TRUMP MARKS PHILIPPINES LLC v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City FIRST DIVISION TRUMP MARKS CTA Case No. 8969 PHILIPPINES LLC, For: Refund Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, UY, and MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, .'!f!lfa~ Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION MINDARO-GRULLA, J.: This case is a Petition for Review filed by Trump Marks Philippines LLC on January 14, 2015, pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)1 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, otherwise known as "An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals", as amended, as well as Section 3(a)(2)2 of Rule 4 and Section 4(a)3 of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended. 1 SEC. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: XXX (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; 2 SEC. 3. Cases wtthin thejurisdiction ofthe Court in Division.- The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: XXX (2) Inaction by 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, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: xxx; 3 SEC. 4. Where to appeal,� mode ofappeal.-

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 2 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Petitioner seeks the refund of the amount of Nineteen Million Seven Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Five Pesos and Twenty-Four Centavos (P19,778,995.24), allegedly representing excess final taxes withheld on royalty payments made by Century City to petitioner for the months of December 2011 to July 2014. Petitioner Trump Marks Philippines LLC is a non-resident foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, United States of America (U.S.A.)4, with principal office address at 725 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, U.S.A. 5 On the other hand, respondent is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the government official charged with the administration and enforcement of national internal revenue laws, including the granting of refunds and tax credits of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. On May 8, 2008, Mr. Donald J. Trump and petitioner entered into an Assignment Agreement where Mr. Trump assigned to petitioner his right, title and interest to the use of the Trump Mark in the Philippines. The Trump Mark consists of names and marks "TRUMP" and "TRUMP TOWER" as used on or in connection with a variety of goods and services such as real estate services, construction and development and listing, leasing, and managing commercial and residential properties. 6 (a) An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal. 4 Exhibit "P-1", Docket, val. II, pp. 802-805. 5 Par. 1, Summary of Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket, val. I, p. 372. 6 Pars. 1 and 2, Recitals, Exhibit "P-4", Docket, val. 1. p. 184, in relation to the Deed of Assignment attached as Exhibit "H", Docket, val. I, pp. 289-291. L.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 3 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Petitioner and Century Luxury Properties, Inc. ("Century Luxury" for brevity) entered into a License Agreemenf, where petitioner granted Century Luxury a non-exclusive, non-assignable and non- transferrable right to use the Trump Mark in connection with the construction and marketing of first-class, high-rise, luxury residential condominium building on a certain land owned by Century City Development Corporation (''Century City" for brevity) located at Kalayaan Avenue and Salamanca Street, Makati City, Philippines. Petitioner is not engaged in business in the Philippines as evidenced by a Certification of Non-Registration of the Company8 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); while Century Luxury and Century City are domestic corporations duly organized and existing in the Philippines, with office address at 21st Floor, Pacific Star Building, Senator Gil J. Puyat Avenue corner Makati Avenue, Makati City, Philippines.9 On May 29, 2009, petitioner and Century Luxury amended the License Agreement and entered into the First Amendment.10 On July 25, 2011, Century Luxury and Century City entered into a Deed of Assignment and Assumption of Obligations11, where Century Luxury transferred to Century City its rights and obligations under the License Agreement, as amended. In consideration for the use of the Trump Mark, Century City agreed to pay petitioner license fees, which consist of the up-front fee, extension fees, gross sales fees, and commercial component rent fee. 12 The License Agreement and its Amendment have been duly registered with the Philippine Intellectual Property Office (IPO) under Certificate of Registration No. 5-2008-0005813 � On November 22, 2011, petitioner filed an Application for Tax Treaty Relief (TTRA) with the BIR's International Tax Affairs Division 7 Exhibit "P-4", Docket, val. I, pp. 178-322. 8 Exhibit "P-3", Docket, val. II, p. 809. 9 Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket, val. I, p. 373. 10 Exhibit "P-5", Docket, val. I, pp. 323-337. 11 Exhibit "P-6", Docket, val. I, pp. 338-339. 12 Exhibit "P-5", Schedule I, License Fees, Docket, val. I, pp. 330-335. 13 Exhibit "P-7", Docket, val. I, p. 340. c

