 2019. She also discussed the other circumstances leading to the filing of petitioner's administrative claim for refund.39 Obrero did not undergo any cross-examination.40 When it was ICPA Abela's turn to testify, he identified the ICPA report he prepared. He highlighted the relevant portions therein detailing the procedures he conducted and the methods he employed, leading to his final recommendationY On cross-examination, respondent's counsel clarified that in his recommendation, he reduced the amount claimable (by petitioner) by approximately P2 million. He likewise confirmed that all documents he examined were originals. No redirect examination followed.42 On o8 August 2022, ICPA Abela filed his Report43 via registered mail, which the Court received on 15 August 2022.44 On 07 October 2022, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence45 (FOE), with respondent commenting thereon on 10 October 2022.46 In its Resolution dated 07 November 202247, the Court admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits, noting some discrepancies relative to a few of them. In particular, petitioner inadvertently offered its Exhibits "P-12" to "P-12-94"48 as only "P-12" to "P-12-49" due to a typographical error in the body of its FOE, then it offered its Exhibit "P-14-4"49 when the document actually marked in the records was marked as Exhibit "P-14-2 "� Thereafter, on 25 November 2022, to rectify the noted discrepancies, petitioner filed a "Motion for Partial Reconsideration [~ 39 Judicial Affidavit ofReymonda Aida B. Obrero, id., pp. 57-64. 40 Supra at note 37. 41 Exhibit "P-49", Division Docket, pp. 319-324. 42 TSN dated 21 September 2022, pp. 7-8 . 43 Exhibit " P-48", ICPA Report. 44 See Minute Resolution dated 17 August 2022, Division Docket, p. 314. 45 Id. , pp. 331-341. 46 Respondent's Comment (Re: Formal Offer of Evidence), id ., pp . 478-480. 47 Id. , pp. 483-484. 48 Petitioner' s Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307s) forTY 2017. 49 Petitioner' s Billing Statements forTY 2018 which were subjected to Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT).

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x------------------------- -- -----------------------x Resolution dated November 7, 2022]"so (MPR), with respondent failing to file a comment theretoY In the Resolution dated 03 February 20235\ the Court granted the abovementioned MPR and admitted the remaining Exhibits "P-12-50" to "P-12-94". It also required petitioner to submit a copy of Exhibit "P-14-4" with the appropriate marking, which petitioner subsequently complied with.53 On 15 March 2023, considering respondent's manifestation54 that he will not be presenting any witnesses, the Court cancelled the hearing set for the said purpose. It also ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda.55 Later, on 14 April2023, respondent filed his or her Memorandum56, while that of petitioner was filed on 19 April 2023.57 With both memoranda filed, the Court considered the case submitted for decision on os May 2023.58 ISSUE As the parties so stipulated during the Pre-Trial, the following issue was submitted for this Court's determination- WHETHER PETITIONER GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO ITS CLAIM FOR REFUND OR ISSUANCE OF TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC) OF ITS EXCESS AND UNUTILIZED CREDITABLE WITHHOLDING TAXES (CWTs) 2) FOR TAXABLE , YEAR (TY) 2018 IN THE AMOUNT OF Ps3.371, 744.24. 59 50 Division Docket, pp. 485-489. 51 See Records Verification dated 20 January 2023, id ., p. 492. 52 Id., pp. 496-497. 53 See Petitioner' s Compliance dated 09 February 2023, id., p. 498-500; See Resolution dated 20 February 2023 , id. , pp. 503-504. 54 Respondent's Manifestation dated 09 March 2023, id ., pp. 505-507. 55 See Resolution dated 15 March 2023 , id. , p. 510. 56 !d., pp. 511-517. 57 !d., pp. 519-539. 58 See Resolution dated 05 May 2023, id., p. 540. 59 See Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), id. , p. 258.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- - ------- - ------------ -- ---- -- --- -- --- -- - - ----- - --x ARGUMENTS In support of its petition, petitioner argues mainly that the excess and unutilized CWTs earned in TY 2018 in the amount of P53,371,744-24 is the proper subject of the instant claim for refund or issuance of a TCC under the NIRC of 1997, as amended. It maintains that it timely filed its claim for refund and that CWT Certificates (BIR Form No. 2307) duly support the excess and unutilized CWTs forTY 2018. It is likewise firm in its position that the corresponding income (upon which the taxes were withheld) was duly reported. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that petitioner is not entitled to a refund. According to respondent, petitioner failed to prove that the alleged claim for refund was filed within the two (2)-year period provided under the NIRC of 1997, as amended. As to the reporting of income, respondent contends that petitioner also failed to prove that it had declared the related income in its Annual ITR. Finally, respondent avers that the instant claim for tax refund is tainted with procedural infirmities for petitioner's failure to submit complete documents to support its administrative claim for refund. RULING OF THE COURT After a careful review of the records and the parties' contrasting arguments, We find the present petition partly meritorious. FAILURE TO SUBMIT COMPLETE DOCUMENTS DOES NOT RESULT IN THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF A CLAIM FOR REFUND OR TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC). Before delving into the merits of this case, this Court shall first address respondent's claim that petitioner's failure to submit complete , documents pursuant to RMO No. 53-9860 and RR No. 2-2oo661 render~ 60 Supra at note 23. 61 Supra at note 24.