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 4 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION (ITAD) to request confirmation that the royalties paid by Century City to petitioner are subject to preferential income tax treaty rate of ten percent (10�/o) pursuant to Article 13(2)(b)(iii) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter referred to as "RP-US Tax Treaty''). 14 The BIR issued BIR Ruling No. ITAD 026-14 on April 4, 2014, confirming the applicability of the preferential income tax treaty rate of 10�/o on royalties paid by Century City to petitioner from November 23, 2011 and thereafter, pursuant to Article 13(2)(b)(iii) of the RP-US Tax Treaty .15 For the months of December 2011 to July 2014, while the TTRA was being processed, Century City allegedly remitted to petitioner royalty payments in the aggregate amount of P98,894,977.00 and withheld from said payments thirty percent (30�/o) final withholding tax (FWT) in the aggregate amount of P29,668,492.94 instead of the 10�/o preferential tax rate in the aggregate amount of P9,889,497.70.16 Thus, on December 1, 2014, petitioner filed with the BIR Revenue District Office No. 39 an administrative claim17 for cash refund in the total amount of P19,778,995.24, corresponding to the alleged excess final withholding tax (FWT) on royalty payments withheld and remitted by Century City for the period covering December 2011 to July 2014, with the following details: 18 Date of Royalties Paid 30�/o Date of 10�/o Excess Remittance Withholding Payment Withholding Withholding of Tax Paid 10-Jan-12 Tax Due Tax Royalties 10-Apr-12 7-Dec-11 p 509 564.00 p 152,869.20 10-Apr-12 p 50,956.40 p 101 912.80 10-Apr-12 171,079.60 342 159.20 9-Jan-12 1 710 796.00 513,238.80 10-May-12 487 064.10 974 128.10 10-Feb-12 11-Jun-12 225 267.50 450 535.00 7-Mar-12 4 870 641.00 1 461192.20 10-Jul-12 272 768.50 545,536.99 10-Apr-12 10-Sep-12 353 679.00 707 358.13 16-May-12 2 252 675.00 675 802.50 134 449.00 268 897.86 191 318.80 382 637.52 4-Jun-12 2 727 685.00 818 305.49 3-Jul-12 3 536 790.00 1 061 037.13 1 344 490.00 403 346.86 1 913 188.00 573 956.32 14 Exhibit "P-8", Docket, vol. I, pp. 341-345. 1s Exhibit "P-9", Docket, vol. II, pp. 810-818. 16 Par. 14, Petition for Review, Docket, vol. I, pp. 8-9. 17 Exhibit "P-10", Docket, vol. I, pp. 355-361. 18 Exhibit "P-10", Docket, vol. I, pp. 356-357. t.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 5 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION 31-Jul-12 2 265 559.00 679 667.62 10-Sep-12 226 555.90 453 111.72 4-Sep-12 12-Nov-12 9-0ct-12 1 812 681.00 543 804.18 12-Nov-12 181 268.10 362 536.08 12-Nov-12 15-Jan-13 11-Dec-12 2 122 028.00 636 608.28 15-Jan-13 212 202.80 424 405.48 2-Jan-13 11-Mar-13 7-Feb-13 2 573 140.00 771942.00 11-Mar-13 257 314.00 514 628.00 1-Apr-13 11-Apr-13 5-Apr-13 3 298 285.00 989 485.40 9-May-13 329 828.50 659 656.90 10-May-13 10-Jun-13 6-Jun-13 6 935 729.00 2 080 718.58 10-Jul-13 693 572.90 1 387 145.68 18-Jul-13 8-Aug-13 1-Auq-13 4/816 768.00 1445 030.28 11-Sep-13 481 676.80 963 353.48 28-Aug-13 11-Sep-13 25-Sep-13 1 666 378.00 499 913.26 14-0ct-13 166 637.80 333 275.46 9-Nov-13 10-Dec-13 13-Dec-13 1 021 016.00 306 304.80 20-Jan-14 102 101.60 204 203.20 9-Jan-14 20-Jan-14 3-Feb-14 1499 745.00 449 923.56 10-Mar-14 149 974.50 299 949.06 4-Mar-14 13-May-14 15-Apr-14 7 071 359.00 2 121407.70 9-Jun-14 707,135.90 1 414 271.80 21-May-14 9-Jun-14 5-Jun-14 3 896 996.00 1169 098.75 11-Jul-14 389,699.60 779 399.15 9-Jul-14 14-Aug-14 1485 548.00 445 664.40 148,554.80 297 109.60 6 251 897.00 1 875 569.11 625 189.70 1 250 379.41 4 702 377.00 1 410 713.10 470 237.70 940 475.40 1 767 583.00 530 274.92 176 758.30 353 516.62 2 239 154.00 671 746.20 223 915.40 447 830.80 1 526 754.00 458 026.20 152 675.40 305 350.80 3 545 319.00 1 063 595.76 354 531.90 709 063.86 2 998 603.00 899 580.90 299 860.30 599 720.60 3 037 512.00 911 253.57 303 751.20 607,502.37 7 936,867.00 2 381 060.10 793 686.70 1,587 373.40 3 341,968.00 1 002 590.55 334 196.80 668 393.75 2 215 882.00 664 764.63 221 588.20 443 176.43 P981894,977.QQ__ ~291668,492.94 P9,889,497.70 P19,778,995.24 Due to the inaction of respondent on petitioner's administrative claim, the instant Petition for Review was filed before this Court on January 14, 2015. On March 25, 2015, respondent filed his Answer19 interposing the defense of prescription. Respondent contends that the claim for refund has prescribed. Quoting the case of Vda. De Aguinaldo vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenuew, he argues that petitioner should have filed its claim for refund or tax credit with the BIR within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty. Such requirement is a condition precedent and non-compliance therewith precludes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from exercising his given authority. 19 Docket, vol. I, pp. 134-135. 20 13 SCRA 269. t:.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 6 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Respondent further contends, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Rosemarie Acostci.t, that if the claim was denied or not acted upon within said period, the petition for refund should be filed with the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the denial and within said two (2)-year period from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause, otherwise the claim for refund shall prescribe. Lastly, respondent maintains that a tax refund is in the nature of a tax exemption which must be construed strictissimijuris against the taxpayer. The taxpayer must present convincing evidence to substantiate a claim for refund. On May 15, 2015, both petitioner22 and respondent23 filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs. On May 21, 2015, the Pre-Trial Conference was set and on the same date, a Resolution24 was issued by this Court giving petitioner's counsel a period of twenty (20) days or until June 10, 2015 within which to file the parties' Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, including the list of the parties' respective documents and witnesses for presentation during trial as well as the agreed trial dates. The parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue25 on June 10, 2015, and a Pre-Trial Order26 was issued by this Court on July 9, 2015. On November 13, 2015, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence27� All the exhibits offered by petitioner were admitted by the Court in a Resolution28 dated March 30, 2016. The documentary exhibits filed by the petitioner are as follows: 21 G.R. No. 154068, August 3, 2007. 22 Docket, vol. I, pp. 139-149. 23 Docket, vol. I, pp. 150-152. 24 Docket, vol. I, pp. 369-371. 25 Docket, vol. I, pp. 372-381. 26 Docket, vol. II, pp. 708-716. 27 Docket, vol. II, pp. 769-801. 28 Docket, vol. II, pp. 930-931. (

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 7 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Exhibit: Description: P-1 Certificate of Formation of Trump Marks Philippines LLC dated 29 February 2008 P-2 Certificate issued by the Department of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service (Philadelphia, PA dated 21 January 2009 P-3 Certification issued by the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission dated 21 January 2015 P-4 License Agreement between Petitioner and Century Luxury Properties ("Century Luxury") dated 15 May 2008 ("License P-5 Agreement") First Amendment to License Agreement between Petitioner and P-6 Century Luxury dated 29 May 2009 ("First Amendment") Deed of Assignment and Assumption of Obligations between P-7 Century Luxury and Century City dated 25 July 2011 (''Deed of Assignment") P-8 Certificate of Compliance No. 5-2008-00058 issued by the P-8-A Philippine Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") dated 28 September P-8-B 2011 P-8-C Tax Treaty Relief Application dated 17 November 2011 ("TRRA") P-9 BIR Stamp Receipt dated 22 November 2011 Signature of Jason L. Fernandez P-10 Signature of Carrie Bee C. Hao BIR Ruling No. ITAD 026-14 dated 4 April 2014 ("!TAD Ruling 26- P-10-A 14") P-10-B Administrative Claim for Refund dated 28 November 2014 P-10-C ("Administrative Claim") P-10-D Signature of Jason L. Fernandez Signature of Carrie Bee C. Hao P-11 Signature of Michael P. Garcia P-12 BIR Stamp Receipt dated 1 December 2014 P-13 Amended Articles of Incorporation of Century City BIR Certificate of Registration (BIR Form No. 2306) P-14 BDO Unibank, Inc. Certificate of Bank Deposit and/or Placement P-15 dated 13 May 2015 Deutsche Bank AG Manila Certification dated 7 April 2015 P-15-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for December 2011 P-15-1 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for December 2011 - P-15-1-A P152,869.12 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for December 2011 P-16 Amount of P152,869.12 paid for December 2011 Annual Information on Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation P-16-A and Final Withholding Taxes for 2011 P-17 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for 2011- P152,869.12 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-17-A Form 1601F) for March 2012 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for March 2012 - P-17-1 P2,650,233.50 P-17-1-A BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for March 2012 Amount of P2,650,233.50 paid for March 2012 P-18 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for April 2012 P-18-A Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for April 2012 - P818,305.49 P-18-1 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for April 2012 P-18-1-A Amount of P818,305.49 paid for April 2012 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-19 Form 1601F) for May 2012 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for May 2012 - P-19-A P1,061,037 .13 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for May 2012 P-19-1 L_