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x its administrative refund claim pro forma and warrants the denial thereof. A reading of both issuances reveals that neither states that the non-submission of the documents enumerated therein would ipso facto result in the denial of a claim for tax refund or credit. At most, RR No. 2-2oo6 merely imposes a fine as a penalty for non-submission of the information or statement required therein. Still, such lapse does not lead to the outright denial of any claim for refund or TCC. This is exemplified in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. (formerly Nissan Motor Philippines, Inc. 62 (Univation), where the Supreme Court held: Petitioner CIR argued that failure of the respondent to submit the required complete documents as required by Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98 and Revenue Regulations No. 2-2oo6 rendered the petition with the CTA dismissible on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned out that when a taxpayer prematurely filed a judicial claim with the CTA, the latter has no jurisdiction over the appeal. In the instant case, respondent's failure to submit the complete documents at the administrative level did not render its petition for review with the CTA dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. At this point, it is necessary to determine the grounds relied upon by a taxpayer in filing its judicial claim with the CTA. The case of Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue is instructive, thus: A distinction must, thus, be made between administrative cases appealed due to inaction and those dismissed at the administrative level due to the failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents. If an administrative claim was dismissed by the CIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice/request, then the judicial claim before the CTA would be dismissible, not for lack of jurisdiction, but for the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the claim at the administrative level. When a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince the CTA that the CIR had no reason to deny its claim. It, thus, 1 becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show the CTA tha~ 62 G.R. No . 231581, 10 April 2019; Citations omitted, emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------- -- ---- - ----x not only is he entitled under substantive law to his claim for refund or tax credit, but also that he satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim. It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit a document requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA. In this case, it was the inaction of petitioner CIR which prompted respondent to seek judicial recourse with the CTA. Petitioner CIR did not send any written notice to respondent informing it that the documents it submitted were incomplete or at least require respondent to submit additional documents. As a matter of fact, petitioner CIR did not even render a Decision denying respondent's administrative claim on the ground that it had failed to submit all the required documents. Considering that the administrative claim was never acted upon, there was no decision for the CTA to review on appeal per se. However, this does not preclude the CTA from considering evidence that was not presented in the administrative claim with the BIR. Thus, RA No. 1125 states: Section 8. Court of record; seal; proceedings. - The Court of Tax Appeals shall be a court of record and shall have a seal which shall be judicially noticed. It shall prescribe the form of its writs and other processes. It shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations for the conduct of the business of the Court, and as may be needful for the uniformity of decisions within its jurisdiction as conferred by law, but such proceedings shall not be governed strictly by technical rules of evidence. The law creating the CTA specifically provides that proceedings before it shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of evidence. The paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. Thus, the CTA is not limited by the evidence presented in the administrative claim in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The claimant may present new and additional evidence to the CTA to support its case for tax refund. Cases filed in the CTA are litigated de novo as such, respondent 'should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting ... to the Court of Tax Appeals all evidence ... required for the successful prosecution of its administrative claim.' Consequently, the CTA may give credence to all evidence \ presented by respondent, including those that may not hav()

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x been submitted to the CIR as the case is being essentially decided in the first instance. It is thus apparent from the foregoing disquisitions that failure to submit "complete documents", as required by either of the aforementioned issuances, is not fatal to a refund claim. In the same light, contrary to respondent's contention63, it does not render the petition filed before this Court dismissible on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, it is clear that respondent's inaction in a claim for refund does not preclude this Court from considering evidence that was not presented in the administrative claim with the BIR. PETITIONER DID NOT CARRY FORWARD THE EXCESS CREDITABLE WITHHOLDING TAXES (CWTs) BEING CLAIMED FOR REFUND, PURSUANT TO SECTION 76 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (NIRC) OF 1997, AS AMENDED. Petitioner's claim for refund of its excess and unutilized CWTs is anchored on Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides: SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return. -Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited , against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxab~ 63 Respondent' s Memorandum, Division Docket, p. 514.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x - -- - -- - - --- --- - --- - ---- - - - -------------- - ---- - --- -x quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry- over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor. 64 Based on the foregoing provision, two (2) options are available to a corporation that overpays its IT for the TY: (1) to carry over and apply the overpayment as tax credit against the estimated quarterly IT liabilities of the succeeding TYs (also known as automatic tax credit) until fully utilized (meaning, there is no prescriptive period); and, (2) to apply for a cash refund or issuance of a TCC within the prescribed period.6s In exercising its option, the applying corporation must signify, in its Annual ITR, which option it intends to avail. This is done by marking the appropriate box provided in the BIR form. 66 In the case of University Physicians Services Inc.-Management, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue67, the Supreme Court provides the irrevocability rule. Interpreting the last sentence of above-quoted Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, it held that the provision applies only when the option to carry-over is elected and there is nothing therein that suggests that the other choice, i.e., cash refund or TCC, is also irrevocable.68 Meanwhile, the phrase "for that taxable period" refers to the TY when the excess IT (subject of the option) was acquired by the taxpayer. 69 In the case at bar, petitioner opted to refund the unutilized CWTs by marking the option "To be refunded" in its BIR-received Annual ITR'V- Q for TY 2o18Jo 64 Emphasis supplied and italics in the origin al text. 65 University Physicians Services In c.-Management, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205955, 07 March 2018 . 66 See Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R. No. 112024, 28 January 1999. 67 Supra at note 65 . 68 Id. 69 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Bank ofthe Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 178490, 07 July 2009. 70 Supra at note 14.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------X A perusal of petitioner's Annual ITR forTY 2018 reveals that it had regular corporate income tax (RCIT) due ofP13,234,227.oo, higher than its minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) due of P1,n6,712.oo. The entire amount was paid using its tax credits from the prior year's excess tax credits of P42,582,759�oo; thus, leaving a balance of said credits in the amount ofP29,)48,532.oo, and CWTs during TY 2018 in the amount of P53,)71,744�oo, totaling to P82,720,276.oo excess tax credits as of 31 December 2018. This is summarized below71 : Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT P42,582,759 Less: RCIT Due 13,234,227 29,348.532 Balance of Prior Year Excess Credits Add: Creditable Tax Withheld during TY 2018 P36,267,991 Creditable tax withheld from previous 17.10}.,753 53.371,744 quarters per BIR Form No. 2307 f'82,720,276 Creditable tax withheld per BIR Form 2307 for the fourth quarter Excess Tax Credits as of 31 December 2018 Notably, pursuant to Section 2.58.3 of RR No. 2-9872, the submission of petitioner's Annual ITR for TY 2018 is sufficient to prove its "Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT" in the amount of P42,582,759�oo. The RR thus provides: Sec. 2.58.3. Claim for Tax Credit or Refund.- (C) Excess Credits. - An individual or corporate taxpayer's excess expanded withholding tax credits for the taxable quarter/year shall automatically be allowed as a credit against his income tax due for the taxable quarters/years immediately succeeding the taxable quarters/years in which the excess credit arose, provided he submits with his income tax return, a copy ofthe first page of his income a tax return for the previous taxable period showing the amount of his excess withholding tax credits, and on which.return he has ~~t opted for a cash refund or tax credit certificate.73 71 Supra at note 13 . 72 Implementing Republic Act No. 8424, "An Act Amending the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended" Relative to the Withholding on Income Subject to the Expanded Withholding Tax and Final Withholding Tax, Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation, Withholding of Creditable Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes. 73 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------X Based on the foregoing, the excess CWTs of a specific TY, which a taxpayer opts to carry over to the succeeding TY, automatically form part of the credits against the IT due of such succeeding TY (as long as the amount of excess CWTs are evidenced by the ITR for the TY when such excess credits arose). In the present case, petitioner presented its Annual ITR for TY 201774 showing the excess tax credits amounting to P42,582,759�oo75, consisting of prior year's excess credits of P42,668,s86.oo, and CWTs during TY 2017 in the amount ofP39,18s,62s.oo, as shown below: Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT r 42,668, 586 Less: RCIT Due Balance of Prior Year Excess Credits 39,271,452 Add: Creditable Tax Withheld during TY 2017 3>397,134 Creditable tax withheld from previous P18,191,922 quarters per BIR Form No. 2307 Creditable tax withheld per BIR Form 20,993,703 39,185,625 No. 2307 for the fourth quarter 'P42,S82,759 Excess Tax Credits as of 31 December 2017 The balance of P29,348,532.oo (representing petitioner's� "prior year's excess credits" after TY 2018) was subsequently carried over and reflected as "Prior Year's Excess Credits" in petitioner's Annual ITR for TY 2019.76 Thus, the claimed CWTs for TY 2018, in the amount of P53,371,744�oo, which is the subject of petitioner's instant claim for refund, may be the proper subject of a claim for refund under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. PETITIONER MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUISITES FOR A CLAIM OF REFUND OR ISSUANCE OF A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC). As long settled by and in jurisprudence77, in order for a corporate taxpayer to successfully claim for a r~fund or issuance ofa TCC involvingJ� 74 Exhibit "P-27", USB . 75 Part II- Line 20 and Schedule 7, Exhibit "P-27", USB . 76 Line I, Schedule 7, Exhibit "P-7", Division Docket, p. 423. 77 See Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No . 211348, 23 February 2022.

CTA Case No. 10501 � Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x-------------------- - -----------------------------x excess creditable withholding taxes, the following requirements must be satisfied: 1. The claim must be filed with the CIR within the two (2)-year period from the date of payment of the tax; 2. The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld; and, 3� It must be shown on the return that the income received was declared as part of the gross income. FIRST (P) REQUISITE: BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CLAIMS MUST BE TIMELY FILED. Anent the first requisite, Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provide that claims for refund must be filed within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may- (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proofofdestruction. No credit or refund oftaxes or penalties shall �be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund. SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have � been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penal'2:)