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 8 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION P-19-1-A Amount of P1,061,037.13 paid for May 2012 P-20 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for June 2012 P-20-A Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for June 2012 - P403,346.86 P-20-1 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for June 2012 P-20-1-A Amount of P403,346.86 paid for June 2012 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-21 Form 1601F) for August 2012 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for August 2012 - P-21-A P1,253,623. 94 BRT/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for August 2012 P-21-1 Amount of P1,253,623.94 paid for August 2012 P-21-1-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for October 2012 P-22 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for October 2012- P1,180,412.94 P-22-A BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for October 2012 Amount of P1,180,412.94 paid for October 2012 P-22-1 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-22-1-A Form 1601F) for December 2012 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for December 2012 - P-23 P1,761,427.40 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for December 2012 P-23-A Amount of P1,761,427.40 paid for December 2012 Annual Information on Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation P-23-1 and Final Withholding Taxes for 2012 P-23-1-A Amount of Final Income Taxes Withheld for 2012- P9,128,387.26 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-14 Form 1601F) for February 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for February 2013 - P-24-A P3,525,748.86 P-25 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for February 2013 Amount of P3,525,748.86 paid for February 2013 P-25-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for March 2013 P-25-1 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for March 2013 - P-25-1-A P449,913.26 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for March 2013 P-26 Amount of P449,913.26 paid for March 2013 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-26-A Form 1601F) for April 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for April 2013 - P-26-1 P356,305.01 P-26-1-A BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for April 2013 Amount of P356,305.01 paid for April 2013 P-27 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for May 2013 P-27-A Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for May 2013 - P449,923.56 P-27-1 BTR/BIR Deposit Slip/Payment Slip for May 2013 P-27-1-A Amount of P449,923.56 paid for May 2013 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-28 Form 1601F) for June 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for June 2013 - P-28-A P19,182,621.87 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for June 2013 P-28-1 Amount of P19,182,621.87 paid for June 2013 P-28-1-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for July 2013 P-29 P-29-A P-29-1 P-29-1-A P-30 t:.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 9 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION P-30-A Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for July 2013 - P1,169,098. 75 P-30-1 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for July 2013 P-30-1-A Amount of P1,169,098.75 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-31 Form 1601F) for August 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for August 2013 - P-31-A P2,321,233.51 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for August P-31-1 2013 Amount of P2,321.233.51 paid for August 2013 P-31-1-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-32 Form 1601F) for September 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for September 2013 - P-32-A P987,499.22 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for September P-32-1 2013 Amount of P987,499.22 paid for September 2013 P-32-1-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-33 Form 1601F) for November 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for November 2013 - P-33-A P530,274.92 Monthly Remittance of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form P-34 1601F) for December 2013 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for December 2013 - P-34-A P14,039,869.56 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for December P-34-1 2013 Amount of P14,039,869.56 paid for December 2013 P-34-1-A Annual Information on Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation P-35 and Final Withholding Taxes for 2013 Amount of Final Income Taxes Withheld for 2013 - P-35-A P42,482,213. 79 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-36 Form 1601F) for February 2014 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for February 2014 - P-36-A P1,063,595. 76 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for February P-36-1 2014 Amount of P1,063,595.76 paid for February 2014 P-36-1-A Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-37 Form 1601F) for April 2014 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for April 2014 - P-37-A P899,580.80 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for April 2014 P-37-1 Amount of P899,580.80 paid for April 2014 P-37-1-AO Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form 1601F) for May 2014 P-38 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for May 2014 - P3,292,313.67 P-38-A BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for May 2014 Amount of P3,292,313.67 paid for May 2014 P-38-1 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-38-1-A Form 1601F) for June 2014 Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for June 2014 - P-39 P1,002,590.55 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for June 2014 P-39-A Amount of P1,002,590.55 paid for June 2014 Monthly Remittance Return of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR P-39-1 Form 1601F) for July 2014 P-39-1-A Amount of Final Income Tax Withheld for July 2014- P664,764.63 P-40 P-40-A ~

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 10 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION P-40-1 BIR eFPS payment confirmation from UNIONBANK for July 2014 P-40-1-A Amount of P664,764.63 paid for July 2014 Letter Request dated 4 June 2015 P-41 BIR Stamp Receipt dated 4 June 2015 P-41-A Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-42 on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR Validation)- 2011 P-42-A Amount of P152,869.12 Withheld (30%) for 2011 P-43 Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation and Final Original Withholding Taxes (1604- P-43-A CF/BIR Validation)- 2012 P-44 Amount of P9,128,387.26 Withheld (30%) for 2012 Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-44-A on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR P-45 Validation) - 2013 Amount of P13,041,177.17 Withheld (30%) for 2013 P-45-A Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-46 on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR Validation)- February 2014 P-46-A Amount of P1,063,595.76 Withheld (30%) for February 2014 P-47 Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR P-47-A Validation)- April 2014 P-48 Amount of P899,580.80 Withheld (30%) for April 2014 Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-48-A on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR P-49 Validation)- May 2014 Amount of P3,292,313.67 Withheld (30%) for May 2014 P-49-A Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-50 on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR P-50-A Validation)- June 2014 P-51 Amount of P1,002,590.55 Withheld (30%) for June 2014 P-51-A Alpha-list Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld P-52 on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (1604-CF/BIR P-52-A Validation)- July 2014 P-53 Amount of P664,764.63 Withheld (30%) for July 2014 P-53-A BIR RAD Certification (RAD 15-07-053-Cert) dated 6 July 2015 P-54 Signature of Rosa Bella B. Javerina Affidavit of carrie Bee Hao P-54-A Signature of Carrie Bee Hao P-55 Affidavit of Ms. Mary Ann C. Cangas P-55-A Signature of Mary Ann C. Cangas Memorandum dated 30 September 2015 Signature of Rosa Bella B. Javerina BIR RAD Certification (RAD 15-09-253 Cert) dated 17 September 2015 Signature of Rosa Bella B. Javerina Affidavit of Alfredo S. Ramos Signature of Alfredo S. Ramos On the scheduled presentation of respondent's evidence, respondent's counsel manifested that he will not be presenting evidence. Thus, in the Order29 dated May 10, 2016, the parties were given a period of thirty (30) days to file their memoranda. 29 Docket, val. II, pp. 934-935. t.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 11 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION The case was declared submitted for decision on November 24, 2016, considering petitioner's Memorandum30 filed on June 20, 2016 and respondent's Memorandum admitted by this Court on November 24, 2016. The parties agreed that the sole issue to be resolved by this Court is as follows: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate for the total amount of P19,778,995.24, corresponding to the excess withholding tax remittances on royalty payments made by Century City to petitioner for the months of December 2011 to July 2014 based on Article 13(2)(b)(iii) of the RP-US Tax Treaty, in relation to Article 12(2) of the RP-UAE Tax Treaty. 31 The Court shall discuss first whether petitioner's claim was timely filed. Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, require the filing of an administrative claim for refund before the filing of a judicial claim, both of which claims should be filed within two (2) years from payment of the tax. Sections 204(C) and 229 are quoted as follows: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise/ Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. - The Commissioner may - XXX XXX XXX (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 proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or 30 Docket, vol. II, pp. 948-967. 31 Docket, vol. I, p. 374. i