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid.78 As shown above, both the administrative and judicial claims must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty. Significantly, it must be emphasized that the two (2)-year prescriptive period within which to claim a refund commences to run, at the earliest, on the date of the filing of the final adjustment return (or, the final Annual ITR).79 This must be so since it is only on such date when it can be finally ascertained if a taxpayer still has to pay additional IT or if the latter is entitled to a refund of overpaid IT.80 Alternatively stated, it is only at this point it can be determined whether a taxpayer paid an amount exceeding its annual IT liability.81 As the records show, the present claim for refund pertains to TY 2018 for which petitioner electronically filed its Annual ITR on 12 April . 2019.8' Such date serves as its date of filing its final adjustment return.~ 78 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 79 See ACCRA Investments Corporation v. The Honorable Court ofAppeals, eta/., G.R. No. 96322, 20 December 1991 ; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc. and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83736, 15 January 1992; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Th e Philippine American Life Insurance Co. , et al., G.R. No. 105208,29 May 1995. 80 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., eta/., supra. 81 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Th e Comm issioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 182582, 17 April2017 . 82 Supra at note 13. 83 Per Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No . 24-2018 (S UBJECT: Guidelines in the Filing, Receiving and Processing of20 17 Income Tax Returns Including Its Attachments): Taxpayers who are mandated to use eFPS under existing issuances shall file and pay directly using the eFPS facility . However, taxpayers who have electronically filed shall also submit a copy of electronically filed ITR with Filing Reference Number (FRN) thru eFPS facility, together with the required attachments within fifteen (15) days from the deadl ine of filing or date of electronic filing of the return whichever comes later. Hence, the counting of the two (2)-year prescriptive period was reckoned from the date of filing ofthe final adjustment return via eFPS.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x---------- - -- - --------------- - --------------------x Counting two (2) years from this date, petitioner had until12 April2021 within which to file a claim for refund of its excess CWTs both in the administrative and judicial levels. Petitioner timely filed its administrative claim on 14 December 202084 as well as its judicial claim, through the instant Petition for Review, on 17 May 2021.85 While the latter date falls beyond the deadline determined above, petitioner is well justified considering the physical closures of the court at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.86 Evidently, in consideration of the foregoing, petitioner complied with the first requisite. As for the second and third requisites, Section 2.58.3(8) of RR No. 2-9887, as amended, is instructive, viz: SEC. 2.58.3. Claim for Tax Credit or Refund. - (B) Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditable income tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course only when it is shown that the income payment has been declared as part of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom.88 SECOND (2N�) REQUISITE: THERE MUST BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE FACT OF WITHHOLDING . Thus, as regards the second requisite, the Supreme Court, in Commissioner oflnternal Revenue v. Philippine National Bank89, affirme'2:)' 84 Exhibit "P-8", Division Docket, p. 477. 85 Supra at note I. 86 Pursuant to SC Administrative Circular Nos. 21-2021 , 22-2021 , and 29-2021 , the time for filing and service of pleadings and motions from I0 April 2021 to 14 May 2021 in all the courts and judicial offices in the National Capital Judicial Region and the provinces of Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna, and Rizal (NCJR+) was suspended and resumed on 17 May 2021 , the first day of the physical reopening of the relevant court. 87 Supra at note 72. 88 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 89 G.R. No . 180290, 29 September 2014; Citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x that a certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld and that proof of actual remittance is not a condition to claim for a refund of unutilized tax credits, to wit: The certificate of creditable tax withheld at source is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld. It is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld at source to be presented and to testify personally to prove the authenticity of the certificates. Thus, upon presentation of a withholding tax certificate complete in its relevant details and with a written statement that it was made under the penalties of perjury, the burden of evidence then shifts to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to prove that (1) the certificate is not complete; (2) it is false; or (3) it was not issued regularly. Petitioner's posture that respondent is required to establish actual remittance to the Bureau of Internal Revenue deserves scant consideration. Proof of actual remittance is not a condition to claim for a refund of unutilized tax credits. Under Sections 57 and s8 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, it is the payor-withholding agent, and not the payee-refund claimant such as respondent, who is vested with the responsibility of withholding and remitting income taxes. This court's ruling in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. Asian Transmission Corporation, citing the Court of Tax Appeals' explanation, is instructive: ...The Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source issued by the withholding agents of the government are prima facie proof of actual payment by herein respondent-payee to the government itself through said agents. Based on the foregoing, it is undeniable that the fact of withholding may be established by presenting the pertinent certificates !J' of creditable tax withheld at source where the relevant details ,(amount paid and the amount of tax withheld) are reliably reflected.