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 12 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION 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." (Emphasis supplied) "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 penalty 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." (Emphasis supplied) It is clear that the afore-quoted Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, govern all kinds of refund or credit of internal revenue taxes collected erroneously or illegally.32 Section 204(C) applies to administrative claims filed with the BIR; while Section 229 refers to judicial actions for the recovery of the tax. However, the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must be filed within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. 33 32 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro, G.R. No. L-28467, February 28, 1973, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Insular Lumber Co./ eta!., G.R. No. L- 24221, December 11, 1967. 33 Manila North Tollways Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, CTA EB No. 812 (CTA Case No. 7864), October 11, 2012. t

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 13 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Hence, to be entitled to a refund of erroneously or illegally collected tax, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) that the tax must be erroneously or illegally collected, or the penalty must be collected without authority, and/or any sum must be excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected; and (2) that the claim for refund or credit must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of tax, or penalty, regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment. In the present case, the final withholding tax (FWT) remittances made by Century City for the subject period of claim (December 2011 to July 2014) show the following pertinent dates: Reference Period Covered Date of Payment Last Day to File Exhibits ofFWT Administrative and P-15 P-15-1 Judicial Claims P-17, P-17-1 P-18, P-18-1 Dec. 2011 10-Jan-12 10-Jan-14 P-19 P-19-1 March 2012 10-Apr-12 P-20 P-20-1 April 2012 10-May-12 10-Apr-14 P-21 P-21-1 May 2012 11-Jun-12 P-22 P-22-1 June 2012 10-Jul-12 10-May-14 P-23 P-23-1 Aug. 2012 10-Sep-12 I P-25, P-25-1 Oct. 2012 12-Nov-12 P-26, P-26-1 Dec. 2012 15-Jan-13 11-Jun-14 ! P-27 P-27-1 Feb. 2013 11-Mar-13 P-28 P-28-1 March 2013 11-Apr-13 10-Jul-14 P-29, P-29-1 April 2013 9-May-13 P-30, P-30-1 May 2013 10-Jun-13 10-Sep-14 P-31, P-31-1 June 2013 11-Jul-13 P-32, P-32-1 12-Aug-13 12-Nov-14 P-33, P-33-1 July 2013 11-Sep-13 P-34, P-34-1 Aug. 2013 14-0ct-13 15-Jan-15 P-36, P-36-1 Sept. 2013 10-Dec-13 P-37, P-37-1 Nov. 2013 20-Jan-14 11-Mar-15 P-38 P-38-1 Dec. 2013 15-Mar-14 P-39 P-39-1 Feb. 2014 15-May-14 11-Apr-15 P-40I P-40-1 April 2014 16-Jun-14 May 2014 15-Jul-14 9-May-15 June 2014 14-Aug-14 July 2014 10-Jun-15 11-Jul-15 12-Aug-15 11-Sep-15 14-0ct-15 10-Dec-15 20-Jan-16 15-Mar-16 15-May-16 16-Jun-16 15-Jul-16 14-Aug-16 Based on the above table, portion of the refund claim has already prescribed. c

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 14 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Petitioner's administrative claim for refund was filed on December 1, 201434 and the Petition for Review was filed on January 14, 201535 � Hence, the FWT remitted from January 10, 2012 (for taxable month of December 2011) to November 12, 2012 (for the taxable month of October 2012) should not be considered in the instant claim for having been filed out of time. The total amount of which are broken down as follows: Exhibit Period Date of Last Day to File Excess Covered Payment Administrative and FWT Paid ofFWT P-15 ,P-15-1 Dec. 2011 Judicial Claims p 101,912.75 P-17 P-17-1 March 2012 10-Jan-12 P-18 P-18-1 April 2012 10-Jan-14 1,766,822.33 P-19 P-19-1 May 2012 10-Apr-12 545,536.99 P-20, P-20-1 June 2012 10-May-12 10-Apr-14 707,358.09 P-21 P-21-1 Aug. 2012 11-Jun-12 10-May-14 268,897.91 P-22, P-22-1 Oct. 2012 10-Jul-12 11-Jun-14 835,749.29 10-Sep-12 10-Jul-14 786,941.96 12-Nov-12 10-Sep-14 12-Nov-14 P5,013,219.32 Prescribed Claim The Court shall now discuss the second requisite. Generally, non-resident foreign corporations are subject to thirty percent (30�/o) income tax on royalties received from Philippine sources effective January 1, 2009, pursuant to Section 28(8)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states: "SEC. 28. Rates of Income Tax on Foreign Corporations. - XXX XXX XXX (B) Tax on Nonresident Foreign Corporation. - (1) In General.- Except as otherwise provided in this Code, a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines shall pay a tax equal to thirty- five percent (35�/o) of the gross income received during 34 Exhibit "P-10", Docket, vol. I, pp. 355-360. 35 Petition for Review, Docket, vol. I, p. 6. t.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 15 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION each taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, such as interests, dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, premiums (except reinsurance premiums), annuities, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual, periodic or casual gains, profits and income, and capital gains, except capital gains subject to tax under subparagraphs S(c): Provided, That effective January 1, 2009, the rate of income tax shall be thirty percent (30�/o)." The income tax rate of 30�/o can be further reduced by an international agreement between the Philippines and another state. In the present case, the relevant treaty, as properly invoked by petitioner, is the RP-US Tax Treaty and its "Most Favored Nation" clause. The RP-US Tax Treaty is just one of a number of bilateral treaties which the Philippines has entered into for the avoidance of double taxation. The purpose of these international agreements is to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting parties in order to help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxation in two different jurisdictions. The rationale for doing away with double taxation is to encourage the free flow of goods and services and the movement of capital, technology and persons between countries, conditions deemed vital in creating robust and dynamic economies. 36 The purpose of a "Most Favored Nation" clause is to grant to the contracting party treatment not less favorable than that which has been or may be granted to the "most favored" among other countries. The "Most Favored Nation" clause is intended to establish the principle of equality of international treatment by providing that the citizens or subjects of the contracting nations may enjoy the privileges accorded by either party to those of the "Most Favored Nation".37 The "Most Favored Nation" clause in the RP-US Tax Treaty can be found in Article 13 thereof, quoted hereunder for ready reference: "ARTICLE 13 Royalties 36 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. S.C Johnson and Son, Inc. and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127105, June 25, 1999. 37 !d. c..