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x To prove its compliance with the second requisite, petitioner submitted the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No 2307)9� duly issued by its withholding agents for TY 2018, detailed as follows: Period Covered Payor Income Payment Amount of Exhibit (TY 2018) CWTs No. January Cathay International Resources Corp. P2,973.936.16 P59.478.72 "P-13" February Cathay International Resources Corp. 3,064,617.81 61,292.36 March Cathay International Resources Corp. 57,QQ8.88 "P-13-1" April Cathay International Resources Corp. 2,~�.7!1. 6y;69.81 May Cathay International Resources Corp. 61,211�9'5 " P-r~-2" June Cathay International Resources Corp. 3,178,490.66 66,133 �47 July Cathay International Resources Corp. 3,061,697�51 62,939�03 "P-13-3" August Cathay International Resources Corp. 3ao6,6n 5o 69,750 .29 "P-11-4" September Cathay International Resources Corp. 3,146,_251.28 71,780.16 "P-13-5" October Cathay International Resources Corp. 3.487,514.69 70,166.65 "P-n-6" November Cathay International Resources Corp. 3,589,017.80 71.940.07 "P-13-7'' December Cathay International Resources Corp. _],208,]l2. 71 74,171.10 "P-n-8" January Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 3�597,003�58 348,705.09 "P-13-9" February Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 3,718,565.18 424,'581.7'5 "P-13-10 " March Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 478,146.6'3 "P-11-11 " April Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 17.435,254�73 422,934�31 "P-13-12" May Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 21,229,087.50 445_,198.82 "P-11-11" June Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 502,141.07 "P-11-14 " July Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 23,907,331.50 531,115�37 "P-13-15" August Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 21,146,715.60 487,181.51 "P-13-16" September Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 22,229_&41.20 555,014-4(} "P-11-17" October Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 25 ,117,053� 30 _25.7,034-74 "P-13-18" December Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 26>55.5_, 768.70 503,725-46 "P-13-19 " April Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 24>359,075�70 61,808.81 "P-11-20" May Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 27,751,724.70 72,607.68 "P-13-21 " June Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 27,8_51, 73_6..2_0 56,264-42 "P-13-22 " July Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 25,186,273.20 74,672-49 "P-11-21" August Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 3,090,440.60 43,879�71 "P-13-24" August Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 3�630,J84-23 48,(}16.6') "P-11-25" October Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 70,214.62 "P-13-26" November Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 2,813,221.25 47,(}71�1'5 "P-11-27 " December Cebu Danao Paper Inc. 3.733,624.60 78,547�06 "P-11-28" Cebu Energy Development Corporation 2,193,985.63 176,758.o8 "P-11-29 " October - December Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 2,446,832.28 "P-11-10" January- March Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 3,510,730.63 1,]2_2,957�24 "P-13-31" January - March Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 2,398,667.62 1,264,75V)O "P-13-32" January - March Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 1,412,128.16 "P-13-33" April- June Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 2227I25ll0 "P-11-14" January - March Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 5,123,421.60 1,!2_8,911.33 "P-n-1'5" April- June Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 6_2,647,862.22 1,044,204�74 "P-13-36" July- September Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 63,237,674.80 1,160,914.27 "P-13-37" July - September Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 70,606,408.22 1,289,028.89 "P-13-38" July- September Cebu Mitsumi Inc. _52,94:2>266 .2_2 1,346,142.2') "P-13-39" July - September Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 52 ,210 ,23 6.82 10_01,043�36 "P-11-40 " Cebu Mitsumi Inc. 58 ,045 ,713.54 1,50'5,191.28 "P-13-41 " October- December 64,451.444�52 1,484,671.27 "P-11-42" October - December 67,307,112.42 1.375,8og.84 "P-13-43" J 7_5,0__52,168.04 "P-111�-44" ' ; 75,269,564.00 74,2]},_563.72 68,790,492.00 90 Exhibits "P-13-1'' to "P-13-165", USB.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x Period Covered Payor Income Payment Amount of Exhibit (TY 2018) CWTs No. January Federal Land Inc. 6,')76 ,3')0 .0') 131,')27.00 Federal Land Inc. 6,979,285.24 "P-13-45" January- March Federal Land Inc. 6,812,620.88 139�585 .7 0 "P-13-46 " January- March Golden Portals Industries Inc. 136,2')2-42 "P-13-47'' Golden Portals Industries Inc. 1.)35.859�30 "P-13-48" March Golden Portals Industries Inc. 1.499,219.87 26,717 �19 "P-13-49" April Golden Portals Industries Inc. 1,827,573�09 29,984-40 "P-13-50" May Golden Portals Industries Inc. 1,595.917�41 36,551.46 "P-13-51" June Golden Portals Industries Inc. 2,579,288.74 "P-13-52" July Golden Portals Industries Inc. 2, 731,514-46 31,918.35 "P-13-53" August Golden Portals Industries Inc. 2,986,342.08 51 ,585 .77 "P-13-54" September Golden Portals Industries Inc. 2,819,93"!-�90 54.630.29 "P-13-55" October Golden Portals Industries Inc. 2,686,691.88 59.726.84 "P-13- 56 " November Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 2,672 ,9 2 9 . 9 9 "P-13-57'' December Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 12,6 95 ,9 8 9 .10 56a 9 8.7o "P-13-s8" April- June Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 13,248,022.17 "P-13-59" July- September Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 12,899,192.')4 53�733�84 "P-13-6o" July- September Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 14,156,881.23 53.458.6o "P-13-61" July- September Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 13,794.484.82 253�919�78 "P-q-62" October- December Mabuhay Filcement Inc. 13,664,681.89 264.960-44 "P-13-63" October- December Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 257.983.85 "P-13-64" October - December Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 13,995.424.71 283,137 .62 "P-13-65" July Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 4.434,655.20 275.889�70 "P-13-66" August Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 273,293�64 "P-13-67" September Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 3~99_6.}_12.89 279.908-49 "P-13-68" October Makoto Metal Technology Inc. 44.346�55 "P-13-69" November Panay Energy Development Corporation 3,685,556.61 39.963.13 "P-13-70 " December Panay Energy Development Corporation 3.74o,665.7o 36,855 �57 "P-13-71" April- June Panay Energy Development Corporation 4,033.640.63 37.406.66 "P-13-72 " July - September Panay Power Corporation 40,)36�41 "P-13-73" October - December Panay Power Corporation 3.737. 735 �14 "P-13-74 " April- June Panay Power Corporation 3.347,408.83 37.377�35 "P-13-75" July- September Philippine Mining Service Corporation 2,024,645�30 132,749�15 "P-13-76" October - December Philippine Mining Service Corporation 2,6g9,527.07 79.973�47 "P-13-77 " January - March Philippine Mining Service Corporation 106,631.32 "P-13-78" April Philippine Mining Service Corporation 924,200.00 36.5o5�9o "P-13-79" May Philippine Mining Service Corporation 554.520 .0 0 21,903 �54 "P-13-8o" June Philippine Mining Service Corporation 739.360 .0 0 29,204.72 "P-13-81" July Philippine Mining Service Corporation 9,886,8oq6 197.736.04 "P-13-82" August Philippine Mining Service Corporation 69,260.69 "P-13-83" September Philippine Mining Service Corporation 3.463,034�33 60,408.72 "P-13-84" October Philippine Mining Service Corporation 3,020.435�80 61,)01.80 "P-13-85 " November Robinsons Land Corporation 3,065,o89.99 6 o ,9 8 8 .53 "P-13-86" December Robinsons Land Corporation 3,049,426-40 72,071.98 "P-13-87'' January Robinsons Land Corporation 3,603,599 �0 4 70 ,7 9 4 �34 "P-13-88" February Robinsons Land Corporation 3.539�716 .g3_ 77,2 9 9 .05 "P-13-89" February Robinsons Land Corporation 3,8 6 4.952 �73 79.680.73 February Robinsons Land Corporation 3.984,0)6.52 79,460-48 " P-13~ 2_o " February Robinsons Land Corporation 3.97),02).89 200,960-45 February Robinsons Land Corporation 10,048,022.34 55.482.47 "P-13-91" February Robinsons Land Corporation 2,774 ,12).70 56,788.57 "P-13-92 " February Robinsons Land Corporation 2,839.428 .31 137,047.10 "P-13-93" February Robinsons Land Corporation 6,852.355�13 90,o78.oo "P-13-94" February Robinsons Land Corporation 4 ,503,8 9 9 �93 56.444.94 "P-13-95" March 2,822,247.22 59,883.37 "P-13-96" March 2,994,168-48 142,247�18 "P-13-97'' 84.712.74 7,ll2,359.19 2 0 4,714 .8 8 .I 4.235.637.02 45,)00.86 10,2)5.744�15 48.492.90 " P-13-98"~ 2,265,043 .12 2,424 ,645 �0 4 (~

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x Period Covered Payor Income Payment Amount of Exhibit (TY 2018) CWTs No. March Robinsons Land Corporation 6,121,)32�97 122,426.66 March Robinsons Land Corporation 3>930,207�34 78,604.15 "P-13-9_5{ March Robinsons Land Corporation 8,024,)22.77 160,486.46 "P-13-100 " April Robinsons Land Corporation 2 , ) 4 4 ,127 .21 46,882.54 "P-13-101 " April Robinsons Land Corporation 2,654,460.90 53,089.22 "P-13-102" April Robinsons Land Corporation 6,132,)08.81 122,646.18 "P-13-103" April Robinsons Land Corporation 4,044,020 .75 8o,88o-42 "P-13-104" April Robinsons Land Corporation 8,701,044�08 174,020.88 "P-13-105" May Robinsons Land Corporation 2,651 ,281.48 53,025.63 "P-13-106" May Robinsons Land Corporation 2,388,964�59 47,779�29 "P-13-107 " May Robinsons Land Corporation 8 ,985 ,135 �07 179,702.70 "P-13-108" "P-13-109" May Robinsons Land Corporation 6 ,'36'3,266.77 127,265�34 "P-13-no" June Robinsons Land Corporation 4,)04,762.39 86,095�25 June Robinsons Land Corporation 2,720 ,930.99 54,418.62 "P-13-111 " June Robinsons Land Corporation 4 >744,187 �47 "P-13-112 " June Robinsons Land Corporation 2,453,)61.67 94,883�75 "P-13-113" June Robinsons Land Corporation 9,502,157�19 49,067.23 "P-13-114 " June Robinsons Land Corporation 7,ooo,028 .s s 190,043�14 "P-13-115" July Robinsons Land Corporation 2,579>964.70 140,000.57 "P-13-116" July Robinsons Land Corporation 4,831,372.27 "P-13-117 " July Robinsons Land Corporation 2,387,957�29 51,599�29 "P-13 -118" July Robinsons Land Corporation 96,627-45 "P-13-119" July Robinsons Land Corporation 9,111,965.29 47,759 �15 "P-13-120 " July Robinsons Land Corporation 6,349 ,893 �27 182,239�31 "P-13-121" August Robinsons Land Corporation 126,997�87 "P-13-122" August Robinsons Land Corporation 93.510 .26 "P-13-123" August Robinsons Land Corporation 2,700,549�07 1,870.21 "P-13-124 " August Robinsons Land Corporation 2,493 ,081.65 54,010.98 "P-13-125" September Robinsons Land Corporation 9>534,716.22 49,861.63 "P-13-126" September Robinsons Land Corporation 6,487,006-45 190,694�32 "P-13-127" September Robinsons Land Corporation 2,607,767�50 129 ,740 .13 "P-13-128" September Robinsons Land Corporation 52,155�35 "P-13-129" October Robinsons Land Corporation 2,413,114�50 48,262 .29 "P-13-130" October Robinsons Land Corporation 9,420,962.50 188,419.25 "P-13-131" October Robinsons Land Corporation 6,554,755 �03 131,095�10 "P-13-132" October Robinsons Land Cor12oration 2,395,404.05 47,908.08 "P-13 -133" November Robinsons Land Corporation 2,669 ,380 .24 53,387.60 "P-13-134" November Robinsons Land Corporation 9 ,655 ,670 .97 193,113-42 "P-13-135 " November Robinsons Land Corp_oration 123,276�32 "P-13-136" November Robinsons Land Corporation 6,163,816.11 47,520.16 "P-13-137'' December Robinsons Land Corporation 2,)76 ,007 �75 51,881.28 "P-13-138" December Robinsons Land Corporation 2,594,064.03 189,649�26 "P-13-139" December Robinsons Land Corporation 9,482,463.14 125,619.33 "P-13-140 " December Robinsons Land Corporation 6,280,966.62 125,316.02 "P-13-141" January- March SM Prime Holdings Inc. 6,265,801.10 49,624.67 "P-13-142" April- June SM Prime Holdings Inc. 47,706.07 "P-13-143" April- June SM Prime Holdings Inc. 2,481,233�55 185,13'j.oo "P-13-147 " April- June SM Prime Holdings Inc. 2,385,303.65 2,232,152 .61 "P-13-148" July - September SM Prime Holdings Inc. 9,256,849�87 1,138,419.65 "P-13-149" October- December SM Prime Holdings Inc. m ,6o7,63o.56 1,025,024.28 "P-13-150" January - March Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 56,920,982.38 1,090,805-45 "P-13-151" January - March Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 51,251,213.82 3>474,616.99 "P-13-15_2'' January - March Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 54,540,272 .68 5,006,161.54 "P-13-153" January - March Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 173>730,849-48 318,725.63 "P-13-154" 2 5 0 , ) 0 8 ,077.22 590,367�79 "P-13-155 " ~ 15,936,281.50 583,322-46 29 ,518,389 .50 529,461.64 / 29,166,123.00 26,473,082.00