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 16 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION (1) Royalties derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States from sources within the other Contracting State may be taxed by both Contracting States. (2) However, the tax imposed by that other Contracting State shall not exceed- (a) In the case of the United States, 15 percent of the gross amount of the royalties, and (b) In the case of the Philippines, the least of: (i) 25 percent of the gross amount of the royalties, (ii) 15 percent of the gross amount of the royalties, where the royalties are paid by a corporation registered with the Philippine Board of Investments and engaged in preferred areas of activities, and (iii) the lowest rate of Philippine tax that may be imposed on royalties of the same kind paid under similar circumstances to a resident of a third State. (3) The term 'royalties' as used in this article means payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work, including cinematographic films or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or other like right of property, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. [T]he term 'royalties' also includes gains derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition ~

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 17 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION of any such right or property which are contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition thereof. (4) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if the recipient of the royalties, being a resident of a Contracting State, carries on business in the other Contracting State in which the royalties arise, through a permanent establishment situated therein, or performs in that other State professional services from a fixed base situated therein, and the right or property in respect of which the royalties are paid is effectively connected with such permanent establishment or fixed base. In such a case, the provisions of Article 8 (Business Profits) or Article 15 (Independent Personal Services), as the case may be, shall apply. (5) Where an amount is paid to a related person and would be treated as a royalty but for the fact that it exceeds an amount which would have been paid to an unrelated person, the provisions of this Article shall apply only to so much of the amount as would have been paid to an unrelated person. In such a case, the excess amount may be taxed by each Contracting State according to its own law, including the provisions of this Convention where applicable." (Emphasis supplied) In order to take advantage of the "Most Favored Nation" clause under Article 13(2)(b)(iii) of the RP-US Tax Treaty, the following conditions should be met: (1) the payor must be a resident of the Philippines; (2) the payee must be a resident of the US; (3) royalties are paid by the payor to the payee; (4) the tax rate imposed on royalties paid to a third state is lower than 15�/o; and (5) the royalties are of the same kind and under the same circumstances as the ones paid to a resident of such third state. As to the first and second conditions, Article 3 (Fiscal Residence) of the RP-US Tax Treaty provides that a resident of the Philippines includes a Philippine corporation and a US resident includes a US corporation. (