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x Period Covered Payor Income Payment Amount of Exhibit (TY 2018) cwrs No. April- June Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 29,664,137�50 593,282 .75 April- June Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 28,g16,004.50 578.}20 .0 9 "P-13-156" Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 32,640,877.00 652,817�54 "P-13-15_7'' July- September Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 187,112.30 "P-13-158" July- September Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 9.355,615.00 6o9,515 .17 "P-13-159" July- September Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 30.475.758.50 635.939.14 "P-13-16o" July- September Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 31,796,957.00 624,261.10 "P-13-161" October - December Taiheiyo Cement Philippines Inc. 31,21J!O'j'j.OO 549,129�37 "P-13-162" October - December Toledo Power Company 27.456,468.50 58,409-48 "P-13-163" October - December Toledo Power Company 73,011.85 "P-13-144 " Toledo Power Company 1,478.720.27 43.807.11 "P-13-164" April- June Universal Robina Corporation 1,848,400 .33 86,179�31 "P-13-165" July- September Universal Robina Corporation 1,109,040.20 78,264.62 "P-13-145" Total 4,3o8,965.67 "P-13-146" November f'53�371>744�24 December 3,913,231.14 P2,662,JOJ,009�36 The Court examined the aforesaid CWT certificates and found no significant exceptions therein. As such, petitioner has satisfactorily complied with the second requisite. THIRD (3R0 ) REQUISITE: THE INCOME RECENED UPON WHICH THE TAXES WERE WITHHELD MUST HAVE BEEN DECLARED AS PART OF GROSS INCOME. Lastly, as to the third requisite, petitioner must prove that the income payments related to the substantiated CWTs of'P53.371,744�24 were declared as part of its gross income subject to IT in TY 2018. Petitioner's Annual ITR forTY 2018 reported the following: In its Annual ITR for TY 2018, petitioner reported total net sales or revenues of P2,751,071A75�oo.91 Meanwhile, in its Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for the same TY, petitioner likewise declared total revenues of P2,751,071A75�oo. The figure is comprised of Electricity Trading Revenue of P2,731,195,235�oo and Other Service Fees of P19,876,24o.oo. 92 An examination of petitioner's Summary ofTotal Revenues per its , General Ledger (GL) forTY 201893 shows that the aggregated revenueo 91 Supra at note 13 , p. 357. 92 Supra at note 13 , p. 368. 93 Annex F of the !CPA Report, Exhibit " P-48", USB.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X----------- - ----------------- - --------------------X posted therein tally with the total revenues per petitioner's TY 2018 AFS and Annual ITR. However, as summarized further above, the income related to the claimed CWTs amounts to P2,662,J03,009.36. To ascertain whether the income payments totaling P2,662,303,009.36 (related to the CWTs being claimed for refund) were declared as part of its gross income subject to IT in TY 2018, petitioner submitted its billing statements (BSs)94, official receipts (ORs)9s, and its Schedule ofTotal Revenues96 for the said period. Upon examination of the aforementioned documents and matching the same to the income reflected in the Summary of CWTs vis-a-vis the 2017 and 2018 GLs, this Court finds that petitioner sufficiently showed that the income payments (upon which the claimed CWTs were based) were reported as part of its gross income in its ITRs, with some exceptions. It is noted that income payments of P19,849,243.6o (with corresponding claimed CWTs ofP758,954�62) could not be traced to the Summary of Total Revenues per 2017 and 2018 GLs97 (which tie-up with the TY 2017 and 2018 Annual ITRs), as demonstrated below: BSNo. Customer's Name Income CWT Payments 1784, 1785, 1787, 1810, 1841, Cebu Energy Development Corporation Ps,123.421.6o P176,758.o8 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 1770,1771, 1772, 1773 Panay Energy Development Corporation 3>347,408.83 132,749�15 1843 Panay Energy Development Corporation 2,024,645�30 79.973-47 1917 Panay Energy Development Corporation 2,699,527.07 106,631.32 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782 Panay Power Corporation 36,sos.9o 1844 Panay Power Corporation 924,200 .00 21,903�54 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782 Panay Power Corporation 554.520.00 29,204.72 1920 Toledo Power Company 739.360.00 s8.409-48 1762 Toledo Power Company 1,478,720.27 73,011.85 1845 Toledo Power Company 1,848,400.33 43,807.11 1,109,040.20 Total P19,849,243�6o P75B, 954.62 94 Exhibits "P-14" to "P-14-268", USB . 95 Exhibits "P-15" to "P-15-229", USB . 96 Annexes F and G of the ICPA Report, Exhibit " P-48", USB . 97 Id.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x----------------- -- ------- - -------- - -- --- -- --- - - --x Similarly, income payments from SM Prime Holdings, Inc. totaling P22,381,489.98 could not be traced to the Summary of Total Revenues per 2018 GL98: Income payment (per BS No. 1908) P250 ,3o8,o77.22 Less: Sales traced to TY 2018 GL (Table 1) Income payments not traced to GL 227,926,587.24 Multiply by: Applicable EWT Rate (2%) Disallowed CWT 22,J8I,489.98 X 2% p 447,629.80 Table 1. Sales traced to TY 2018 GL with corresponding journal Entry (JE) No. JENo. Sales JENo. Sales JE No. Sales 14675 P2,227.357�04 16234 P1,792, 918.56 17764 P2,193,212.oo 14676 23,506 .96 16235 11,742,772.81 17765 88,914.00 1468o 9,133,923-60 16236 2,983,653-37 17769 8,600,872.00 14681 93,756-40 16271 8,739,858 .36 17770 348,684.00 14721 114,307.80 16272 593.465.64 18347 245,048.04 14722 6,284,806.25 16276 144,081.93 18348 7>739.791.84 14723 16,024,109.87 16277 2,222,667.07 18349 16,447,812.05 14724 1,840,332.62 16823 56,840.88 18350 1,886,449� 71 14725 14,818,018.82 16824 9,097,258.11 18351 11,164,594�62 14726 6,427,348.61 16825 15,909,615.26 18352 9 ,187,792.88 16231 256,222.11 16826 1,821,185�48 18429 8,949,556.oo 16232 11,949,604.75 16827 13,095.452.61 18433 2,126,203�78 16233 16,291,357-41 16828 5,107,311.78 18434 155 ,922 .22 Total P227,926,587.24 In view of the foregoing, the collective amount of P1,2o6,s84-42 worth of CWTs (P7s8,9s4.62 plus P447,629.8o), pertaining to income payments of which cannot be traced to the corresponding GLs and Annual ITRs, may not form part of the refundable amount. Additionally, We echo the findings of ICPA Abela concerning the declaration of the following related income in TY 20,.17 (even though the related tax credits are being claimed in TY 2018}99(:3 98 Supra at note 93 . 99 ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-48", USB, pp. 9-10.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------x Payor Income Payment Tax Withheld Exhibit No. Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, Inc. P15,936,281.50 P318,725.63 "P-14-33 " Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation 17>435,254�73 348,705.09 "P-14-2" Cebu Mitsumi, Inc. 69,647,862.22 1,392,957�24 Federal Land, Inc. 6,576,350.05 131,527.00 "P-14-4" SM Prime Holdings, Inc. 4,634,573�11 92,691.46 "P-14-7 " Philippine Mining Service Corporation 3,062,461.29 61,249�23 "P-14-24 " Total "P-14-11 " Pn7,292,782.90 P2,345,855�65 The Supreme Court's pronouncements in the Univation case are instructiveoo: Petitioner CIR insisted on the absence of the second and third requirements. It argued that respondent failed to prove the fact of withholding, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld and that the income it received was declared as part of the gross income. Specifically, petitioner CIR questioned respondent when it included the creditable withholding taxes pertaining to income payments for the years 2oo6, 2oo8 and 2009 to form part of its claim for refund for the year 2010. In this case, respondent was able to establish through the documentary evidence it submitted compliance with the second and third requisites. As correctly evaluated by the CTA 15t division: It must be noted that while the income payments from which the CWTs which were declared in its return covered the years 2oo6, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was nothing wrong with it as what is important is that the respondent complied with the third requisite, that is, the income which the taxes were withheld was included in the returns of the respondent. The CTA En Bane correctly appreciated the explanation of the independent CPA (ICPA) why the income payments from which the CWT amounting to P12,729,617.90 were withheld, were declared in its returns covering the years 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. In gist, the ICPA suggests that there were delays in collection of certain income payments to respondent. For one, certain sales made by respondent to its dealers in 2008 and 2009 were only paid in 2010. In other words, there were certain income payments which, although respondent expected to receive in 2oo6, 2oo8 and 2009, were only remitted to it in 2010. As concluded by the CTA En Bane, the delay in collection of certain income payments of respondent caused the timingO' 100 Supra at note 62; Citation omitted, emphasis and underscoring supplied and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- --- -- ------- - - --- - - - - -- ------- - - - --- - ---- - - - - --- -x difference between the actual reporting of the income by respondent and the actual withholding of the corresponding creditable income tax by respondent's customers. What is important is that the creditable withholding taxes corresponding to the related income in the respondent's books for CY's 2oo6, 2oo8 and 2009 were not yet claimed as income tax credits in respondent's annual ITRs corresponding to the said years. Hence, it is just proper that these income payments should form part of respondent's tax credit for 2010. Following the above discussions, the timing difference alone (between the actual reporting of the income and the actual withholding of the related tax credits) would not bar taxpayers from claiming the related tax credits. However, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer- claimant to prove that each of such credits had not yet been claimed in the same year when the corresponding income was reported. Petitioner's total CWTs amount to P39,18s,62s.oo in its 2017 Annual ITR.101 However, petitioner's Summary of 2017 CWTs102 (which shows the supposed breakdown of the total CWTs it claimed in TY 2017) only contains an aggregate of P33,212a41.49 worth of CWTs. From this, it can be reasonably inferred that petitioner had claimed additional CWTs ofPs,973,283.51 in 2017. Fortunately, petitioner attached a PDF copy of its Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents of Income Payments Subjected to Tax Withheld at Source (SAWT) to its set ofAFS forTY 2017.103 A meticulous review of the said SAWT elucidates that, out of the total above- mentioned exceptions, only the income payment from Cebu Mitsumi, Inc. amounting to P6g,647,862.22 (with corresponding claimed CWTs of P1,392,957.24) had already been claimed by petitioner in its Annual ITR forTY 2017. Thus, the pertinent CWTs amounting to P1a92,957.24 must be disallowed. Accordingly, out of the CWTs claimed totaling Ps3,371,744.24 duly supported with CWT Certificates (BIR Form No. 2307), after verifying , that the related income payments had been properly declared i{J 10 1 Supra at note 74. 102 ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-48", USB, pp. 9- 10. 103 Exhibit "P-42", id.

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------- - --------- - --- - - - -- - --- -- - -- - -- -- --------X petitioner's taxable gross income per its TYs 2017 and 2018 Annual ITRs, and after accounting for the observed exceptions, petitioner's refund claim must be granted, albeit in a reduced amount, as summarized below: Claimed CWTs, duly supported by CWT P53,371,744�24 Certificates (BIR Form No. 2307) 1,2o6,s84.42 Less: CWT, the income payments of which cannot be 1,392,957.24 traced to the corresponding GLs and Annual ITRs Pso,772,202.58 Less: CWT already claimed in TY 2017 Refundable Unutilized CWT forTY 2018 In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven that it is entitled to the issuance of TCC in the amount of Pso,772,202.58, representing its unutilized CWTs for TY 2018, pursuant to Section 76, in relation to Sections 204 and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner Global Energy Supply Corporation on 17 May 2021 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND TO OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner Global Energy Supply Corporation in the reduced amount of Pso,772,202.58, representing unutilized creditable withholding taxes for taxable year 2018. SO ORDERED. \ , 1/~~ o~~~fCORR~LENA I CONCUR: ~~VID Associate Justice

CTA Case No. 10501 Global Energy Supply Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x- -- -- --- --- - - - --- - ---- - ----- -- - ---- -- - - - - - --- - - - - -x ATTESTATION I attest 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's Division. \' ciate Justice Special 2n~ision Acting Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Special 2nd Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, 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's Division. Presiding Justice