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 18 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION In the instant case, payor Century City is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing in the Philippines. 38 As to the second condition, petitioner presented the following documentary evidence to show that petitioner-payee is a resident corporation of the United States of America: 1. Certificate of Formation of petitioner dated February 29, 2008; 39 2. Certificate issued by the Department of Treasury- Internal Revenue Services (Philadelphia, PA) dated January 21, 2009;40 and 3. Certification of Non-Registration of Company issued by the Philippine SEC41 to petitioner. As to the third condition, the royalties are paid by the payor to the payee, based on the following: 1. Amended License Agreement:-42 between petitioner and Century Luxury; 2. Deed of Assignment and Assumption of Obligations43 between Century Luxury and Century City. This is to grant the license to use the Trump Mark in connection with the construction and marketing of a first-class, high-rise, luxury residential condominium building located at Kalayaan Avenue and Salamanca Street, Makati City, Philippines; and 3. Certifications issued by Banco De Oro44 and Deutsche Bank AG Manila45, showing that Century City made US 38 Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket, val. I, p. 373. 39 Exhibit "P-1", Docket, val. II, pp. 802-805. 40 Exhibit "P-2", Docket, val. II, pp. 806-808. 41 Exhibit "P-3", Docket, val. II, p. 809. 42 Exhibit "P-5", Docket, val. I, pp. 323-337. 43 Exhibit "P-6", Docket, val. I, pp. 338-339. 44 Exhibit "P-13", Docket, val. I, pp. 586-587. 45 Exhibit "P-14", Docket, val. I, p. 588. {.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 19 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Dollar remittances in favor of petitioner covering the months of December 2011 to July 2014. In the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue submitted by the parties, it was admitted that "Petitioner sought a cash refund since it would have no use for tax credits as it does not have any business activity or other source of income or revenue subject to Philippine internal revenue taxes".46 Thus, the afore-mentioned US Dollar remittances by Century City in favor of petitioner pertain to the subject license fees or royalties. The remuneration thereof or the license fees constitute royalties, as defined in paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the RP-US Tax Treaty. Petitioner, being the licensor, is the beneficial owner of the royalties, and necessarily has the full right to use, enjoy, and benefit from the said income. Finally, as to the fourth and fifth conditions, petitioner refers to the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital ("RP-UAE Tax Treaty" for brevity), where Article 12(2) and (3) thereof provides that royalties paid to a resident of UAE from sources within the Philippines for the use of, or the right to use, trademarks or other intellectual properties shall be subjected to ten percent (10�/o) preferential tax rate, viz. "ARTICLE 12 Royalties 1. Royalties arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. 2. However, the royalties may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise and according to the laws of that State, but if the beneficial owner of the royalties is a resident of the other Contracting State, the tax so charged shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross 46 Par. 4, Stipulation of Facts, JSFI, Docket, vol. I, p. 374. c.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 20 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION amount of the royalties. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall, by mutual agreement, settle the mode of application of this limitation. 3. The term 'royalties' as used in this Article means payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematographic films and films or tapes for television or radio broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience." The BIR confirmed in its ITAD Ruling No. 026-14 that the royalties under the RP-US Tax Treaty and RP-UAE Tax Treaty are of the same kind and paid under the same circumstances, to wit: "Under Article 13, royalties arising in the Philippines and paid to a resident of the United States are subject to the lowest rate of Philippine income tax that may be imposed on royalties of the same kind and paid to a resident of a third State under similar circumstances (also known as most-favored-nation treatment or MFN treatment). With respect to MFN treatment, the Supreme Court, in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. S.C Johnson and Son Inc. and Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127105 dated June 2~ 1999) ('SC Johnson case'), had required two conditions for such treatment to apply. First, royalties arising in the Philippines and paid to a resident of the United States must be of the same kind as those derived in the Philippines by a resident of a third State and where such are subject to an MFN treatment under the applicable tax treaty between the Philippines and the third State. A survey of existing tax treaties to date discloses an MFN rate of 10 percent Second, royalties paid to the United States resident must be paid under similar circumstances vis-a-vis royalties paid to the third State resident. xxx ~

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 21 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION XXX XXX XXX For this purpose, The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government ofthe UnitedArab Emirates for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Rscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital {'Philippines-United Arab Emirates or UAE tax treaty) effective January 1, 2009 is applicable herein. With respect to the first condition, under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Article 12 of the Philippines-UAE tax treaty, royalties for the use of, or the right to use, trademark and other intangible properties are subject to income tax at a single rate of 10 percent, xxx XXX XXX XXX With respect to the second condition, under paragraph 1, Article 23 of the Philippines-United States tax treaty and paragraph 2, Article 23 of the Philippines-UAE tax treaty, the foreign tax credit or deduction which the United States and UAE allow their residents with respect to income arising in the Philippines (except dividends paid to a United States resident) and subjected to income tax therein is limited to the actual amount of Philippine income tax levied on such income, xxx XXX XXX XXX Considering an MFN rate of 10 percent under Article 12 of the Philippines-UAE tax treaty, this is the amount of foreign tax credit that UAE will allow its residents who derive royalties in the Philippines. Since the same amount of foreign tax credit will be allowed by the United States on royalties subjected to MFN treatment in the Philippines which is the actual amount of Philippine income tax levied on the income, it follows that royalties paid to a UAE resident and those paid to a United States resident are paid under similar circumstances." {_

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 22 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION Thus, pursuant to the RP-US Tax Treaty in relation to the RP- UAE Tax Treaty, petitioner is entitled to the preferential final tax rate of 10�/o on royalty payments received from Century City. Moreover, to prove the fact of withholding and remittance of 30�/o FWT on royalties received from Century City for the subject period of claim, petitioner submitted the following: 1. Monthly Remittance Returns of Final Income Taxes Withheld (BIR Form No. 1601-F) with attached BTR-BIR Deposit/Payment Slips and EFPS Payment Confirmations for the months of December 201147, March to June 201248, August 201249, October 201250, December 201251, February to September 201352, November to December 201353, February 201454, April 2014 to July 201455; 2. Annual Information Returns of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (BIR Form No. 1604-CF) and the corresponding Alphalists for the years 201156, 201257 and 201358; 3. Alphalists for the months of February and April to July 201459 filed by Century City; and 4. Certification issued by the BIR's Revenue Accounting Division (RAD)60 � A perusal of the above documents shows that Century City withheld and remitted to the BIR 30�/o FWT in the amount of 47 Exhibits "P-15" and "P-15-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 589-590. 48 Exhibits "P-17'' to "P-20-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 592-599. 49 Exhibits "P-21" and "P-21-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 600-601. 50 Exhibits "P-22" and "P-22-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 602-603. 51 Exhibits "P-23" and "P-23-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 604-605. 52 Exhibits "P-25" to "P-32-1", Docket, val. I, pp. 607-614 and Docket, val. II, pp. 820-839. 53 Exhibits "P-33" to "P-34-1", Docket, val. II, pp. 840-848. 54 Exhibits "P-36" and "P-36-1", Docket, val. II, pp. 852-856. 55 Exhibits "P-37" to "P-40-1", Docket, val. II, pp. 857-880. 56 Exhibits "P-16" and "P-42", Docket, val. I, pp. 591 and 670. 57 Exhibits "P-24" and "P-43", Docket, val. I, pp. 606 and 671. 58 Exhibits "P-35" and "P-44", Docket, val. II, pp. 849-851 and 881. 59 Exhibits "P-45" to "P-49", Docket, val. II, pp. 882-893. 60 Exhibit "P-50", Docket, val. II, pp. 894-895. 4

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 23 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION P29,245,278.98 from the royalties it paid to petitioner in the amount of P97,484,263.41 for the period covering December 2011 to July 2014. Since petitioner is entitled to the 10�/o preferential tax rate on the said royalties, there was an over-remittance of the 20�/o difference in tax rates, equivalent to P19,496,852.62, detailed as follows: Reference Period Date of Amount of 30% Ex h. 10% Excess Exhibit Covered Payment of Royalties FWTPaid P- FWTDue FWT Paid (In PHP) (In PHP) 16, (In PHP) (In PHP) P-15, P-15-1 Dec. 2011 FWT 509,563.72 152,869.12 P-42 50,956.37 101,912.75 P-17 P-17-1 10-Jan-12 P-18, P-18-1 509,563.72 152,869.12 P- 50,956.37 101,912.75 ' P-19 P-19-1 Subtotal 24, P-20 P-20-1 8,834,111.65 2,650,233.50 P-43 883,411.17 1,766,822.33 P-21 P-21-1 March 2012 10-Apr-12 2,727,684.95 818,305.49 272,768.50 545,536.99 P-22, P-22-1 April 2012 10-May-12 3,536,790.43 P- 353,679.04 707,358.09 1 P-23 P-23-1 May 2012 11-Jun-12 1,344,489.52 1,061,037.13 35, 134,448.95 268,897.91 June 2012 10-Jul-12 4,178,746.46 403,346.86 P-44 417,874.65 835,749.29 P-25, P-25-1 Aug. 2012 10-Sep-12 3,934,709.80 P-45 393,470.98 786,941.96 I P-26 P-26-1 Oct. 2012 12-Nov-12 5,871,424.67 1,253,623.94 P-46 587,142.47 P-27 P-27-1 Dec. 2012 15-Jan-13 1,180,412.94 P-47 1,174,284.93 P-28, P-28-1 30,427,957.48 1,761,427.40 P-48 3,042,795.76 P-29 P-29-1 Subtotal P-49 6,085,591.50 P-30 P-30-1 11,752,496.20 9,128,387.26 1,175,249.62 P-31, P-31-1 Feb. 2013 11-Mar-13 1,499,710.87 149,971.09 2,350,499.24 P-32 P-32-1 March 2013 11-Apr-13 1,187,683.37 3,525,748.86 118,768.34 299,942.17 P-33 P-33-1 April 2013 9-May-13 1,499,745.20 449,913.26 149,974.52 237,536.67 P-34 P-34-1 May 2013 10-Jun-13 356,305.01 707,135.90 299,949.04 June 2013 11-Jul-13 7,071,359.0061 449,923.56 389,699.58 P-36 P-36-1 July 2013 12-Aug-13 3,896,995.83 773,744.50 1,414,271.80 P-37 P-37-1 Aug. 2013 11-5ep-13 7,737,445.03 2,121,407.7062 329,166.41 779,399.17 P-38 P-38-1 Sept. 2013 14-0ct-13 3,291,664.07 1,169,098.75 176,758.31 P-39 P-39-1 Nov. 2013 10-Dec-13 1,767,583.07 2,321,233.51 376,590.80 1,547,489.01 P-40 P-40-1 Dec. 2013 20-Jan-14 3,765,908.00 987,499.22 658,332.81 530,274.92 4,347,059.07 353,516.61 Subtotal 43,470,590.64 1,129,772.40 753,181.60 354,531.92 Feb. 2014 15-Mar-14 3,545,319.20 13,041,177.19 299,860.29 8,694,118.12 April 2014 15-May-14 2,998,602.87 1,097,437.89 May 2014 16-Jun-14 10,974,378.90 1,063,595. 76 334,196.85 709,063.84 June 2014 15-Jul-14 3,341,968.50 899,580.80 221,588.21 599,720.51 July 2014 14-Aug-14 2,215,882.10 2,307,615.16 2,194,875.78 Subtotal 23,076,151.57 3,292,313.67 668,393.70 97 484,263.41 1,002,590.55 443,176.42 Total 4,615,230.25 664,764.63 6,922,845.41 29,245,278.98 9 748,426.36 19,496,852.62 In sum, the Court finds that petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund of erroneously paid FWT on royalties only for 61 Amount per claim (Amount per return of P63,942,072.90 includes payments other than those made to petitioner). 62 Amount per claim. ,L.

CTA CASE NO. 8969 Page 24 of 24 Trump Marks Phil. LLC vs. CIR DECISION the months covering December 2012 to July 2014 in the amount of P14,483,633.30, computed as follows: Total Substantiated FWT Claim p 19,496,852.62 Less: Prescribed Portion 5,013 219.32 Total Refundable Amount P14,483,633.30 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND to petitioner the amount of P14,483,633.30 representing excess FWT remittances on royalty payments made by Century City to petitioner for the months of December 2012 to July 2014. SO ORDERED. ~N.lA~~-C~ WE CONCUR: CIELITO N. M'rNDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice Presiding Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice 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's Division. Presiding Justice Chairperson, 1st Division